EarthClimate.tv is a climate video platform, with the goal to offer all the climate videos in a single place. Sign-up is free, there are also tiers for disabling advertisements, to support the project. All users can submit videos and or posts, comment or create playlists. This is probably the first video platform dedicated to climate videos.
A simple and convenient way to grow audience. For existing YT channels EarthClimate offers the chance to reach more people, simply by creating an account and adding their existing YT content.
UAH has reported for May with a global TLT anomaly of +0.37ºC, a big jump up on April’s +0.18ºC and the chilly January of -0.04ºC. May 2023’s is the highest anomaly since 2020. It is the 4th warmest May in the UAH TLT record, behind 1998 (+0.52ºC), 2020 and 2016 (both +0.42ºC) and above 2017, 2010, 2019, 2020 & 2015 (+0.15ºC).
The start-of-year in UAH has leap up from a lowly 12th for Jan-Apr to sit 7th Jan-May.
A. First of all, a correction of an unpleasant mistake:
The sentence “controlled by the greenhouse effect of the upper atmosphere layers beneath the troposphere.” shall read “controlled by the greenhouse effect of the upper atmosphere layers ABOVE the troposphere.”
I apologize for my confusing error.
B. Regarding the dispute whether or not it may be possible to increase water cycle intensity without increasing absolute humidity (which would have enhanced the infrared radiation absorption and thus worsened the greenhouse effect that we originally intended to mitigate)
Piotr says: ..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 –
I am not sure it is true in case that we manage to intensify the water cycle dynamically, so that we just intensify the water vapor FLOW from the surface upwards. Then I can imagine that both the overall evaportion rate as well as the overll condensation rate increase commensurately, and the average temperature may stay constant even thoufgh the energy input (irrespective whether from increased infrared absorption, decreased cloud cover, decreased aerosol content, or increased surface albedo) rises.
zebra asks ..“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”..
I imagine latent heat flux in Earth atmosphere working the same way as latent heat flux in so called peat pipes designed for intensive cooling of mechanical or electrical elements evolving high heat output in a small volume, like computer processors. As long as you are able to cool the othe end of teh pipe efficiently enough, you can increase the heat input on the “hot” end significamntly without substantially changing the temperature.
I do not know yet whether or not there is a substantial difference preventing water in the Earth atmosphere from working the same way – I am just trying to find out.
A fundamental problem could be, of course, lack of the necessary cooling on the “cool” side. Should Ray Ladbury
be right with his objection that Earth atmosphere ABOVE Earth tropopause is still completely opaque for infrared radiation, the “heat pipe” mechanism could certainly not work. Let us therefore wait for Ray’s reply to my doubts regarding plausibility of his assertion.
C. Regarding practical issues in the “active evaporation management”
Piotr says ..”find inexpensive source of freshwater large enough INCREASE annual evaporation by 1250 mm from 10 mln km2″
I think (and wrote it in my post) that the sole way how the deserts like Sahara could be supplied with 13 000 km3 water that would have been necessary for securing the intended exemplary global EEI mitigation about
2 W.m-2 would have been pumping the sea water thereto. I am aware that it sounds as an academic exercise, but I repeat that if Nature can publish seriously meant articler about DAC, this alternative should be perhaps considered equally seriously.
D. Water cycle management and decarbonization
The above described exercise with looking on possible effects of artificial intensification of the water cycle by securing the supply of water available for evaporation was not meant as a proposal that we have to forget decarbonization. Nevertheless, should the people who planted into my head the concern that the water cycle deteriorated by human activities during holocene (partly already well before the start of the industrial era) may be in fact a comparably important component of the Earth climate as the greenhouse effect be right, it could happen that decarbonization without fixing the water cycle may fail.
That is why I am asking questions about global precipitation, its partition between land and sea, and possible role of terrestrial plant cover in this partition.
I do not think that asking questions about the role of water cycle in Earth climate is an activity supporting dictator regimes and/or undermining decarbonization efforts. Oppositely, I hope that the final outcome of such debates will show that this role deserves equally serious research as the greenhouse effect.
Should the water cycle indeed play that important role as some people think, present technology offers the humanity an additional option how to intervene actively withthe AGW. As this option may be COMPLEMENTARY to decarbonization and perhaps could even act synergistically therewith, I think it may deserve a really serious attention and a really thorough scrutiny, rather than an arbitrary rejection as a complete nonsense.
Greetings
Tom
P.S:
Track of the previous discussion (which is now splitted into several threads here on the RealClimate website and thus relatively difficult to follow) as well as a schematical explanation of technical ideas behind my original posts are accessible through the link
I have maybe a primary point there to your discussion of the water cycle.
Look at the difference between dry lapserate and moist lapserate, that is . roughly 10 deg / km and 6 deg/ km.
If we assume the tropopause temperature to be constant, wherefore it is also termed the iso- term layer,…. then a moist lapserate will obviously cool the ground. But it cannot be that way namely grey
and rainy weather until it has evaporated enough.
In the tempered zone that I am able to judge, grey weather in summer means cooler temperatures, and grey in the winter means warmer temperatures.
We must not forget day and night either; do not hide the decline, namely all the sunsets and the winters.
. Cloudy weather warms the nights and cools the days where there is sunshine enough.
Alltogether, I believe that this is Richard Lindzens Iris- argument in one of its versions, against the CO2-AGW- theory. By which he was not very successful.
If we see it in the light of Le Chateliers principle, that termostating- negative feedback and cooling effect of water will not be able to bring the ground and sea temperatures back to the land and sea temperatures that caused the higher evaporation.
It will only damp the effect and probably up to a certain catastrophic dis- co0ntinous level where something else will begin to happen. And this is the fameous tipping- points of such stable, le Chatelier eqvilibria with negative feedbacks. There will be limits to the material causes of such smooth continuous linear negative feedbacks where the very complex eqvilibrium will cease to be stable.
This rules for very many, quite common physical and technical and biological systems.
James Hansen has used this as an alarming argument. Venus, he told, has gone through such a major tippingpoint and climate cathastrophy and lost all its damping and thermostaing water.
Thus do not be landcrabs anymore. Most evapotranspiration takes place at sea of course. Dusty deserts are just an exeptional, inland, continental, geographically provincial phaenomenon.
Because, this is not the planet earth, it is the planet sea of course, , first discovered by Thor Heyerdahl and then by NASA , and labeled “the blue marble” in recent time.
Can`t you all see that?
There you have the evapotranspiration and what causes it.
Tomáš Kaliszsays
Dear carbomontanus,
It is well possible that you are right when you say:
“If we see it in the light of Le Chateliers principle, that termostating- negative feedback and cooling effect of water will not be able to bring the ground and sea temperatures back to the land and sea temperatures that caused the higher evaporation. ”
It is also well possible that JCM may be correct when he suggests that the surface cooling effect of higher evaporation may be – possibly under specific circumstances only – augmented by higher cloud formation and cooling effect of increased albedo corresponding to stronger cloud cover.
I do not know. I would appreciate if climate modellers told us that they studied these relationships and clarified them. It is my feeling that so far, they rather keep parametrizing their models so that they more less fit with the current water cycle intensity that might be (there are hardly any data about water cycle intensity in the past) extensively weakened during millenia of land deforestation, drainage and soil errosion caused by human activities. Setting water supply from the land as a parameter that could be actively controlled by human activity is still not considered as worth of the effort, I am afraid.
I repeat:
I would like to learn whether somebody can say with certainty what is the global precipitation partition between the land and sea, how it developed during holocene and particularly during the indstrial era, what is its current trend (drying or wetting the land?), and in which extent we could influence it by the active evaporation management by providing sufficient water supply for an additional evaporation, especially in hot dry areas. I think it may be important.
78% of precipitation occurs over the oceans, compared to 22% over land. Since oceans cover 70.8% of the planet and land 29.2%, ocean precipitation is 46% more intense than over land.
The Clausius-Clapeyron Equation
For every extra degree Celsius of warming, air can hold 7% more water.
This relationship only works fully over the oceans, where there’s an unlimited supply of water. Over land, if there isn’t 7% extra moisture available in the soil, the air above won’t take up and hold that amount of water.
For many of the really heavy rain phenomena, there needs to be an air mass coming from over the ocean – long and narrow columns of water vapor called atmospheric rivers.
Rainfall from thunderstorms and tropical cyclones can often exceed the Clausius–Clapeyron relationship
When a storm becomes stronger, it means that its circulation is also becoming stronger, which means it can evaporate more water vapor into the center of the storm and release more latent heat, which means it can produce more rainfall.
A paper published in 2022 – study on how rainfall from the strongest North Atlantic hurricanes in 2020 was made more intense by global warming – found that extreme rates of rainfall, measured in 3-hour increments, increased by 11%.
The convective effect. Storms, with more rainfall than anticipated, are known as super-Clausius–Clapeyron events.
The apparent simplicity of the Clausius–Clapeyron equation could lead to some misleading predictions that underestimate the likely increases in rainfall as the temperature increases further. https://climatestate.com/2023/06/04/how-a-changing-climate-can-enhance-rainstorms-according-to-a-190-year-old-equation/
The global rise in temperature is more like 1.2 degrees, so there’s probably something like 8% more moisture in atmospheric rivers now than there would have been without climate change
Tomáš Kaliszsays
Dear Barton Paul,
Thanks a lot for this reference value!
Do you perhaps know also a source that brings a historical reconstruction how the global precipitation and its partition between land and ocean developed during the industrial era, or at least during the last few decades?
” The apparent simplicity of the Clausius–Clapeyron equation could lead to some misleading predictions…”
ms: — The CC equation is only valid in closed energy systems. However, the atmosphere is an open system into which a great deal of energy and matter flows in and out. Therefore, on an earth that is 1°C warmer, one cannot conclude that there is exactly 7% more water vapor in the atmosphere. It could also be that too little water vapor in the atmosphere caused the temperature increase of 1°C (clear sky effect). One can generally only infer faster evaporation as long as there is water at the surface – without water, the soil and air temperature rise sharply and the RH falls dramatically.
For many decades we have been observing a global decline in relative humidity of currently ~ 0.22% per decade – including over the oceans:
A difference of 1% RH corresponds to ~ 6000km³ of missing evaporation(cooling the surface) and condensation(heating the troposphere).
Long-term relative decline in evapotranspiration with increasing runoff on fractional land surfaces:
ms: — As always, I think that you are a particularly clever sheep who dreams and imagines that you are standing in a green meadow – just because you are wearing a yellow blindfold with 3 black dots.
In reality, however, you are standing in the spreading desert, where, as always, there is far too little water vapor in the atmosphere and far too few clouds passing by and heating up the sheep powerfully.
I’m a public fool because I want to lead stubborn sheep out of the desert to a green pasture, without a sheepdog. But I don’t mind if I have to bite your stubborn calves myself every now and then.
ms: — As always, I think that you are a particularly clever sheep who dreams and imagines that you are standing in a green meadow – just because you are wearing a yellow blindfold with 3 black dots.
In reality, however, you are standing in the spreading desert, where, as always, there is far too little water vapor in the atmosphere and far too few clouds passing by and heating up the sheep powerfully.
I’m a public fool because I want to lead stubborn sheep out of the desert to a green pasture, without a sheepdog. But I don’t mind if I have to bite your stubborn calves myself every now and then.
BPL: No, ms, you’re a public fool because you post things like less water vapor in the atmosphere causing a temperature increase. You shove your ignorance in everybody’s faces and then insult and bluster rather than admit you made a gross, incompetent mistake. That’s what makes you a public fool.
“MS:- The CC equation is only valid in closed energy systems. However the atmosphere is an open system…”
Here we have it again, Matthias Schürle teaching his alternative physical science to everyone for some peculiar political background reason..
The CC principle rules for any physical chemical transition from A to B or from B to A where change of entrophy is involved such as evaporation and condensation heat or reaction heat quite in general, in joules pr mol.
Due to permanence of energy then and further Le Chateliers principle, , change of temperature up or down will cause change of the reaction eqvilibrium. .
Such as: warm up the situation and the dew will evaporate. cool it down and dew will come back. ,
That rules universally in open air even on Pluto,
Not just in silly specialists test- tubes and chemical flasks in their closed lab situations and societies.
It rules even on Matthias Schüles dewing lenses and car- windows.
. And why does the solubility and re- cristallization of sugar, salt, salpeter, and soda, react and change differently on heating and cooling dissolving water? Because those materials have different cristallization heats or entropies.
The Schürlers, who studied only Dia- lectic materialism for carriere- purposes, were not told of the physics and the techniques of German Salines, traditional salt refineries for centuries by the Hansa, by heating and cooling the solution and fractional cristallization of the natural rock salt mixtures , And how to produce also KNO3 and NaCL in water from NaNO3 and KCl. By dissolving heating and cooling and evaporating and re- cristallizing.
Compulsary Material sciences from westerly civilizede Mittlere Reife , einfach. That was given a damn to and eradicated in their postrevolutionary situation.
Not even why the pressure in beer and champagne bottles sink when they are cooled, and , why open systems like lakes rivers and creeks rather must be cool enough for native wild German fishes not to simply drown in the summer warmth Why wild forelolers rather preferre the cool mountain lakes.
Politically trained teachers and KADRE students can simply give a damn to what universal laws of Nature and as told from Science,… is practically about and how it is to be understood and applied. And what are the further natural and practical examples?
Sagt der liebe Lehrer Lämpel “Dies ist wieder ein Exempel!”.
“No, damned, that rules only in closed systems whereas in the open atmosphere……… smile smile….”
. That misery follows them ever after in their lives and tell us how and where they were brought up, in what closed and privileged class and in which closed peoples republic..
It betrays typical Cernobyl style where the Party Secretarys Hon. . Deputee got planted in the seat by the occupational forces as their Chief Engineer above them in the scientific grades to teach them more progressive materialism on behalf of the people, Im Nahmen des Volkes.
” I would appreciate if climate modellers told us that they studied theese relationships and clarified them,…”
Much is said among the denialists and surrealists of how the “climate modellers ” work and about their interests and leading motives,…. and that it ought to be different for scientific and moral reasons in order better so serve the interests of the “sceptics” the climate deniers and the surrealists, ( = the flat earthers desert walkers blind believers, and party- members..)
Personally, I cannot follow that kind of arguments for many reasons.
I have been doing a lot of scientific research myself, and I do not recognize in myself those insinuations about the climate researchers motivs. They hardly go after money and salaries, it is not in their main focus of interest. Their main focus is to proove their own ingeniousity, according to the fameous Thomas Kuhn also.
Another rather strong and conscious motive of mine is also to be able to see and hear and to check up for myself what is really on, what is it and how is it really? so that I can orientate and say yes and no for myself without having to rely on the websites and the experts, that can cheat me and stupidify me.
That motive is not quite uncommon either.
And next, they have some learnings methods and traditions in common, and judge quite a lot what is do- able in order to get thinjgs done at all,…. and what is “fruitful” and meaninngful and efficient. Speculating in the fogs and the foggy dews is very traditional and very human,… but experience shows that it is often less fruitful.
Nephelai in greek, is a commedy by Aristophanes.
Today we were at sea and I saw some very fine sccirrus very high up and we speculated a bit on how that can possibly form, how can we read and explain those typical scirrus forms?
. Then, if you deliver an essay on that, other researchers should be able to repeat it so that they also can proove their ingenousity. But not to the Party with P, that is rather to be badgered from the side of research, to better proove by our ingeniousity..
The lapserate and the isoterm layer is a fruitful conscept by whilch you can speculate more efficiently to proove your ingeniousity.
Or your stupidity like Hans Jelbring & al has done it and got fameous for it, ,and had many worshipful followers. in swedish “Atmosfäriska effekten!”
Especially if you hide the decline systematically all the time, such as hide all the sunsets and the autumns, then your thoughts will be stupidifying also to 0thers.
as well as in your reply to me, you object us for “hiding the decline” and “hiding the sunsets and autumns”:
“Why allways hide the decline and how often must I repeat that? Why hide the sunsets and the autumjns?”
It appears that doing so, you refer to an older post (or to a multiplicity of older postst) made by you. I am, however, not present on the Real Climate website for long.
Could you specify for me in more detail what I do not address properly, so that I could rethink and reply?
It is a joke from my side, which alludes to the very fameous denialist slogan “Hide the decine” that followed the E-mail hacking scandal at CRU East Anglian University as an insinuation against Michael Mann.
I thought everyone could remember that. .
Especially, I find the discussion of water and of clouds here ignoring or unaware of both cooling and heating functions of water and clouds depending on day or night, summer or winter, High or low, Poles or Eqvator.
Where o0bvious and fameous “declines” are all the sunsets and all the autumns. Functions of water and clouds may simply be opposite depending on day or night, summer or winter High or low, and Poles or Eqvator.
Arguing for only half of it is ignoring or hiding the whole truth of it.
It seems to follow because more universal and fundamental scientifric model conscepts are not absolved and practically trained.
I have the impression from my point 0f wiew that climate science on its official and best is rather backing up the understandeing that I could make of it on the basis of complex physical chemistery, musical instrument engineering, (on complex pnevmatic oscillators for artistic purposes = Organology) elementary and basic meteorology, and physical geography.
And that denialism & surrealism is rather badgering and fighting such civilized diciplines.
They are fighting what we have to fall back on, of civilized learnings and methods in order to tackle the future and our earthly environment. And that is a quite ugly situation, a worst and most accute pollution problem.
They are lacking knowledge and respect of Nature and of our most vital traditions of learning.
I must add here that I may have been told Le Chateliersprinciple wrong.
I checked up Wikipedia, , and hardly learnt it especially as “Le chateliers law” on phase equilibria before, That seems to be the original version.
But it is given quite in general in my pensa many times as::
“If, in a system of complex , stable eqvilibrium determined by many parameters, one of the parameters is mooved to bring it out of eqvilibrium, the other determining variable will react and moove in a direction such as to re- store the stable eqvilibrium!”
This fameous principle seems quite universal and appliciable to any stable and dynamic systems, at stable equilibrium, wherefore it is so practical and useful, and wherefrore I have found it mentioned and used in the litterature arguments and in the laboratory on so many different places.
For instance on complex wave mechanical -morphological systems in musical wind instruments (organology) where stability soundcolour and intonnation- pitch must be kept and tuned together for fine artistic musical purposes. One finds le Chateliers principle all the way in the complex and consonant, integrated orchestra
I could write on behalf of science that : “Roses of timeless wisdom does not ask the faculty of fine arts where to grow!” which was appreciated.
Then further in complex machinery with viscous, mechanical, and thermodynamic systems and eqvilibria, and in the chemical glasses. .
In meteorology and climatology of course, you will find yourself better equipped having Le Chateliers principle in mind, that will protect your thoughts and your soul, and helps you from thinking and performing mono- causal surrealistic like a blind flat earther and believer and desert walker all the time, who is chasing Fata Morgana in the horizons. . Maybe even against drunken sailors who are advocating bushfires in our days for better pissing and to save the earth..
One could surely derive Newtons and Kepplers laws from it also.
Le Chateliers principle seems to have been known worldwide by wise men and women, at any time everywhere.
..Thus it is timeless wisdom that you should secure for your engineering and philosophical toolbox. It disqualifies the alternative and false beliefs and speculations.. .
Also in politics, provided that complex stable and dynamic eqvilibria should be acheived or can be found even there.
zebrasays
Tomas, you didn’t answer the question.
zebra asks ..“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.”
I imagine latent heat flux in Earth atmosphere working the same way as latent heat flux in so called peat pipes designed for intensive cooling of mechanical or electrical elements evolving high heat output in a small volume, like computer processors. As long as you are able to cool the othe end of teh pipe efficiently enough, you can increase the heat input on the “hot” end significamntly without substantially changing the temperature.
I do not know yet whether or not there is a substantial difference preventing water in the Earth atmosphere from working the same way – I am just trying to find out.
I asked you to explain what would be different from what is happening now.
Water is evaporating now.
Water vapor is increasing.
How then would increasing evaporation cause water vapor to decrease??? That should sound ridiculous even to you.
And please, give a real answer, not “gosh, I don’t know, but maybe it’s possible”.
Tomáš Kaliszsays
Dear zebra,
Many thanks for this question.
The main difference against current situation would have consisted in conversion of current arid areas (with a negligible latent heat flux) into areas significantly contributing to surface cooling.
Another important difference, against the past, is that the mankind currently HAS technical means to arrange the necessary water supply for this artificially enhanced evaporative surface cooling, at affordable costs – at least in comparison with other means proposed against the AGW, like DAC.
Greetings
Tom
zebrasays
Tomas,
You are still not answering my question:
How does increasing evaporation reduce water vapor in the atmosphere?
You just keep repeating things unrelated to the question. As I pointed out earlier, endlessly avoiding the question is the sign of someone not interested in actual understanding, but just spreading propaganda.
Tomáš Kaliszsays
Dear zebra,
I am sorry that you are not satisfied with my effort to answer your question “what would be different from what is happening now” written in bold letters, I really tried to do my best.
I must, however, admit that I have not addressed your further question.
OK, How does increasing evaporation reduce water vapor in the atmosphere?
To be frank, I have not focused on this question so much yet, for the following reasons:
First of all, I assumed that if we will once have the surface temperature controlled by latent heat flux instead of the radiation flux, we will not need to care about radiation so much.
Second, as I recently wrote in my answer to questions asked by Piotr
I am still not sure that increased water cycle intensity must be accompanied by increased average absolute humidity and thus by enhanced greenhouse effect caused by water vapour.
Third, even if my idea (that latent heat flow intensity can be perhaps increased just by increasing the intensity of the vapour flow from the surface, without increasing the mean humidity) proves as unrealistic, I do not think that the strengthening of the greenhouse effect in lower layers of the atmosphere under cloud base, as supposed by you, must necessarily disqualify the artificially enhanced evaporation as a potentially useful tool for Earth surface temperature regulation.
One of the reasons can be the circumstance that if a significant part of the energy flux from the surface will be in form of the latent heat flux, the enhanced water vapour concentration below cloud base could in fact act as a shield protecting the surface AGAINST the back radiation evolved in the upper atmosphere layers by condensation of the supplied water vapour.
I am afraid that you will be dissatisfied by finding out that I do not have a perfect theory supported by a waterproof modelling experiment, but you can admit that if we once start considering the artificially enhanced water cycle as a technically viable option, there might arise new, not yet studied scenarios deserving a serious analysis.
Greetings
Tom
nigeljsays
Zebra,
Kalisz has not claimed that increasing evaporation reduces water vapour in the atmosphere.
Kalisz is essentially claiming that the cooling effects of increased evaporation might be larger than the warming effects of the evaporation. I doubt that they are, but the only way to settle the issue is some calculations – and nobody has provided a link tor done the calculations.
zebrasays
Tomas,
You want to speculate and engage in, as I said earlier, Argument From Ignorance and Argument From Incredulity. This is not science.
What is science is what we can observe. The experiment you suggest… irrigating a desert… has already been performed. It is called California (and other US Western States.)
Water has been transported from reservoirs and aquifers, and applied to crops in very inefficient ways like spraying and flooding, which promotes evaporation. The crops, like nut trees, engage in transpiration.
In addition, all over the world, irrigation reliant on previously sequestered sources has increased dramatically in the last couple of centuries.
So when I ask “what would be different?”, your answer is a non-answer. You are just suggesting an incremental “more of the same”.
…clearly shows, consistent with the predictions of existing Climate Theory, water vapor is indeed increasing, and we observe that the Greenhouse Effect continues to increase the energy in the climate system.
This is settled science. And your speculations are inconsistent with basic physics and basic reasoning.
If water vapor is increasing with evaporation from existing irrigation, why would your new irrigation have a different effect?
And why would the water vapor from your new irrigation project have a different Greenhouse Effect from that already existing water vapor?
If you can’t answer those questions based on actual physics, not speculation, then you are wasting your time and the bandwidth here.
TK: the enhanced water vapour concentration below cloud base could in fact act as a shield protecting the surface AGAINST the back radiation evolved in the upper atmosphere layers by condensation of the supplied water vapour.
BPL: I don’t think that makes sense. The water vapor would simply absorb the back-radiation, heat up, and radiate its own radiation. More water vapor in the air makes the ground warmer, not cooler.
zebra says: – ” How does increasing evaporation reduce water vapor in the atmosphere? ”
ms: — The more and faster water vapor evaporates into the atmosphere, the faster it is removed again by precipitation. The difference in temperature rise between oceans (+0.88 °C) and land areas (+1.59 °C) can be explained, among other things, by the fact that the evaporation rates over the sea are significantly higher and the sea surfaces can therefore cool much better.
Water has a dissipative character and transports large amounts of energy across the oceans and atmosphere, both vertically towards space and horizontally towards the poles. As a low cumulus cloud over tropical oceans but also in higher and summer latitudes, it achieves the highest cooling potential for the earth’s climate.
nigelj says: – ” Kalisz is essentially claiming that the cooling effects of increased evaporation might be larger than the warming effects of the evaporation. ”
ms: — Our GranMaster Dr. Gavin Schmidt says: The warming potential of water vapor is ~50%, for clouds ~25%, // for CO2 19% and for all other greenhouse gases ~6% of the total GHE (~160W/m²) * 75% = ~120W/m².
In contrast, the cooling effect at the surface of evapotranspiration is ~ -86W/m² and that of clouds ~ -47W/m². The water cycle thus has a net cooling effect of ~ -13W/m².
By this net balance, the earth is a water-cooled planet – whether you like it or not.
If you could then also note that in the years since 2000 @ TOA there has been an albedo loss of ~1.4W/m² mainly due to decreasing clouds, snow & ice albedo and aerosols and that OLR @ TOA at the same time has increased by~0.57W/m². The main driver of climate change since 2000 is higher SW absorbed by surface (~2/3) and GHE only 1/3.
The GHE has tended to weaken since 2000 due to fewer clouds and their long wave effect. The loss of snow, ice and aerosols also has a similar effect: the underlying ocean and land surfaces dissipate their radiant heat much better without the insulating/reflective layers.
ms: The more and faster water vapor evaporates into the atmosphere, the faster it is removed again by precipitation.
BPL: Can you cite a source for that statement, or at least explain the principle behind it? BTW, if true, that removes all support for your climate-control plan.
@BPL says: – ” … or at least explain the principle ”
ms: – I don’t know if sheep understand the difference of water cycle between a rainforest (“more & faster”) and a desert (“less & slower”). Hopefully you know the temperature difference between the maximum values of rainforest and desert at the same latitude.
The best way to find out about the greenhouse effect of irrigation is from the source:
The lifetime of water vapor is so short that the
effect of changes in evaporation on the greenhouse contribution of water vapor are negligible (Sherwood et al., 2018).
” These results indicate that even large increases in anthropogenic water vapor emissions would have negligible warming effects on climate, but that possible negative RF may deserve more attention. “
Piotrsays
P: each time you evaporate water – you increase the water vapour concentration in atm and therefore its greenhouse warming effect
TK: “I am not sure it is true in case that we manage to intensify the water cycle dynamically, so that we just intensify the water vapor FLOW from the surface upwards ”
Where did you think the increase in the water vapour concentration in atm. would take place ? from the Earth’s surface downwards???
Over Sahara, where typical rel. humidity is 25% – you can increase water vap. conc. 4-fold,
(and increase the greenhouse effect of water vapour dramatically), BEFORE you even reach RH 100%, a condition to start forming any clouds.
TK: “ the deserts like Sahara 9 mln km2, could be supplied with 13 000 km3 seawater”
Are you proposing to cancel the GLOBAL (i.e. over 510 mln km2) warming of ~ 1C, by evaporative cooling over merely 9 mln km2 of Sahara? If yes, wouldn’t that require cooling of the Sahara’s surface by …. 1C x (510/9) = 57C? Actually, much more given that the majority of the latent heat would be reradiated back toward Earth.
And how many additional GHG emissions are you planning for pumping … 13 000 km3 of seawater
over many 100s?/1000s of km ?
And as with any non-carbon sequestration geoengineering scheme – it would not slow, but accelerate the ocean acidification, since by taking warming off the table, the political urgency to reduce CO2 would have be gone. And your scheme would need to be maintained forever, with any interruption rapidly increasing global temp. to its high-CO2 equilibrium value, too rapid for species and ecosystems to adapt.
And as zebra said – the onus of proving that your scheme has any merit is on you. Rather difficult, if you keep rejecting/ignoring information that questions the validity of your scheme.
” Where did you think the increase in the water vapour concentration in atm. would take place ? ”
ms: — Millions of farmers would be happy if they had sufficient water and irrigation technology available in spring and summer to prevent crop failures. Many politicians and amateur climatologists like you still don’t realize that deserts and regions with water shortages are spreading rapidly. In my home region of Europe this means – every year we are getting 27km closer to the Sahara and the number of cloudless hours of sunshine is increasing by a trend of 2.7 hours/y.
Thousands of mayors have already converted their cities into sponge cities to retain rain and also use this water for irrigation & evaporation during dry periods and prevent summer UHI.
These are all people you can ask about when and where evaporation & water vapor should be increased.
Or just water wherever the soil temperature rises above 30°C to prevent it from catapulting to a bone-dry 60°C.
Apparently you didn’t understand the difference in the energy balance on the land surface between e.g. 30°C & 60°C.
Just as little as you have understood that the large and small water cycles bind an amount of energy that does not increase in temperature, which corresponds to 25% of the total incoming solar energy. The more intensive the water cycles, the cooler the climate.
“The more intensive the water cycles, the cooler the climate..”
A wet towel in the sunshine is cooler that its dry environment. Spraying people with water when it is too hot, is quite popular. but further deadly if the wet bulb temperature comes above 35 celsius. So it has its limits. .
I spoke with Ali from Mali. “What about 4 deg hotter than now, in Mali?
“Oh no, heat is something that we are aquainted to. The problem is that people are so stingy.. If people are so stingy, the whole world will become a desert!”
I tend to believe that they withdraw to cooler places at midday, and rather work in the early mornings and late evenings. They make a long Siesta during day. Like also washproof moslems. It is Desert and oasis- culture. With Shadowy rock caves and trees. Night chill can be arranged and stored in thick, stony walls. They further adore astronomy. Desert animals do the same.
Only the Schürlers are having problems with theese elementary things.
The water- cycles will definitely become stronger at higher temperatures due to Aristoteles and Claussius Clapperon. but again, where does it rain? in Spain? In the plain?…
But in Hartfrord Herefrord and Hampshire hurricanes hardely happen.
Along with James Lovelock, and Al Gores inconvenient truth, that will not be so true anymore. .
Max holocenen in Sahara shows human petroglyphs of a rather savanna- like situation, and
rock & earth erosion marks shows rare,… but strong! rainshowers.
Central Asia with the Gobi and Taklamakhan deserts show evidence of higher percipitation with human settlements from the same period, that gave up living there, entered the horseback and migrated westwards to the greener Europe about 2000 years ago. As large hordes of organized maraunding nomades. The large system of chineese walls is a defence system in the east against the same as the global climate did cool down. And central Asia with a high population from Max Holocene, dried up. under a more cool climate.
See Aristoteles and Cløausius Clappeyron.
But, along with the promised global warming now, Deng Xiaoping is looking forward to returning to where they really came from.
The Sahara- population did probably migrate to the Nile walley hoping for a new and better life there. as the Mongol Khans invaded China.
So you seem to confuse cause and consequense, chicken and eg like so many dia- lectic materialists and inaugurated national socialists before you. , they are trained to become pioneering contrarians, Junge Pioniere, in all further situations and taverns,
If global warming causes a more intense water cycle that cools the situation by counter- acting that global warming,…..
….then the intensified water cycle, that is caused by global warming, will not cool the mean global temperature down to under what it was before that global warming caused the intensified water cycle..
Schürlers hardly learnt about theese things that are elementary in the discussion of multidimensional and multicausal, stable eqvilibria and balances in the environmental and other systems.
But the argument is a major and fameous one in order to deny the role of CO2 in earth climate. .
Piotrsays
Macias Shurly Millions of farmers would be happy if they had sufficient water and irrigation technology
Would you care to explain how spending $ trillions(?) to pump and spread over the land “13 000 km3” of SEAWATER a year (Mr. Kalisz’s proposal you are valiantly defending) – would make millions of farmers … happy? “Clueless ignorant jerks” on RC would like to know!
@Plotr says: – ” Mr. Kalisz’s proposal you are valiantly defending ”
ms: — My own suggestions (see my website) have something in common with Mr. Kalisz in that we both assume that the surface of the earth and our sweaty feet are water-cooled. Through globally higher evaporation rates and intensified water cycles, we expect global cooling through improved energy transport (thermal conductivity) from the surface to the troposphere and to the poles & a higher cloud albedo. It’s just a matter of dimension of irrigation volume.
My own suggestions have nothing to do with spraying 13,000 km³ of salt water on electrical systems and PV modules.
My only suggestion is rain and water retention (reducing freshwater runoff) to increase evaporation rates from vegetation and photosynthesis.
10% of the volume per year suggested by Mr. Kalisz is quite enough to halt the trend for warming over land.
Piotrsays
Piotr: “Would you care to explain how spending $ trillions(?) to pump and spread over the land “13 000 km3” of SEAWATER a year – Mr. Kalisz’s proposal you are valiantly defending against “ clueless ignorant jerks” – would make millions of farmers … happy? “Clueless ignorant jerks” would like to know!”
Macias Shurly: “My own suggestions have nothing to do with spraying 13,000 km³ of salt water”
You often join discussions to offer … suggestions that “, have nothing to do with [the topic of said discussion] ?
1) Where did you think the increase in the water vapour concentration in atm. would take place ? from the Earth’s surface downwards???
I still do not see a reason why the intensified evaporation could not result in an intensified condensation, thus keeping the water vapour content in the atmosphere basically constant.
It appears that you assume that vapour condensation to form clouds requires vapour saturation to 100 % relative humidity already at the surface, but I doubt that this assumption is necessary.
I think that with 100 % saturation at the surface, we basically do not need any cooling of the rising wet air – a fog can form already at the surface. Less saturated air needs a stronger cooling, very dry air over Sahara perhaps does not manage at all to cooll enough to allow that the comprised water vapour condenses to clouds. Should this picture be in any aspect distorted, I will appreciate your correction.
2) Are you proposing to cancel the GLOBAL (i.e. over 510 mln km2) warming of ~ 1C, by evaporative cooling over merely 9 mln km2 of Sahara?
Yes, I am – of course, as a thinking experiment, with the aim to test if something like that could be indeed, at least theoretically, possible.
I simply assumed that a certain part of the overall energy input on the surface can be converted into latent heat, irrespective whether it is shortwave sunlight or the downwelling infrared radiation from the sky. And another assumption was that under unlimited water supply, this part (and the temperature co-defining the steady state that will establish) depend basically on the maximum achievable rate by which the forming water vapour is transported away from the surface.
3) If yes, wouldn’t that require cooling of the Sahara’s surface by …. 1C x (510/9) = 57C?
Very good point, I think. I proposed to check if an articifial evaporative cooling on 10 mil km2 of present hot deserts could “neutralize” 2 W/m2 of additional energy flow to the entire Earth surface – which seems to roughly correspond to the sum of various “forcings” driving the warming observed in the last two decades.
You are right that if we focus this energy flow on the area 10 mil square kilometers, it rises to 102 W/m2.
Let us assume that the average annual temperature in Aswan, Egypt (26.6 °C according to https://en.climate-data.org/africa/egypt/aswan-governorate/aswan-6344/) corresponds to average emission temperature 300 K. Then the average upwelling radiation flow corresponding to this temperature calculated according to Stefan-Boltzmann law is 459.3 W/m2. Subtracting 102 W/m2 that we artificially converted into latent heat flow, we get the annual average radiation flow 357.3 W/m2, which corresponds to the new annual average radiation temperature 281.7 K (8.6 °C).
18 K cooling is less than your estimate but still looks very impressive, and we can and should of course ask where this cooling effort would have stopped if applied in practice. My guess is that this artificial “temperature inversion” could act as a “continental oasis effect” and might have caused significant changes in global air flows and, possibly, even in sea streams.
4) And how many additional GHG emissions are you planning for pumping … 13 000 km3 of seawater
over many 100s?/1000s of km ?
seriously proposed, as a high emergency, starting direct air capture of CO2, using energy produced by additional fossil fuel burning.
I would rather desist from such emergency measures. My original idea was testing the plausibility of currently available climate models by a practical experiment in urban heat islands mimicking the deserts.
There are predictions https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/2020GL090789
that massive solar energy exploitation in deserts should bring more precipitation thereto, by strengthening the sea breeze due to more intense sensible heat produced from the dark solar cells decreasing the average albedo of the desert.
I therefore proposed that some urban centers deploy massively “classical” solar panels, whereas other cities will install solar panels designed for dissipation of their waste heat in form of latent heat due to evaporative cooling. Comparison of the observed outcomes with model predictions could perhaps bring a useful insight into reliability of the models, and provide a hint towards the outcome of corresponding geoengineering experiments on a larger scale.
Turning back to your question, should the proposed urban experiment give a clear hint that artificial evaporative cooling may be indeed beneficial, pumping salt water necessary for the evaportive cooling of large arid areas should be powered by solar energy produced by the evaporatively cooled solar cells, and / or by wind energy produced by resulting air streams.
5) To your concern about potential harm caused by my questions.
Each human activity includes certain risks, any unexplored activity an unknown risk.
I think that if the water cycle may be indeed a such powerful climate regulating factor as the above brought example suggests, we should not take the risk potentially included in neglecting it.
TK: I think that with 100 % saturation at the surface, we basically do not need any cooling of the rising wet air
Here is the global map of Earth’s humidity kindly point to the locations with 100 % saturation at the surface.
Especially on 9 mln km^2 of Sahara – the location of your modest proposal.
Ah right – you did – you are argue that we … cool down the … 9 mln km^2 of Sahara by so many degrees that it produces 100% saturation at the surface! Great – first you suggest pumping 1300 km3 of seawater over many 100s or over 1000s km (to spread it over 9mln km2 of Sahara, now you also want to cool the said 9mln km2 of SAHARA by many degrees. One cannot accuse you of thinking small,
But wait a minute – wouldn’t your cooling of Sahara scheme cause condensation at its surface – thus having the OPPOSITE effect to that of … your plan – which was ALL above taking the latent heat away from the Earth’s surface and releasing it (via condensation) many km above the Earth surface???
Piotr: 4) And how many additional GHG emissions are you planning for pumping … 13 000 km3 of seawater over many 100s?/1000s of km ?
T. Kalisz: Actually, an article issued in a renowned journal https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-020-20437-0
seriously proposed, as a high emergency, starting direct air capture of CO2, using energy produced by additional fossil fuel burning.
That’s like an arms dealer trying to sell a farmer a self-propelled howitzer, because the farmer expressed a frustration at a pesky coyote killing his hens.
P.S. And still you have to multiply ALL your numbers … many-fold – to account for the fact that most of the heat in the troposphere is not radiated toward space, but back to Earth.
Sorry for the delay with my answer, it takes some time to transfer the contributions made by various participants in various threads to my tracking orgpage
You ask:
“But wait a minute – wouldn’t your cooling of Sahara scheme cause condensation at its surface – thus having the OPPOSITE effect to that of … your plan – which was ALL above taking the latent heat away from the Earth’s surface and releasing it (via condensation) many km above the Earth surface???”
Although it may appear that decreasing the average annual temperature in Aswan as low as to ca 8 °C must necessary cause that the evaporated water condenses just on the surface (or, in other words, it does not evaporate anymore, because the air becomes saturated), please try to look on the provided example from another perspective.
Imagine a standard sunny summer day in Aswan, when the surface temperature rapidly grows after the sunrise and, depending on the properties of the surface, reaches the values as high as 50-60 °C; maybe even higher. Nevertheless, with a sufficiently intensive surface cooling by water vapour transpiration, you can keep the surface temperature during the entire daytime significantly lower, depending on how intensively the created water vapour rises. Air saturation with water vapour may not occur at all.
You can stop pumping water after the sunset, because the energy input drops, and the intensity of evaporation will decrease automatically as well.
I suppose that this way, you can keep basically constant surface temperature, with a small difference between the day and night – because at night, the combination of the greenhouse effect of the water vapour with back-radiation from the continuing condensation of the vapour transported in the height previously may keep the surface warm all the night.
I cannot say how intensive cooling may be practically achievable this way. The value I computed is of course a theoretical limit. Nevertheless, even if the real cooling was only a third of the calculated 18 K as you assume, decreasing the anual average temperature from 26 to 20 °C over 10 milion km2 land would have been still very significant and likely still had very significant influence on the global climate.
That is why I think JCM and macias shurly are right when they point to the importance of the water cycle in the global climate and to the continuing demand for studying its role as thoroughly as the role of the greenhouse effect caused by carbon dioxide and other non-condensing greenhouse gases.
Contrary to JCM and MS, Carbomontanus acknowledges the importance of the water cycle but supposes that its intensity depends on oceans only and basically cannot be changed by human activity,
I am afraid that he can be wrong in this regard, because ocean-land exchange may strongly depend on the water regime on continents. Human activities and their influence on the “small” water cycle on the land thus may in fact play an important role in regulation of the entire “big” water cycle. I think we should know these relationships, to be able to predict the future climate and influences of various forcings thereon reliably.
Tomas Kalisz: I cannot say how intensive cooling may be practically achievable this way
That’s the least of your problems – you can’t even prove that for all these gazillions of dollars you want to spend on pumping “ 13 000 km3 of seawater over,/i> ” many 100s?/1000s of km and spreading it over 9mln km2 – you would achieve ANY significant global cooling. As explained to you:
1. when you put extra evaporation into the air before ANY cooling by latent heat transport – you would first cause warming by increasing water vapour over the entire volume of air where humidity before your experiment was below 100% (over Sahara humidity is 25% so there is a lot of room to add water vapour).
2. even if you could transfer some latent heat a few 100m/a few km above Earth surface – does not mean that you cooled the Earth surface by this amount – MOST of the extra heat returns to the Earth surface by IR downward radiation.
You chose to … not believing it, instead you put your faith into two RC’s resident Very Stable Geniuses:
T. Kalisz: That is why I think JCM and macias shurly are right
Equally well you could take the advice on heart surgery techniques from a plumber, bitter that the heart surgeons do not take his calls.
Tomáš Kalisz says: – ” …rather than an arbitrary rejection as a complete nonsense.,…”
hello tom – the best and most valid argument against the clueless ignorance of your discussion opponents like Zebra, Piotr, Ray Ladbury & Crap-O-mountain is still the graph of the IPCC from 2021:
The IPCC supports our claim that irrigation, and hence evaporation, is a cooling forcing on the climate.
Now all the above jerks need to explain to you why the IPCC graph is still inconsistent – by answering the following simple questions:
– What should be the difference in the cooling effect between artificial irrigation and natural precipitation?
– If irrigation has a cooling effect – can we then conclude that drainage, soil sealing, etc. have a warming effect?
Why does the IPCC deny the climate-warming loss of evaporative landscapes – and are thus as implausible as others who deny warming caused by greenhouse gases?
—
There are still a few unanswered questions about my analysis of the global energy balance, which unfortunately I was only able to answer very late:
Whether you can trust the 2000-2020 CERES data it contains depends on how much trust you have in NASA, Norman Loeb and satellite-based measurements.
From my point of view, what is particularly convincing is the consistency of the balance sheet and the observed extent of deserts, water shortages and drought events in the observed, real past since 2000.
We had already discussed the topic of CERES-data here in Sept. 2022:
The trigger and main cause for the 20-year warming by ~ 0.4-0.5°C is the loss of 0.86W/m² = 5650km³ = (~1%) in evaporation as a 20-year trend, which of course not only increases LW up surface by 0.69W/m², but is also responsible for a lower cloud albedo ~ (- 0.6W/m²).
As a temperature-increasing cause on the surface, it also has an amplifying effect on ice and snow albedo, permafrost and the CO2 cycle. (Photosynthesis absorbs ~3.7 – 7.4Kg CO2/m³ water.)
—
BTW – I think your idea of saltwater-cooled PV modules is a bit crazy – every electrician gets nightmares standing knee-deep in damp salt while servicing the modules.
In deserts, dry air usually flows in from above (Ferrel zone), which makes convective air currents and cloud formation more difficult.
“It takes one to know one smile smile…” Putin spoke.
The coolest / coldest landscapes on earth are the least watered and evapotranspirated ones, . Hum Hum…
The really manifesto climate deniers and surrealists hide the decline all the time, as one can see more and more on this website also.
. It is due to their characterisic, progressive state religion, that they trained together with Putin in old Dresden as they grew up.
JCMsays
“The coolest / coldest landscapes on earth are the least watered and evapotranspirated ones”
This is a common gotcha proudly proclaimed because it is counter-intuitive. But it is misconceived.
Globally averaged, deserts are indeed hotter places.
Where annual net radiation is positive, say from say +45 to -45 latitude, or 70% of the Earth’s surface, dry landscapes are associated with less average chill, not more.
Something like that anyway. The cold desert regions are a smaller fraction.
Of additional consequence is to compare the “natural” sandy deserts to those unnaturally desertified regions of clays, silts, and loams which, without human perturbation, would not otherwise have been so dry. The natural sandy landscapes have relatively low heat capacity compared to unnaturally exposed silts and clays. It has all been discussed with you here before.
One may also tend to find desert at high altitude, which may influence perception of temperature relative to other places.
The ongoing desertification is often not literally looking like desert to novice stewards. It could be simply a slightly shorter duration of green growth. A few days here or there extra of wilting, instead of transpiration. A small percentage change in evaporative capacity. Desertification = erosion & drainage. You can feel it with a handful of soil. Not literally having made a new desert of Thar in recent decades. Practically invisible from one generation to the next. Lower evaporative fraction where the IR windows are not yet wide open – an extra powerful influence.
Of primary consequence for climate classification is the wider range of temperature and hydrological extremes associated with desertification, in addition to the proposed slight increase in averaged near-surface temperature, cloud impacts, and to the continental oceanic contrasts and circulation.
Overall, less water availability in time and space is associated with less chill. It is the mechanism acting in addition to unnatural trace gas emission.
The surface cooling is by transmitted radiative flux + latent atmospheric heat transport delivered aloft. it need not be controversial. The sensible flux is ineffective in creating a chill.
It is discussed in theory “Enhanced evapotranspiration over land reduces the near-surface temperatures”:
It also appears to be known to the EU, but the effect is minimized for unknown reason
“It is essential to recognize that desertification is essentially a man-made phenomenon which is
exacerbated by climate change…..The relationship between the two processes does not, however, move in only one direction…….It is also possible that desertification may in turn affect climate change, due to the effects of land degradation reducing surface moisture. Because less water is available for the sun’s energy to evaporate, more energy is left over for warming the ground and, consequently, the
lower atmosphere.”
They say “it is possible”. But it is widely known except by those with a bizarre refusal to understand it. My sense is that the refusalists must somehow be net damaging to popular comprehension and Earth system conservation initiatives. Such matters appear less and less in print publication, and yet there was never any rebuttal.
This awareness of the landscape and change has nothing to do with Putin or communism or anything like that. The mid-20th century boom of watershed awareness was fostered by democratic conservative leadership in western nations. Today it is displaced by refusalists and reductionist teaching. https://www.farmers.gov/sites/default/files/2021-04/Body-text_HHB1.jpg
JCM
Try not to teach when you are not entitled and qualified.
It is ape manners, those who hurry on the cateter and start to teach when they get scared or feel touched and inferiour.
They hardly learn anything more in class due to their ape- blood and heritage, and betray that race, heritage, and blood, allways further in life..
Water is not a chilling material, not a heat sink by nature and essence.
Ever heard of central ande hot water and steam & vapour heating?…..
………and we do not live in your tribal provincial hotel-camp, and factory where that may be your special, secteric, provincial, tribal, political and mental moral commercial problem.
JCMsays
It is the transport mechanism, the diminishment of which shows in the observation as an unnatural accumulation of the warmth closer to the surface, and chilling aloft relative to what it otherwise might have been.
Your overt and other-times thinly veiled enthocentric superiorist perspective is disturbing. Cognitive remediation and socialization is recommended.
Socialistification and union membership is recommended,…
NO!,
I would not go for that.
You are loosing your pants and betraying your pure racial membership.
It is not of due civilized and facultary order.
Piotrsays
Macias Shurle: “ Now all the above jerks need to explain to you why the IPCC graph is still inconsistent
The “ inconsistency ” is only in your brain, Mr. Shurle. The IPCC does NOT support “ best and most valid ” idea of your friend, because on their graph irrigation is a MINOR contributor to the change in radiative balance, merely – 0.15 W/m2 WHEN TOGETHER with the changes in albedo.
Even IF the -0.15 W/m2 were ENTIRELY due to irrigation (it’s not, because if it were, there would be no point adding “and albedo”) – you friend scheme would have required 20fold INCREASE in irrigation to match ~ +3W/m2 of GHGs.
Furthermore, what our 3 Water Geniuses, JCM, Shurly and Kalisz, refuse to accept is that the majority of the latent heat released in the atmosphere DOES NOT escape into space, but is reradiated BACK to the Earth’s surfacei> . So the amount of water evaporated to balance GHG emissions would have to increase proportionally (at least severalfold).
If this was not enough – increased evaporation would have increased average concentration of water in the atmosphere – both in the form of water vapour and in the form of cloud droplets, which would have increased greenhouse warming, thus necessitating FURTHER increases in evaporation to try to compensate for that.
So Mr Kalisz’s “modest proposal” would have required an increase of global irrigation by at least TWO ORDERS OF MAGNITUDE. Tells you something about the length the defenders/beneficiaries of the fossil fuel industrial complex are willing to go just to avoid dealing with the root problem of climate change – emissions of GHGs.
@Piotr says: – ” irrigation is a MINOR contributor ”
ms: — Hello Piotr – whether you are viewing an IPCC graph or replying to my post – please always do it with due attention.
The graph shows the associated temperature change in °C – and NOT radiative forcing in W/m².
According to the IPCC, irrigation and albedo therefore cause a cooling of 0.15°C, since the additional irrigation naturally also produces additional cloud albedo.
A paper by Sacks et al (2009) quantifies global irrigation to a total of 2560km³, of which only ~38% (~1000km³) evaporates (the rest is runoff). He found a global increase in LE over land areas of 0.656W/m² that seems conclusive in this respect.
Unfortunately, you forgot to answer the questions above that relate to the IPCC graph.
1. – What should be the difference in the cooling effect between artificial irrigation and natural precipitation?
2. – If irrigation has a cooling effect – can we then conclude that drainage, soil sealing, etc. have a warming effect?
3. – Why does the IPCC deny the climate-warming loss of evaporative landscapes – and are thus as implausible as others who deny warming caused by greenhouse gases?
I could ask other uncomfortable questions for you and the IPCC, e.g.:
4. – Irrigation has been practiced by humans for ~4000-8000 years. Why does the IPCC only recognize the cooling effect of irrigation and the resulting cloud albedo in 2021 – 35 years after its establishment.
Maybe at some point you will notice that the climate department responsible for the above IPCC graphic are just as clueless and ignorant jerks as you are – when it comes to water cycles or the role of water in the climate.
Piotrsays
Piotr: ”irrigation is a MINOR contributor ”
Macias Shurly: “ The graph shows the associated temperature change in °C – and NOT radiative forcing in W/m²
So what? You are right on the technicality, but still lose the argument:
irrigation is “a MINOR contributor” REGARDLESS whether we express it in deg. C, or W/m2!
(after correcting the units the argument reads:
“with the influence of both irrigation and albedo -0.15C – you friend’s scheme would have required 20-fold INCREASE in irrigation to match ~ +3C of GHGs”). Happy now?
So your presumed “inconsistency” between the “jerks” and the IPCC:
“ Now all the above jerks need to explain to you why the IPCC graph is still inconsistent M.Shurly
– is still only in your brain, Mr Shurly: 0.15C is still “MINOR” compared to 3.0C.
M. Shurly: Unfortunately, you forgot to answer the questions above that relate to the IPCC graph.
I forgot nothing – I used your own IPCC graph to PROVE how MINOR is the irrigation and albedo effect – it cancels only 5% of the warming by the greenhouse gases.
This renders your list of “questions” IRRELEVANT to the discussion at hand: namely, your support for T. Kalisz’s proposal to COUNTER the warming by greenhouse gases with increased irrigation.
Thanks to you – we know that this would require at least 20-FOLD increase in the current level of irrigation. With defenders like you, Mr. Shurly, who needs enemies?
That’s why Mr. Kalisz himself proposed pumping seawater – but this renders your waxing poetic on how: Millions of farmers would be happy if they had sufficient water and irrigation technology”
ABSURD – since on land on which Mr. Kalisz evaporated his SEAWATER – you can’t grow ANYTHING. So much for your “happiness of the millions of farmers“.
ms: Maybe at some point you will notice that the climate department responsible for the above IPCC graphic are just as clueless and ignorant jerks as you are
BPL: Classic Dunning-Kruger.
Piotrsays
JCM: “ it is a clear and clean acceptance of the issue ”
1. T. Kalisz proposes using the increased evaporation to cancel the effect of GHS emissions.
2. Macias Shurly claims that critics of T.Kalisz’s scheme are “jerks” and offers an IPCC figure as a proof that irrigation can be used to match the effect GHG emissions, and that “millions of farmers would be happy” so increased evaporation.
3. I use Shurly’s own graph to show that irrigation matches at best = 5% of the GHGs, and is already as its maximum – so there is no room to increase it 20-FOLD.
3. JCM, who have just complained, how it is unfair the climate scientists ignore the hair-brained schemes of the climate ignoramuses like Kalicz, Shurtly and JCM, and declares the calculations that you would need 20-FOLD increase in the GLOBAL irrigation to achieve the proposed effect as a proof of … his victory: it is a clear and clean acceptance of the issue ;-)
Can’t wait for the next dispatches from JCM’s head:
– “Stalingrad – a stunning victory by the German army”,
– “British fleet humbled at Trafalgar”
– “Geocentric system defies its critics”
– “And yet it is flat – Galileo about the Earth”
– COVID vaccines inject people with microchips – confirmed!” ?
Ray Ladburysays
Tomas,
Given that TOA is at 80 km and that is where most of the IR radiation that escapes comes from, I do not see where there is reason to doubt that an increase in the hydrological cycle would matter more than a fart in a windstorm..
Or, there is another way to look at it: Even at 20 km–well above the level of all but the highest cloud tops, a 15 micron IR photon would have to make it past on the order of 10^12 CO2 molecules all within a wavelength of the photon. Sorry, but this isn’t even close enough to be plausible.
I do not think that your figures alone explain the discrepance between, on one hand, your assertion that the atmosphere is completely opaque for infrared radiation up to altitudes as high as 24 km, and, on the other hand, the circumstance that an infrared telescope can be successfully operated even at a significantly lower altitude about 4 km:
For me, it is still a conundrum.
Could you clarify?
Moreover, I am not sure that the Earth is emitting its infrared radiation from the TOA in the height of 80 km.
I read that in a first approximation, the mean altitude from that the Earth IR output is radiated into space can be taken as the layer of the troposphere, wherein the average temperature corresponds the average Earth emission temperature – 18 °C.
This is the layer in altitudes roughly between 5-6 km, what seems to fit with viability of the infrared astronomy on Many Kea much better than your figures.
Greetings
Tom
JCMsays
@ Tom
Maximum atmospheric radiative emission occurs in the most saturated / cloudiest latitudes.
Minimum atmospheric radiative emission occurs in the driest latitudes.
In the chart is the atmospheric net radiation associated with the surface turbulent fluxes. This atmospheric longwave radiative export is the dashed line in the negative. Note the atmospheric transport of the latent flux to distribute more evenly the atmospheric radiative emission poleward.
Peak atmospheric net LW atmospheric radiative emission occurs around the 60 degree latitudes. A relatively large magnitude of atmospheric emission occurs in tropics, too.
At -60 latitude and of the southern hemisphere more generally, a greater magnitude of atmospheric emission is occuring compared to the North. The dashed line is slightly more negative generally in the South.
Over land surfaces and of the Northern hemisphere more generally, a greater proportion of surface transmitted radiative emission is occurring. This behavior is related to the higher surface temperatures associated with dryer places. The surface transmitted flux is not depicted; the chart is depicting only the atmospheric radiative emission associated with the surface energy budget.
In general principle, dry places have higher surface temperature, higher surface radiative transmission, higher surface albedo, lower atmospheric albedo, lower atmospheric emission temperature, and lower atmospheric radiative emission.
In general principle, wet places have have lower surface temperature, lower surface radiative transmission, lower surface albedo, higher atmospheric albedo, higher atmospheric emission temperature, and higher atmospheric radiative emission.
When observing the bulk emission spectra from spaceborne sensor, in addition to the terrestrial radiating surface, the atmospheric radiating surface riding on H20 flux and phase change is superimposed. This H20 signature is at temperatures at about 270K.
Only the C02 band effective radiation is occurring at 220K, or around the tropopause.
When observing the bulk OLR emission spectra, the terrestrial radiating surface and atmospheric radiating surfaces are superimposed. The atmosphere is composed of gas, solid, and liquid phase of matter. The solids and liquids surface emitting full spectra, and the gas in specific bands.
For the purpose of this more generally, consider that while total radiative emission (surface + atmosphere) is rather consistent whether wet or dry, the wet place is relatively cooler at surface and warmer aloft. This is due to water availability, phase transformation and transport.
patrick o twentysevensays
The effective emitting level (roughly speaking, a centroid of the emission weighting function (EWF) – because what you see is coming from a range of heights), looking down from Space, varies greatly over the spectrum; In the atmospheric window ~ 8-12 microns (or 8-13?) (interupted by the ozone band around … I think it’s 9.6 microns), it can get close to the surface in the absence of clouds (some of the EWF is on the surface); it goes up into the stratosphere within the CO2 band centered around 15 microns (~667 cm-1). Most OLR (LW, ie. ~terrestrial, flux to Space) is emitted from within the troposphere.
Note – I am not disagreeing with Ray Ladbury’s 80 km figure, … entirely. It seems entirely plausable to me, given an optical depth of near 60,000 at the CO2 absorption maximum, that the effective emitting level could be in the upper mesosphere … but only for a small bandwidth, apparently. As I recall, I believe the Modtran calculated spectra have a spectral resolution of 2 cm-1 (based on the raw data output – you can click on that option), and it doesn’t appear the emitting level gets anywhere near that high in the plotted spectra.
PS CO2 being a well-mixed gas (up to ~ 90 km or 100 km), you could expect optical depth to be proportional to atmospheric mass path, which is nearly proportional to pressure, so 60,000 optical depth would imply on the order of mesospheric optical depth ~ a bit under 60** (**given a typical stratopause pressure a bit under 1 mb – but it varies a bit – and that’s a rough value on my part; It might be more like 0.5 or 0.3 mb…????) – but line strength varies with temperature and line broadenning varies both with T and p – p being the stronger influence up to around 30 km, which is ~99% of atmospheric mass… so the strongest parts of the CO2 band may actually be even stronger in the higher levels of atmosphere, but the spaces between the lines will be more transparent and the band as a whole, at least near the tropopause and in the lower stratosphere and upper mesophere/lower thermosphere (because it’s cold), will be narrower. Of course, at some point the LTE approximation will fail – the absorption and emission will be there but they won’t be tied together by Kirchoff’s law anymore – but you don’t really need to know that for your purposes.
patrick o twentysevensays
What may happen when you irrigate (or flood) some land: Mostly off the top of my head:
1. Change in LW emissivity of the surface, a cooling effect (but limited by the greenhouse effect)
2. decreased SW albedo, warming effect (although if the cropland replaced a darker forest…)
3. increased evapotranspiration – at least a local cooling effect at the surface
4. increased humidity – a warming effect (but low-level humidity doesn’t have a big impact on tropopause-level forcing; it would however keep the nights warmer…), also absorbs solar radiation (would some of that have been reflected if it had reached the surface?); changes convective fluxes
5. reduced evapotranspiration downwind (because now it’s more humid, and maybe cooler)
6. increased low-level clouds (cooling effect, assuming SW albedo exceeds LW effect; will also affect convection) (increasing humidity tends to lower the cloud base)
7. reduced evaporation of precipitation before reaching sfc.
5 and 6 depend on irrigation occuring some distance along trajectories before ascent into deeper convection
7. lowered cloud base means moist adiabat starts lower. But if it starts cooler…? well there could be enhanced warming higher (as with the negative lapse rate feedback to global warming)… which would help cool the surface by … well it’s the lapse rate; warming aloft increases net radiant flux upward at tropopause, etc.
8. But warming aloft – would there be more humidity aloft? less direct impact on surface but bigger warming effect overall… OTOH, if low level clouds cause enough cooling, this could be avoided.
9. Changes in atmospheric circulation and where and when rain happens, etc. Because you’ve changed lapse rates and clouds and humidity, changed net radiant cooling and heating and when/where they occur, and irrigation tends to be uneven so… (you could enhance evaporative cooling over the ocean by whipping up waves and sea spray, but…)
… I wouldn’t be surprised if wetting the Sahara caused droughts in parts of Eurasia; then again, maybe it would provide more rain to Nigeria … or maybe neither of these things would happen?
I haven’t gone through all this yet (I only just found the middle one), but it looks like irrigation could/can cause (average) surface cooling, but it’s complicated. Circulation changes caused by irrigation can cause warming in places and times. One study found average (land?) surface warming. And irrigation water can precipitate again after evaporating (well, obviously – I mean in the same general area – that’s the impression I got) – but it can also reduce precipitation (eg. cooling ‘repelling’ the monsoon rain). I was a bit surprised when I first found cooling results when I searched for it but …
Your reference to “downtoearth org in news climate…”
is really very interesting. It is the first I ever found about it.
“Sea breeze” , its causes and its consequenses is to be known as the local summer variety of monsune- wind and monsune- rain, Looki up Sea breeze at Wikipedia. Mentioned by Homer allready. And I discuss Cumulonimbus and Fragaria vesca L at St.Hans to betray my race religion political opinion and Gender. Do not betray rather your lack of such things all the time..
(Rajendra Pachauri showed all this and was taken for it. Case recently rather dismissed by Indian supreme court).
The indian downtoearth..org.in seem to have found what is rather to be expected,, an actively working and harmful negative feedback to the monsunrains
if you artificially add and introduce the product and consequence of the monsune namely water on the ground and on the ackers in large scale. They seem to have found the negative consequenses right next by where they could both delay and inhibit the very monsune by artificially watering and cooling its pro0ducts first on large industrial scale.
Well, we may see it again that those denialists and surrealists are less aquainted to thinking in terms of dynamic equilibria reactions and processes that may go both ways and possible positive and negatve feedbacks in such systems.
But it is some of the first that I think of by rouitine having learnt it and trained it in classical chemistery, that is rather universally valid in both open and closed systems, in the chemical glasses and outdoor, in the fjords and at the oceans and at the great lakes.
It seems to be time for some bodies here to quit their present, unlucky progressive party membership, race, religion, political 0pinion, and gender……………….. and rather go to orderly highscool first.
And quit vulgar snobbish manner behaviours againt those who have done it.
They should step down to about early puberty again and from there aspire up again down under, and seek education as ordered and warranted along with The Uiversal declaration of Human Rights artice 26 1, and especially 26 . 2
“…..to the full development of Human peronality and to the strengthening of respects for human rights and fundamental freedoms…..”
Because, on that point it has gone wrong and off track for them
They lack Baccalaureus 1. That is the main syndrom.
Observation 1: that the power of latent flux from the surface is approximately equal to the atmospheric reflection of the solar beam. OK
Observation 2: that the power of heat flux from the surface is approximately equal to the so-called LW cloud radiative effect. OK?
On Observation 2: it is not immediately obvious why it may be so. One possibility is a double accounting of the heating flux and LWCRE in energy budgeting schemes.
Or, just coincidence.
The paradox:
It is intuitive to understand that, overall, the relative humidity is positively correlated with the presence of cloud, and that the temperature is negatively correlated with the presence of cloud. OK.
So, with an absence of cloud, the surface partitioning is favoring the moistening flux:
Why? The simultaneously lower relative humidity and higher temperature under clear sky must be favoring a relatively high rate of surface evapotranspiration.
Conversely, in the presence of cloud, the surface partitioning is favoring the heating flux: The simultaneously higher relative humidity and lower temperature in cloudy sky favors the sensible heat.
A curious paradox.
The conjecture:
From a radiative perspective, on longer waves, it is conceivable there is practically no net longwave radiative effect from clouds. The clouds are thus better characterized (radiatively) by the shorter wave effects.
That “heat” observed by radiometer may simply be the excess turbulent H in the boundary layer corresponding (paradoxically) with cloud.
The conceived net-blockage of upward radiative transmittance corresponding with cloud may simply be an artifact imposed by the greater proportion of heating (turbulent) flux H under cloud.
In accounting of longer waves, the overall net upward transmittance through the column is unaffected by cloud. Why not? The condensed matter surfaces of cloud are acting just like any other radiating surfaces of solid and liquid matter.
These emitting surfaces are simultaneously slightly colder, while transmitting through slightly less optical depth. A near perfect swap, with no net impact to LW budgets.
It is a strange paradox, indeed. But fear not, it is only an unqualified conjecture on the nature of things. It poses no threat to the exclusive net-zero-or-bust strategists (radiative reductionists).
Tomáš Kaliszsays
Dear JCM,
I am able to comment on the first part of your text only – the second one, comprising your thoughts about clouds, is so dense for me that I was not able to grasp the conjecture.
To the paradox you describe:
I think that an important parameter that may be decisive for the partition between the latent and the sensible heat flux may be the available water supply. In dry deserts, sensible heat flux may prevail even at clear sky, oppositely, a clear day in a wetland with prevailing latent heat flux may change in a storm with a heavy rain soon, due to intense cloud formation. Honestly, I have no idea how the heat flux partition looks like under such circumstances.
This represents about 10% of the sum total lost surface available evaporation during the period, of which the remainder is in-part desertification of the grassland plain. For the uninitiated, a transition from moist biologically active lands to semi-arid dormant lands on billions of hectares.
When you lose large regions of evapotranspiration, the surface must warm. There is no other option. Everywhere is always working at the maximum rate of evapotranspiration. There is nowhere sitting idle waiting and ready to pick up the slack.
For simplicity, ecological complexity can be reduced to a moisture indicator. Dryer-lands v Wetter-lands.
In response to your “a clear day in a wetland with prevailing latent heat flux”, a useful tool could be to study the “Oasis” effect.
This is an interesting case of unlimited water source surrounded by desert. In such a context, the turbulent flux is known to exceed the corresponding surface net radiation. This is riding on massive intensification of LE locally upon emergence of the Oasis, and a modest reduction of sensible H distributed broadly. The Oasis is dissipating heat from well beyond its perimeter, as dry air is drawn in.
This has relevance to your technological interventions. In the process, the surface is cooled in the Oasis and surrounds. The air is moistened simultaneously with a reduction of surface upward IR proportional to T^4. A bit of surface temperature change has a proportionally large impact on surface upward radiative power.
With respect to surface net radiation, latent flux and moistening greenhouse effects are over-compensated by the cooler surface T^4 until a steady state turbulent flux partitioning. All mass and heat flux regimes working at maximum. In this way, the climates and ecologies (moisture machine efficiency) are co-dependent.
Some will resist your inquiries not because it poses a threat to the Earth system, but because it challenges reductionist teachings. The hand-waving protests so far have been unimpressive.
“Conversely, in the presence of clouds, the surface partitioning is favouring the heating flux . The simultaneously higher relative humidity and lower temperature in cloudy sky favours the sensible heat.”
Why allways hide the decline and how often must I repeat that? Why hide the sunsets and the autumjns?
What about nights and winters, that are half of the time and situation, where all this may “seem” rather opposite?.
Then bring your conscepts of heat and temperature in order.
Heat is something that we measure in watts, and temperature is sometyhing that we measure in deg celsius or kelvin. Sensible heat is obscure to me and must be better defined Is it delta T in deg to common skin temperature?
Then I see “quantity of heat” measured in Joule that is watt seconds., earlier in calories. labeled “Q”. Latent heat is Q / Kg or Mol.
On Paradoxes, I may look up W. van Orman Quine for you, who published on it in the Scientific Ameri9can. . Paradoxes are hardly well formed formulas of science. Thus to be avoided or to be resolved.
JCMsays
“Sensible heat is obscure”
My interpretation has been the turbulent fluxes are the transfers of heat energy, if you will, turbulent Q in watts per unit area.
Not to be confused with total heat content or enthalpy of air.
The surface latent flux does not have this problem as it operates under totally different mechanism.
JCMsays
the language is in common use. your language, however, is quite dated.
AR6 WGI chapter 7 discusses the issue of the turbulent fluxes in terms of its importance, the large uncertainties which are preventing determination of decadal changes, and the low confidence in trends of surface latent and sensible heat. The document recommends to improve techniques of monitoring evapotranspiration and terrestrial moisture storage in order to constrain latent flux.
Tomáš Kaliszsays
Dear Carbomontanus,
I have a feeling that the term “turbulent fluxes” is a relatively standard term in the literature dealing with climate, and that it includes both thermal convection and latent heat flux, because both these mechanisms are everytime accompanied by flow and mixing in a fluid.
By the way, heat pipes do work just thank to convection “augmented” with latent heat flux.
It is further my understanding that the term “sensible heat” is basically a synonym for “dry convection” – a heat flux enabled purely by thermal convection, without any contribution by latent heat flow.
The word “sensible” is included likely because the dry convection cannot work isothermally.
Contrary to latent heat flux, it must be initiated by heating the surface to a temperature higher than the temperature of the surrounding gas, and in such case you can indeed detect this increased temperature by your senses – either by direct touch, or by infrared radiation receptors in your skin.
I do not think it is necessary to request that JCM or anyone else is more scientific than standard scientific literature he is used to read and/or more precise than standard textbooks teaching this particular field of science.
Tangens to the angle alpha is also quite “dated”. It is 3000 years old fom UR in Caldea, found tabulated from there in cuneiform letters.
.
Pi is also very old and good as gold, cannot be further improoved.
Successive halving and doubbling known from todays inch- system, but also from musical notastion, roots back in old Egypt, known as “the binary system” in todays computers. And further superiour to anything else for several technical measuring purposes. The silly arabian decimal system is inferiour, meant rather for irrational and cheating commerce only.
You get much better away with it in a binary and a duodecimal system. .
I am very proud of having such quite archaic and better conscepts in my engineering “toolbox”, namely timeless wisdom that has stood for 3000 years at least, and still works wonders and cannot be improoved or falsified.
Whereas novices and dilettants are trained on modern arbitrary stupidifying industrial LEGO, smile smile,….and teach me of that.
Sinus and cosinus and degrees is irrational, clumsy, and stupidifying. Tangens is it on how to discuss pyramides. on earth and in space.
Together with Pi.
All those %- s. in it are further intensionally stupidifying.
I try and consceive it rather in elementary prime numeral proportions, natural harmonic intervals. And then logaritmic exponentially., which is rather how nature and human thought and senses is formed. Things are then much better better understood and remembered. .
ENTIA NON SUNT MVLTIPLICANDEM PRÆTER NECESSITATEM.
Sann!
Stick to proper timeless wisdom and the very climate clears up.
Take it by the elementary, abstract forms of REALIA. .
JCMsays
@Tom
some will firmly reject atmospheric heat transport because of their fascination with the radiative exchange. I think some evidently do not know the purpose of those “extra” arrows in energy cartoons, and so they argue from ignorance. The covariance of air flow with aerodynamic conductance of heat and momentum is described by the turbulent flux. Always working at maximum, i.e. a steady-state non-equilibrium optimal rate of transport. Maximum gradients simultaneously with maximum flow. It is awesome to consider it from this perspective.
patrick o twentysevensays
Do you not realize that you just did the linguistic equivalent of dropping a Tsar bomb on a rock-paper-scissors argument?
Request for moderators: could you redact the problem?
nigelj: – “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”
I’d suggest you are still thinking SLR is linear, or near linear.
At the April 2019 General Meeting of the American Philosophical Society, as shown in the YouTube video titled On Sheet Ice Melt in a Warming Climate and What We Should Do About It, duration 0:34:59, glaciologist Professor Eric Rignot confirmed that the whole of the West Antarctic Ice Sheet (WAIS) is now committed to melting, and the Greenland Ice Sheet (GrIS) has passed its “tipping point” (in the Q&A) with the current level of warming. Rignot said from time interval 0:26:33:
“Yes, that’s a very good question. Ah, a lot of us look at, ah, tipping points, right? Ah, the unfortunate reality of climate change is that, ah, we are very good at recognising tipping points once we passed them. Ah, so I think in Greenland we passed them. We, we started to disturb the marine-based glaciers in an irreversible fashion. And I think in West Antarctica, in 2014, we made the announcement that we thought this retreat was irreversible. So the tipping point is, is behind us for some of these systems. But there are a lot of tipping points, right? Ah, the biggest tipping point in my opinion, is if we start destabilising the glaciers in East Antarctica, then if we do commit to that multiple-metre sea level rise, that’s a really bad thing.”
Full loss of the WAIS would yield a global average SLR of as much as 5.08 m (mean estimate 3.16 m).
Full loss of the current GrIS would yield a global average SLR of 7.42 ± 0.05 m.
Both the WAIS & GrIS are now beyond their “viability thresholds” – both will inevitably melt at the current atmospheric GHG level. It’s now a question of how quickly they will melt, and that depends on how much more GHGs continue to be added to the atmosphere. To stop this process progressing further requires cooling the planet, meaning sufficient ‘negative’ GHG emissions are required.
From time interval 0:02:51:
“So right now, sea level is raising, rising about thirty centimetres per century, but we know there’s the possibility that it could do this ten times faster because it did that in the past and, what causes that is the, is the ice sheets.”
From time interval 0:13:07:
“And if you accumulate all these accelerations from the land ice, you see that it’s accelerating at 440 gigatonnes per year per decade, and if you extrapolate that to the end of the century we raise sea level by 80 centimetres. So you could argue that we are already on the trajectory of one metre per century sea level rise if this trend continues. This is clearly faster than any models that are being used so far to make sea level rise projections, and there are a multitude of reasons for that.” https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DnOykSCOf0c
nigelj: – “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.”
I’d suggest SLR is exponential. The interesting question is: What is the doubling time?
A doubling time scenario of a decade could mean SLR of roughly another:
100 mm in the 2020s; plus
200 mm in the 2030s; plus
400 mm in the 2040s; plus
800 mm in the 2050s; etc.
That’s still less than a metre by 2050, but would lead to multi-metre SLR by 2100.
Or is the doubling time longer? 15 years? 20 years?
That’s still potentially multi-metre SLR by 2100, but not as disruptive as the first scenario.
I’d suggest it’s still too early to tell.
But GHG emissions aren’t slowing down…
Per NOAA, the atmosphere in 2022 contained the CO₂-equivalent of 523 ppm, of which 417 is CO₂ alone. https://gml.noaa.gov/aggi/
nigelj: – “I agree rising temperatures are the bigger problem incoming decades.”
Indeed. As the Earth System exceeds the +1.5 ºC global mean warming threshold, whether that’s as an average occurring as early as within this decade (per Hansen’s estimation) or before 2050 (per the more reticent IPCC’s AR6 WG1 SPM, Table SPM. 1), global food supply chains are likely to become increasingly more disrupted.
nigeljsays
Geoff Miell.
“I’d suggest you are still thinking SLR is linear, or near linear.”
No. The graph I posted last month of sea level rise over the last 100 years or so clearly showed a curvilinear, quadratic , accelerating sea level rise trend imposed on the graph. If I thought things were linear, I wouldn’t be posting that, and talking about what happens if you project the curved trend forwards.
I mentioned that I agreed that 2 metres was possible this century, with warming getting up around 3 degrees. This would clearly require a very non linear sea level rise trend to develop. It would also require multiple glaciers moving faster towards the ocean as described in your links. However I could have been clearer.
“I’d suggest SLR is exponential”
I don’t see that convincingly in the sea level rise graph yet. I think sea level rise could get exponential mid this century, if emissions continue, and warming increases, and spreads right around Antarctica and effects numerous glaciers.
nigelj: It would also require multiple glaciers moving faster towards the ocean
Sebastian Rosier mentions that deglaciation of the Pine Island Glacier can result in large parts of the West-Antarctic Ice Sheet melting away, by affecting nearby glaciers – based on Feldmann, Levermann et al. 2015 – at minute 29:40 his talk begins, at ~1:01:00 min you can see the animation https://earthclimate.tv/video/tipping-points-abrupt-climate-responses-2021/
Killiansays
“A man sees what he wants to see and disregards the rest.” – Simon and Garfunkel
“What a fool believes he sees no wise man has the power to reason away.” – Doobie Bros.
Proving the point:
“I’d suggest SLR is exponential”
I don’t see that convincingly in the sea level rise graph yet…
To be fair, I don’t either, because it’s *faster* than that:
You didn’t see climate sensitivity being well above 3C, you didn’t see doublings and triplings throughout the system, you didn’t see SLR of up to 3M by 2100, you didn’t see 2C by 2100 – actually, the expectation is now more like 2.7, and France is preparing for 4C, but you don’t see it. Or anything else.
Shush.
Piotrsays
1. Geoff Miell: “I’d suggest SLR is exponential”
2. Nigel : “ don’t see that convincingly [that exponential growth] in the SLR graph yet…”
So let’s check if Killian derision toward Nigel is supported by his own source:
– SLR at 2inches in 1930 – doubles to 4in over 20 years,
– the next doubling takes it from 1950 to …2010 – i.e. 60 years.
Even if we use different starting dates – the pattern is the same: the earlier doublings take much less time than the later ones. Ergo – the SLR so far has been SLOWER than exponential, not “*faster*” as Killian assures, both with his patronizing tone and with the boldface, italics and asterisks all added for the emphasis.
Then, after ridiculing Nigel based on his OWN ignorance , our Killian rips into Nigel again, this time for not seeing exponential growth in the data that … have not been collected yet:
K: “ You didn’t see climate sensitivity being well above 3C, you didn’t see doublings and triplings throughout the system, you didn’t see SLR of up to 3M by 2100″
Well, if this was written after SLR had been “up by 3M”, it would have been so much more biting… ;-)
But wait, it gets better! Killian’s lectures Nigel for NOT recognizing the rapid changes that are may happen in the future – after the said Killian … stopped his
quoting precisely at the place where Nigel was saying about … the possibility of that rapid change in the future, i.e.:
– K. did quote Nigel’s: I don’t see that convincingly in the sea level rise graph yet ”
– but he didn’t quote … the very next sentence by Nigel: “I think sea level rise could get exponential mid this century, if emissions continue, and warming increases, and spreads right around Antarctica and effects numerous glaciers.”
In other words, Killian derides Nigel’s for not recognizing the possibility of the rapidly worsening climatic conditions later in the century AFTER the said Killian have just cut out the words of Nigel “I think sea level rise could get exponential mid this century” as a result of … rapidly worsening of climatic conditions.
And that were still not enough – all these attacks on Nigel are Killian’s way of “proving the point” of his favourite sayings:
“ – “A man sees what he wants to see and disregards the rest.” – Simon and Garfunkel
– “What a fool believes he sees no wise man has the power to reason away.” – Doobie Bros.
You certainly proved the point of these quotes, Killian, ;-)
Killiansays
So cute you stop the SLR calculation at 2010… 13 years ago.
And if you use the graph you have now posted from 1992 – 2020 it is still not an exponential graph. The black trend line through it is a straight line, a linear trend:
You might be looking at the sub trend from 2012 – 2020 (approx) , which is steeper than the trend of the preceding 8 years and roughly doubles the sea level in that previous trend, but it is off a low point after sea level rise fell from 2010 – 2012 due to natural variation, so it most likely contains some natural variation itself. Please look at earlier periods like 1992 – 2004 which have the same pattern! And they did not turn into an exponential trend longer term. You do claim to be an expert in pattern analysis, right? Therefore you cannnot reliably use the year 2012 as the starting point to elucidate a new trend let alone an exponential trend.
The only sign a genuinely new trend might be forming is from 2017 – 2020 where the SLR creeps above the linear trend line significantly. It could be partly natural variation . It could be a continuation of the long term quadratic SLR trend, it could be a new linear trend, it could even be the start of an exponential trend. We just dont know, because its only a few years so its too short to have much significance.
“Youre incompetent;”
Nope. I have been correct.
———————————
My view is sea level rise this century and longer term is likely to be towards the upper range of IPCC projections and could become exponential later this century as previously stated. Right now there has not been enough ice melting from Thwaites glacier to create an exponential SLR trend yet, but if multiple glaciers start acting like Thwaites glacier a exponential trend could possibly develop (IMO).
The important thing is sea level rise could be up around 1 – 2 metres this century just with a quadratic trend and that is more than enough to worry about. I really hope like crazy that global SLR doesn’t turn exponential. There is one workable solution to all these problems: Stop emissions with urgency.
Piotrsays
Killian Jun 10.: “ So cute [Piotr] stops the SLR calculation at 2010… 13 years ago.
Liars gonna lie ”
Huh? To question YOUR claim, I have used YOUR graph from YOUR source:
For growth to be exponential – the doubling time has to be the same OVER ANY interval.. For simplicity, I “cutely” chose round SLR numbers: 2inches, 4 in and 8in:
1. doubling from 2in to 4in took 20 years (1930-1950)
2. doubling from 4in to 8in took 60 years (1950-2010)
But since you have accused me of a LIE:
“Liars gonna lie” Killian, Jun10,
let’s us try YOUR NEW data that you use to “prove” your accusations:
the increase in SL from 2010 to 2022 was ~3.5cm= 1.45in, which means that doubling ending in 2022, started when SLR was 4.7in, i.e., looking at YOUR original graph – somewhere between 1960-1970. Which means:
– the 1930-50 doubling (2in to 4in) took 20 years
– the most recent doubling (4.72-9.45in) took between 52 and 62 years (1960/70- 2022)
For the growth to be EXPONENTIAL – the doubling time has to be THE SAME in ANY two periods; for the growth is “ *faster*” than [exponential]”, the LATER doubling times have to shorter.
52 or 62 years is not shorter. than 20 years, Killian.
So – how do you look NOW with your contemptuous:
“ So cute [Piotr] stops the SLR calculation at 2010… 13 years ago. Liars gonna lie
Killian, Jun 10.
The only question now is whether Killian has the balls to admit basing his accusations, and his contempt, toward others on his own ignorance.
But I won’t hold my breath. Killians gonna be Killians…
Killiansays
Nigel, just looked back, and you are correct. I looked too quickly. The graph does not stop at 2013, it proves you wrong, and him, wrong. Check the satellite record data on that graph.
nigeljsays
Killian
“Nigel, just looked back, and you are correct. I looked too quickly. The graph does not stop at 2013, it proves you wrong, and him, wrong. Check the satellite record data on that graph.”
Agree that the graph does not stop at 2013. I had thought the satellite trend was a future projection. I also looked at it too quickly. But your your comment proves nothing, and changes nothing as follows:
Your original statement was that sea level rise had become FASTER than than exponential. (6 june. 10.09) based on that graph.
SLR is neither exponential or faster than exponential.
You may not have read all the comments already posted as follows:
Piotr has shown you by using the widest data available 1900 – 2020 that SLR is not exponential, by using maths. There is no doubling of total SLR within equal time periods. His maths is correct. You have not rebutted his maths. It doesn’t matter whether you use tide gauge data or satellite data the outcome is the same. (refer Piotr @ 13 June 7.18)
I showed you that the trend from about 2012 – 2020 while it is steeper than previous 8 years it is not exponential. It does not double the total SLR over the previous 8 years (because it comes after a fall in SLR from about 2011 – 2012). I pointed out that the fall is likely natural variation and so is much of the recovery in the SLR after 2012. I pointed out the only real evidence of an acceleration is after about 2017 and we don’t have enough years to discern what form this acceleration might be. I mentioned some possibilities. (Nigelj @ 11 June 9.34)
In conclusion, SLR over 1900 – 2020 is neither exponential or faster than exponential and there is no good evidence its becoming exponential. This is just a simple fact. Why you would argue with it mystifies me. You come across like Victor where he tries to deny what maths analysis shows
Also look at related evidence. Although there is evidence a couple of ice sheets are melting faster recently their contribution to total SLR to date is quite small. Look at the data Geoff Miel has recently posted on them for recent decades: 1) its not exponential 2) The quantities are so small it barely adds much to SLR – at this stage.
SLR is following a quadratic curve at this stage IMO its possible SLR might well become exponential later this century as numerous ice sheets melt, as I mentioned previously. We are facing huge problems if it does and its another reason we must cut emissions asap. I say this to get through to you I’m not downplaying the issues. I just look at what Piotr posted on analysing the existing trend and I cant fault that.
Piotrsays
Killian19 JUN: “ Nigel, just looked back, and you are correct. I looked too quickly. The graph does not stop at 2013, it proves you wrong, and him, wrong. Check the satellite record data on that graph.
Wait a minute, Killian – are you… admitting that when you lambasted me:
“ So cute – [Piotr] stops the SLR calculation at 2010… 13 years ago.
Liars gonna lie..” [Killian 10 JUN]
you HAD NO IDEA when your OWN graph stopped ???
In other words, you accused me of intellectual dishonesty and lies, and you could not even be bothered to CHECK your own graph on which you based these public accusations???
And now you don’t have the balls to admit it, but instead you …cutely pretend to admit of being wrong, only as a springboard to:
“ it proves you wrong, and him, wrong. Check the satellite record data on that graph.
Killian Jun 16
To make it even better – you KNOW that the above is also a lie – you know, because 3 days earlier, in the post immediately above yours, I have ALREADY demonstrated that extending the data to 2022 changes NOTHING about your claim – the SLR is STILL slower, not “faster” than exponential, I quote
Piotr, Jun 13:
“the increase in SL from 2010 to 2022 [in “the satellite record data”] was ~3.5cm= 1.45in,
which means that the most recent doubling (one ending in 2022), started when SLR was 4.7in, i.e., somewhere between 1960-1970. Which means:
– the 1930-50 doubling (2in to 4in) took 20 years
– the most recent doubling (4.72-9.45in) took between 52 and 62 years (1960/70- 2022)
Now, for the growth to be EXPONENTIAL – the doubling time has to be THE SAME in ANY two periods; for the growth to be “*faster* ” than [exponential]”, the LATER
doubling times have to SHORTER. 52 to 62 years is NOT shorter than 20 years “.
=== end of quote =====
Killian reads the above, and 3 days LATER … claims that the extension of the data to 2022:
“proves you wrong, and him, wrong. Check the satellite record data on that graph”
Ladies and Gentlemen – a Killian in a … nutshell.
Killiansays
Nigel, why do you insist on proving my criticisms of your participation right year after year?
The solid line is exponential. ANY steady line of growth like that is. It shows a steady doubling rate. The data at the end of the graph is ABOVE that line. (“When the relative growth rate (not the absolute growth rate) is constant, the quantity undergoes exponential growth and has a constant doubling time or period, which can be calculated directly from the growth rate.”) One can question whether that data will return to the mean and overall still be exponential on average in the future, but one CANNOT argue the nonsense you are arguing.
As ever…
Piotr? A complete waste of time. First time he ever responded to me it was an insult. He has done the same with every post since. He does not belong on this site. If this site was well-moderated, the trolls would have to behave, but… no moderation, so… slower flame wars, but still no moderation, still filled with trolls and denialists.
Killiansays
Fauts in my claims? Not now, not ever. Not even once. I didn’t notice Piotr and I were talking about the same graph because I looked too quickly, that’s not a claim, it’s just impatience.
You? You get nothing right when you try to correct my analysis. Ever.
And, again, you have ZERO record. Zero.
Shush. You’re not a serious person. You simply need to see your words on the internet. Zero expertise in any area, but comment on literally every thread and every issue? Notice some of, those who are serious and know what we *don’t* know, don’t comment on every single issue that is brought up on these pages? You do. Always have.
Nobody can possibly take you seriously when you show so little self-awareness.
nigeljsays
Killian, your comments on the exponential issue are nonsensical and Piotr has responded very well covering everything. I would just add the famous quote “Physician heal thyself”
Your claim that I did not see that climate sensitivity is well above 3 degrees and that sea level rise is up to 3M by 2100 is flawed because we dont have any agreement in the science community on those numbers. You are simply cherry picking a few studies. The IPCC have different projections on climate sensitivity (most likely 3 degrees) and sea level rise (up to about 1M by 2100 with some possibility of 2M) and their job is to determine the state of the science. 2M seems a very real possibility to me.
Your claim that I didn’t see that warming could be 4.5 degrees by 2100 is a pure fabrication, and your claim I don’t see doublings is interesting given I posted articles on doublings of ice loss (The Guardian and Science Daily or some source like that) several times, and you even responded to one of these.
Just astonishing the things you come out with. Its like you live on some other planet or universe or maybe you need new glasses..
Killiansays
“Piotr has responded very well covering everything.”
Keep proving my point, genius. You’re incompetent; so is he. You are so busy playing infantile games you can’t be bothered with actually knowing anything.
Piotrsays
Killian to Nigel: Keep proving my point, genius. You’re incompetent; so is [Piotr].
Put your money where your mouth. Falsify the falsifiable arguments in my post you refer to. If I am so incompetent, how hard could it be? Heck, to help you, below I simplified my points (but if you prefer the full version – see: Piotr (Re: Killian, Jun.5)):
1. Killian declares the SLR curve to grow … “ faster than exponential”, and derides Nigel for not seeing it. In that curve, the 1st doubling took 20 yrs, the 2nd doubling – 60 years. “ Faster than exponential”, you say, eh?
2. Next, Killian chastises Nigel “you didn’t see SLR of up to 3M by 2100″, even though it won’t be known for 70+ ….years, whether Killian was right seeing SLR of up to 3M by 2100.
3. Next, Killian cuts out Nigel’s words on seeing the possibility of rapid changes in the future, and after this cut – he ridicules Nigel for … not seeing the possibility of rapid changes in the future.
4. Having done all these, Killian thinks that the has proven that the Doobie Bros. words
“What a fool believes he sees no wise man has the power to reason away”
apply to … Nigel.
===
Ladies and Gentlemen – the Great Killian.
Killiansays
Yes, I am great – compared to you two clowns.
You have never predicted *anything.* Me?
* SLR of at least a meter by 2100
* 2016 low ASI due to El Nino (and coming low ASI in 2024)
* Significantly higher climate sensitivity. (Hansen, et al., preprint. This discussion is from 2009, and I was talking about higher sensitivity well before that, based on simple observations and logic.)
Just to name a few, My record on *understanding* and *analyzing* climate effects is undisputed and stands alone among ANY commenter on these pages. An intelligent man learns from those who know better; a fool tries to tear them down to protect their own ego.
Killian, interesting how when anyone identifies faults in your claims you deflect to claiming you make good predictions. Your predictions are reasonably easy things to make, and aren’t telling anyone anything useful, and sound like an ego based exercise. That’s probably why nobody else here bothers to do the same.
Back before 2016, and before that, SLR had been treated by the IPCC without consideration for melting ice caps and had been projecting sub-metre SLR by 2100 (and only to 2100) which was not helpful as it allowed the denialists to poo-poo SLR as a major problem. Assessments which did consider melting ice caps came out with projections of potential metre-plus SLR by 2100. Again this was unhelpful as the rate of SLR by 2100 would suggest multi-metre SLR in the following century and this threat was being ignored.
And before 2016 we also had Jim Hansen who admitted he was an outlier in suggesting 5m SLR by 2100. My own thoughts on his 5m was that it was entirely bonker unless the mechanisms which drove it were properly explained. The problem is one of energy. Where does all the energy to melt all that ice come from? An explanation was entirely absent until 2016 when Hansen et al (2016) appeared, this a discussion document rather than a piece of strong science.
Post-2016 the real problem of SLR (of it being multi-century rather than multi-metre in a single century) is being shown within IPCC ARs (see this RC OP) but the main multi-century message remains weak, being described solely that we can expect 2m to 3m SLR in the next 2,000 years if we limit AGW to to 1.5°C and 2m to 6m if limited to 2°C .
I would characterise SLR blather in this comment thread with talk of doubling times as being multi-metre blather and rather pointless.
Geoff Miellsays
MA Rodger: – “Post-2016 the real problem of SLR (of it being multi-century rather than multi-metre in a single century) is being shown within IPCC ARs (see this RC OP) but the main multi-century message remains weak, being described solely that we can expect 2m to 3m SLR in the next 2,000 years if we limit AGW to to 1.5°C and 2m to 6m if limited to 2°C .”
The RC OP, dated 13 Aug 2021, that you link to included the figure from the IPCC AR6, Figure SPM.8, which shows SLRs by 2100 relative to 1900 baseline, ranging from circa 0.5 m (for SSP1-1.9 scenario) to circa 1.8 m (for “Low-likelihood, high-impact storyline, including ice sheet instability processes, under SSP5-8.5” scenario).
I’d suggest the IPCC is still relying heavily on models that don’t align with real world observations. Current climate models are not capturing all the risks, such as the stalling of the Gulf Stream, polar ice melt and the uptick in extreme weather events.
In the YouTube video by glaciologist Professor Jason Box, published 30 Sep 2022, titled Greenland zombie ice and committed sea level rise, duration 0:05:15, from time interval 0:04:05, a graph of Greenland projected Sea Level Rise (SLR) is displayed, comparing the IPCC’s AR6 SSP585 high emissions scenario with the 2022 Jason Box et. al. paper findings, and Jason Box says (bold text my emphasis):
“Our findings in comparison to current sea level projections, confront us with a shocking reality: The much larger, already locked-in sea level rise, than what ice sheet models project by end-of-century, even under high carbon emissions. Our numbers are twice as large, and don’t even include future warming. The comparison reinforces the likelihood that ice sheet models don’t deliver ice quickly enough, and for a number of known reasons, like today’s models don’t realistically treat underwater melting, bare ice darkening, ice internal heating from increasing meltwater infiltration, and basal lubrication, to name a few.” https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WHbZysQYRO4
In another YouTube video published by Jason Box on 22 Apr 2023, titled Tropical heat and moisture to Greenland and the European State of the Climate – economic impacts, duration 0:14:59, an animation of the temperature gradients over Greenland during the month of Sep 2022 was shown from about time interval 0:02:30, showing vast areas of Greenland above freezing. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZzpBo3y0xs4
With rising global mean surface temperatures inevitably overshooting the +1.5 °C threshold (relative to the 1880-1920 baseline) I’d suggest it’s very likely that surface temperatures in Greenland will be experiencing increasingly longer periods above freezing each year, and as a consequence increasingly more net ice loss will occur on average per year. That means faster SLR.
Leon Simons tweeted a thread on Mar 28:
We are facing:
-Rapid warming from decreasing sulfur emissions
-Strong El Niño
-Strong solar maximum
-Increasing greenhouse gases
-Extreme Earth Energy Imbalance
-Hunga Tonga WV
-Sea ice feedbacks
All coinciding into an extreme global warming event..
MA Rodger: – “I would characterise SLR blather in this comment thread with talk of doubling times as being multi-metre blather and rather pointless.”
I think the overwhelming real world evidence/data is indicating that the climate crisis is happening much faster than the IPCC would have us all believe.
I think per the evidence/data I see, multi-metre SLR by 2100 is a very real risk for future generations. I disagree with your assessment that it’s “blather and rather pointless.”
The greater and more urgent risk I see is that human civilisation collapses well before 2100, unless we/humanity:
Geoff Miell,
It seems you are having problems coping with the massive differences between (1) AD2100 SLR, (2) SLR from AGW after 2,000 years and (3) SLR at equilibrium. And to mix into your assessment of SLR a list of non-SLR climate hits “we are facing” suggests more hand-wringing than level-headed analysis.
Consider IPCC AR5 Fig 13.14. If this is examined minutely (which is far far beyond the accuracy intended by the graphic), this graphic suggests we should expect the Greenland value (green graph) from the 2000-19 climate (in HadCRUT5 2000-19 is +1°C above 1850-99) to be a projected two-millennia SLR of 105mm (RH graph) and equilibrium of 163mm (LH graph), but these with massive uncertainty. (The shaded area of the RH two-millennia graph extends up to 320mm.)
And the two-millennia global graphic (RH grey graph) is annotated with a 2.3m SLR per 1°C AGW. So we can presumably expect a rise of 2.3m from today’s +1°C AGW (2.3m = future rise + the rise seen so far).
But what surely is far more of a worry is the step change in SLR caused by the melt-down of the Greenland ice cap. Somewhere between +1°C AGW and +2°C AGW, the top of Greenland’s ice will begin to drop and so, encountering warmer altitudes as it drops, will be on a slow one-way downward path which would presumably require a new ice-age to kick in to stop its downward path.
So if you feel the 274 ± 68 mm SLR ‘commitment’ in a 2000-19 climate of +1°C AGW is an “urgent risk”, an extra 6,000mm SLR from a melting Greenland will transmogrify your assessment, even if such a massive |SLR is millennia away.
Geoff Miellsays
MA Rodger: – “Box et al (2022) ‘Greenland ice sheet climate disequilibrium and committed sea-level rise’ is saying there is an estimated 274mm SLR from the Greenland ice imbalance caused by the 2000-19 climate. I do not find that a surprising result.
And I don’t think it captures the real ‘shock-horror’ of Greenland ice melt.”
I think you are ignoring Jason Box’s point: “Our numbers are twice as large, and don’t even include future warming.” In the Results section in the Box et. al. (2022) paper, it included:
The Greenland ice loss commitment presented in this study is complementary to process-based models, yet it is grounded in observations and theory, albeit lacking a response timescale. Our assessed Greenland’s ice disequilibrium with 2000–2019 surface climate that commits the equivalent of 274 ± 68 mm SLR aligns with expert judgement predicting a mean committed Greenland SLR contribution of 330–490 mm by 2100 (ref. 47). Moreover, application of the anomalous 2012 melt year in perpetuity taken as a representative analogue for sustained later-this-century climate yields a Greenland SLR commitment of 782 ± 135 mm, which also resonates with expert judgement of metre-scale SLR under the unabated SSP58 future climate scenario47.
I interpret this to mean metre-scale SLR contribution by 2100 from Greenland ice loss alone is clearly plausible with additional warming. Add in ice loss contributions from Arctic glaciers & the Antarctic, particularly WAIS, and metre-plus to multi-metre SLR by 2100 is also likely on our current GHG trajectory.
MA Rodger: – “So if you feel the 274 ± 68 mm SLR ‘commitment’ in a 2000-19 climate of +1°C AGW is an “urgent risk”, an extra 6,000mm SLR from a melting Greenland will transmogrify your assessment, even if such a massive |SLR is millennia away.”
On our current GHG emissions trajectory, I’d suggest human civilisation is likely to collapse well before 2100. Published in this month’s Futures journal was a paper by C.E. Richards, H.L. Gauch and J.M. Allwood titled International risk of food insecurity and mass mortality in a runaway global warming scenario. The Abstract included:
Climate and agriculture have played an interconnected role in the rise and fall of historical civilizations. Our modern food system, based on open-environment production and globalised supply chains, is vulnerable to a litany of abiotic and biotic stressors exacerbated by anthropogenic climate change. Despite this evidence, greenhouse gas emissions continue to rise. Current trajectories suggest global warming of ∼2.0–4.9 °C by 2100, however, a worst-case emissions scenario with rapid combustion of all available fossil fuels could cause a rise of ∼12 °C. Even if emissions decline, unprecedented atmospheric CO₂-e concentrations risk triggering tipping points in climate system feedbacks that may see global warming exceed 8 °C. Yet, such speculative ‘runaway global warming’ has received minimal attention compared to mainstream low- to mid-range scenarios. This study builds on The Limits to Growth to provide new insights into the international risk of mass mortality due to food insecurity based on a higher-resolution illustration of World3’s ‘runaway global warming’ scenario (∼8–12 °C+). Our simulation indicates rapid decline in food production and unequal distribution of ∼6 billion deaths due to starvation by 2100. We highlight the importance of including high-resolution simulations of high-range global warming in climate change impact modelling to make well-informed decisions about climate change mitigation, resilience and adaptation.
I’d suggest mass migrations away from increasing areas with mean annual temperatures (MATs) ≥29 °C and mass starvation are the far more urgent risks in the next few decades. https://nature.com/articles/s41893-023-01132-6
Geoff Miell
It’s probably best to stick with Greenland’s contribution to SLR and hammer out our respective reasoning. Adding in other “ice loss contributions” is not helping.
I think your interpretation of Box et al (2022) requires some explanation because I see nothing in that quote to suggest a metre-scale Greenland SLR contribution by 2100, even “with additional warming.”
Box et al (2022) give no judgement on how quickly the 274 ± 68 mm equilibrium SLR they project from a 2000-19 Greenland climate will arrive. (Mind, did I hear in one of his videos some rather loose claim by Box? But that’s the video not the scientific paper.) We have been measuring the ice loss from Greenland since 2002 and there is no sign (yet) of accelerating ice loss from a warming climate. The average (no acceleration) is running at 77mm/century, no acceleration. The acceleration required to create 1,000mm by 2100 would be a doubling every 4 years (?). Whatever, it would have to be massively dramatic!! So where is it?
The remainder of your comment is not to do with a melty Greenland inducing SLR.
But I would say that I agree it is the ability of humanity to remain civilised that is at threat from AGW. In my opinion, it is the world order as we know it today that is the frog in the warming pan of water, a frog which needs to reach out and switch the gas stove off coz it ain’t gonna get out the pan.
Geoff Miellsays
MA Rodger: – “Adding in other “ice loss contributions” is not helping.”
Why? Not helping whom/what?
Do you think there is no ice loss in other places other than Greenland? Antarctic? Arctic (excluding Greenland)? Glaciers outside Arctic & Antarctic?
I’d suggest you take a look at the graph displayed by Professor Jason Box from time interval 0:05:48 in the YouTube video titled Arctic warming 3x faster than the globe, published 30 Dec 2021. The graph shows accelerating ice loss in the period from 1971 through 2019 (more than 5 decades of data), for SLR contributions:
* Arctic (including Greenland): 1.3 mm/decade (in 1980s); 4.6 mm/decade (in 1990s); 8.9 mm/decade (in 2000s); 12.3 mm/decade (in 2010s);
* Greenland: _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ 1.1 mm/decade (in 1980s); 1.8 mm/decade (in 1990s); 5.5 mm/decade (in 2000s); 6.8 mm/decade (in 2010s);
* Arctic (no Greenland): _ _ _ _ 0.2 mm/decade (in 1980s); 2.8 mm/decade (in 1990s); 3.4 mm/decade (in 2000s); 5.5 mm/decade (in 2010s).
And there’s the Antarctic contribution also shown on the graph.
The 5+ decade data range graph presented by Box is clearly a longer time period than the more limited circa 2-decade GRACE & GRACE-FO data (you link to).
MA Rodger: – “I think your interpretation of Box et al (2022) requires some explanation because I see nothing in that quote to suggest a metre-scale Greenland SLR contribution by 2100, even “with additional warming.”
It seems to me you have selective blindness. I’ll repeat the relevant statement from the Box et. al. (2022) paper (and include bold text my emphasis):
Moreover, application of the anomalous 2012 melt year in perpetuity taken as a representative analogue for sustained later-this-century climate yields a Greenland SLR commitment of 782 ± 135 mm, which also resonates with expert judgement of metre-scale SLR under the unabated SSP58 future climate scenario47.
Meanwhile, Dr Ella Gilbert published a YouTube video on 15 Jun 2023 titled Ep. 2 | Why is Greenland melting so fast? Ft. @JasonBoxClimate. Jason Box says from time interval 0:02:44:
“Well, the average loss rate of ice from Greenland is about 270 gigatonnes per year, and that’s you know, kind of a number that doesn’t have much meaning to people – another way of thinking about that is 0.7 mm per year of global sea level rise, which also sounds small, um… It isn’t that small because it’s adding up year after year.”
From time interval 0:06:38, Jason Box says:
“Right, we studied the ice loss commitment from Greenland and the variations from year to year – they actually point squarely at an ice loss commitment that right now stands at at least 27 centimetres of global sea level rise, but that’s if the climate stayed constant up to 2019. Climate will continue warming and so the ice loss commitment grows in a high emission scenario. Greenland’s ice loss commitment reaches more than one metre by end of century, so we have some time to get off of that high emission scenario, and basically halve the sea level commitment from Greenland to about half a metre by end of century.” https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tRtqOTtsCr8
I think Prof Box makes it clear what the implications are for Greenland contributions for SLR in the coming decades, following from the work in the Box et. al. (2022) paper.
MA Rodger: – “(Mind, did I hear in one of his videos some rather loose claim by Box? But that’s the video not the scientific paper.)”
So, does that mean you ignore anything that hasn’t been through scientific peer-review?
A non-peer-reviewed communication by James Hansen, Makiko Sato and Reto Ruedy, dated 14 Jun 2023, titled El Nino and Global Warming Acceleration, includes (bold text my emphasis):
Consistent with this interpretation, there has been a staggering increase in Earth’s energy imbalance (Fig. 3). The light blue bar in Fig. 3, the 10 years from July 2005 through June 2015, is the period used for calibration of the satellite-measured[7] Earth’s energy imbalance (EEI), the calibration being provided by changes of the heat content of Earth’s heat reservoirs.[8] About 90% of the change of EEI is change of the heat content of the ocean, which is sampled by a fleet of about 4000 deep-diving Argo floats. Earth’s energy imbalance was 0.71 W/m² during the 10-year calibration period, but EEI has subsequently increased to well over 1 W/m² (Fig. 3). EEI provides the direct driving force for global warming and all of the consequences thereof.[3] It is this increased EEI that leads us to project a 50-100% increase in the rate of global warming during the few decades following 2010. If our projection is correct, we expect observed global temperature to rise into the yellow region in Fig. 4 in 2023 and above the yellow region in 2024. This is a projection that we hope is wrong, but the main factors that might cause it to be wrong are not very comforting: the El Nino strength affects short time scales and aerosol trends affect long time scales.
☻ You accuse me of “selective blindness” because I asked you for an explanation of your interpreting the quote from Box et al to say that there would be a metre-scale Greenland SLR contribution by 2100. The part of the Box et al quote you now highlight refers to “metre-scale SLR under the unabated SSP58 future climate scenario,” this being the finding, not of Box et al but of Bamber et al (2019) ‘Ice sheet contributions to future sea-level rise from structured expert judgment’. This is not the clearest of references for the quote, or the preceeding reference from the same paper and I don’t see either referring to Greenland 2100 SLR under the 2000-19 climate. Perhaps you can shed some light on that. Or perhaps not.
In the transcript you present of the Ella Gilbert video, do note these is a fundamental difference between Greenland 2100 SLR and “Greenland’s ice loss commitment … by end of century.”
☻ You ask whether I will ignore anything that hasn’t passed peer-reviewed. (I would say there is a lot that does passed peer-review which is worth ignoring.) The point I was making was that often statements made in a video are not referenced as they would be in a scientific paper (or should be referenced). The Box video comment at issue I described as being a “loose claim.” That is it was unsubstantiated.
But from that context, you diverge from such consideration and Greenland SLR as well and dive into discussion of SAT acceleration, a whole different kettle of fish.
Geoff Miellsays
MA Rodger: – “☻ You ask what I mean by writing “Adding in other “ice loss contributions” is not helping.” I would have thought the sentence preceeding would have answered your question“Why? Whom/What?””
What it does suggest to me is you appear to dismiss/exclude the not insignificant SLR contributions from non-Greenland sources, including:
* Canadian Arctic glaciers;
* US Arctic (Alaskan) glaciers;
* Antarctic land ice;
* “other” (excluding Scandinavian & Russian) glaciers;
* thermal expansion.
MA Rodger: – “This is not the clearest of references for the quote, or the preceeding reference from the same paper and I don’t see either referring to Greenland 2100 SLR under the 2000-19 climate. Perhaps you can shed some light on that.”
Repeating again, the Box et. al. (2022) paper includes:
Moreover, application of the anomalous 2012 melt year in perpetuity taken as a representative analogue for sustained later-this-century climate yields a Greenland SLR commitment of 782 ± 135 mm,…
In other words, the Box et. al. (2022) paper finds a Greenland SLR commitment of 782 ± 135 mm under anomalous 2012 melt year conditions, consistent with the findings of the Bamber et. al. (2019) paper referenced. Jason Box says in the Dr Ella Gilbert video: “Climate will continue warming and so the ice loss commitment grows…”
So, spelling it out for the last time, per the Box et. al. (2022) paper:
1. Greenland’s SLR commitment is at least 274 ± 68 mm by 2100 at current warming level (disequilibrium with 2000–2019 surface climate);
2. Global mean warming will inevitably increase (even the reticent IPCC indicates +1.5 °C warming is inevitable and likely before 2050), and thus Greenland’s SLR commitment by 2100 will inevitably increase;
3. The anomalous 2012 melt year indicates a Greenland SLR commitment of 782 ± 135 mm.
4. Metre-scale SLR commitment from Greenland alone is therefore plausible.
I’d suggest by adding in growing SLR commitments from non-Greenland sources then metre-plus to multi-metre SLR by 2100 is also plausible. Why is this so difficult for you to understand, MA Rodger?
And to get an idea of just how massive the developing El Niño could be, the previous record high super El Niño peaked at 2.6°C in November/December of 2015. The 1997 El Niño peaked at 2.4°C. And this one is now modelled by the BoM to break 3.0°C.
Zack Labe tweeted on Jun 19 a graph, showing that while sea ice is growing (in southern hemisphere winter season), it’s growing much slower than average. The deviation is huge. https://twitter.com/ZLabe/status/1670552177348149250
Indicators show the planet is continuing to warm and as a consequence SLR will accelerate.
At least we can agree on concerns about the “ability of humanity to remain civilised that is at threat from AGW.“
Geoff Miell,
☻ I perhaps should have been more definite up-thread.
If the task is to discuss the future contribution to SLR from Greenland, the SLR contribution from other glaciers is utterly irrelevant. To drag such factors into a discussion specific to Greenland is doing no more than changing the subject.
☻ It is evident you do not understand what Box et al mean by “SLR commitment” and this is the source of much of the difficulty we face with this interchange.
As the climate warms (more specifically, the climate experienced by the ice caps) the projected total melt required to cancel the “disequilibrium” will increase. This “disequilibrium” will not be cancelled by 2100 as big ice sheets like Greenland take centuries/millennia to reach equilibrium. Perhaps at this point I am the one who should be asking “Why is this so difficult for you to understand, Geiff Miell?
And if I consider your insistance on adding non-Greenland ice sheets to this interchange to be ‘subject-changing’, the strength of the coming El Niño is doubly so. Ditto the concentrations of Antarctic SIE. (Golly!! The 12-month rolling average of JAXA’s daily Antarctic SIE has now dropped below the record low level set in the year to Sept 2017, and of late has done so with some spectacular new daily records. But the Antarctic climate is a poor a measure of global temperature.)
And I would point out that NINO34 was recorded averaging +2.8°C Nov/Dec 2015 (Nov 2015 averaged +2.9°C) while the Oz BoM forecast of June 2015 projected an average Nov2015 value of +2.3°C. (Note that I have mentioned in reply to your last month that Jacobson is not a reliable source.)
Geoff Miellsays
MA Rodger: – “If the task is to discuss the future contribution to SLR from Greenland, the SLR contribution from other glaciers is utterly irrelevant.”
This discussion thread, as far as I’ve been concerned, has been principally about the critical issue of where the SLR trajectory is headed within this century from ALL contributory sources. Metre-scale (or more) SLR by 2100 would be highly damaging/disruptive for coastal infrastructure throughout the world. I’ve referred to papers/statements by Box, Rignot, Englander and NOAA in this thread and/or elsewhere at this blog, that indicate the accumulating data/evidence and increasing probability of metre-scale or more SLR by 2100. https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2023/04/unforced-variations-apr-2023/#comment-811073
MA Rodger: – “To drag such factors into a discussion specific to Greenland is doing no more than changing the subject.”
It seems to me you are the one trying to restrict “this SLR blather” discussion to Greenland contributions only. Data indicates Greenland is not the only major SLR contributor. https://www.amap.no/maps-and-graphics#3406
I think it’s a poor and futile attempt by you to justify your earlier dismissive comment: “I would characterise SLR blather in this comment thread with talk of doubling times as being multi-metre blather and rather pointless.”
MA Rodger: – “☻ It is evident you do not understand what Box et al mean by “SLR commitment” and this is the source of much of the difficulty we face with this interchange.”
I think you are the one misrepresenting the meanings and intents of the Box et. al. (2022) paper, and dismissive of what Jason Box says in the Dr Ella Gilbert video: “Climate will continue warming and so the ice loss commitment grows…”
IMO, it’s also dismissive of the work by Eric Rignot, John Englander & NOAA.
MA Rodger: – “And if I consider your insistance on adding non-Greenland ice sheets to this interchange to be ‘subject-changing’, the strength of the coming El Niño is doubly so.”
More heat; faster melting; faster SLR. It’s another indicator of the worsening climate crisis that you seem to dismiss as irrelevant within the context of disruptive consequences manifesting this century.
I think your apparent dismissive attitude is not helpful.
Geoff Miell,
☻ It is true that my initial entry into “this SLR blather” concerned SLR in total and it is true that the total level of SLR is the important factor to consider and that, by adding to such a total, even minor contributions to SLR become significant.
All this is true.
But….
If the level of the different contributions cannot be nailed down in some manner, such discussion remains simply “SLR blather.”
And in that ‘nailing-down’, you were the one that kicked off proceedings by addressing Greenland SLR and in doing so demonstrated massive misunderstandings of the findings of Box et al (2022) ‘Greenland ice sheet climate disequilibrium and committed sea-level rise’
I would suggest that allowing such a misguided take-away from this discussion is something any science-minded participant should prevent (although it appears such prevention is proving remarkably difficult).
☻ Here’s a thing.
Geoff Miell, you throw into this interchange justification for your adding the strength of the coming El Niño into this interchange by suggesting that the coming El Niño will bring “more heat” (true – global temperatures are boosted following an El Niño) and thus “faster melting, faster SLR.”
This latter inference of yours is surely simplistic garbage.
Consider the findings of Mankoff et al (2021) ‘Greenland ice sheet mass balance from 1840 through next week’ which is brought up-to-date in this 2022 CarbonBrief article in a chart ‘Total mass balance and its components 1987-2022 (hydrological year)’ (CarbonBrief don’t provide for hot-URL linking. The chart is third from the bottom.). It is, of course, this total mass balance that impacts SLR.
So here’s a thing.
If you rank those 36 years of total mass balance and compare that ranking with the strength of El Niño (using MEI), we do not find SLR is increased during El Niño years. It is perhaps the opposite. El Niño years see smaller levels of SLR.
I would suggest that it is not me being “dismissive” and “unhelpful” here.
Geoff Miellsays
MA Rodger: – “I would suggest that allowing such a misguided take-away from this discussion is something any science-minded participant should prevent (although it appears such prevention is proving remarkably difficult).”
My take from your comments suggests that people/organisations that I’ve mentioned previously, like Eric Rignot, John Englander, NOAA, and I’ll now add also Kevin Anderson, must also be “misguided” in your view, MA Rodger?
In the YouTube video published on 8 Jun 2023 titled A True Paradise: WHERE WE ARE HEADING – Kevin Anderson, duration 0:16:25, climate scientist Kevin Anderson warns that continuing on our current path could result in a 3-4°C temperature rise by the end of the century, a catastrophic outcome to be avoided at all costs. Kevin Anderson says from time interval 0:02:52 (bold text my emphasis):
“When we think about 3 or 4 degrees Centigrade, let’s be clear: We have no historical precedent in human history for these sorts of temperature changes, and they are occurring overnight, and they don’t just occur across this century. Firstly, we know that things like sea level rise will keep going for hundreds of years after that, and that we are locking-in, absolutely locking-in really high levels of sea level rise, maybe 7, 8 or more metres. So we may only across this century see one or two metres, which will be devastating for many of our coastal cities. And of course, most of the population of the world live near the coast. So that will be devastating for our existing communities. But we are locking-in this devastation for centuries to come, but we are also changing very significantly how we will produce our food, whether we will produce enough food, where will our food be produced, and that’s because we’re changing the complete weather patterns of our society, of our Earth. We’re changing rainfall patterns. We’re changing insect pollination of our crops. So all of this plays out, one disaster after another. So any single one of them we might think, oh, we can resolve, we can deal with that, but when you bring all of these together, occurring almost overnight, you’re talking about the collapse of our modern society. You’re talking about the collapse of most of our sort of emblematic ecosystems. So this is not a future that we should be in any way be, we should be heading towards, and we should be doing everything we can to avoid it. The sad state of affairs is, though, that we’re doing nothing to avoid it. There is plenty of talk, but no action. And what we have to bear in mind is the climate only responds to action. The physics responds to how much carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases we put in the atmosphere. So we can talk about efficiency, we can talk about green growth and all of this stuff. It’s meaningless! What really matters is keeping the emissions out of the atmosphere.” https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o_FtS_HNbkc
Quoting Greenland annual ice loss rankings correlated with ENSO is all very well, but I’ll invoke the disclaimer: “Past performance is no guarantee of future performance.” I’d suggest the overwhelming evidence/data indicates we/humanity are entering new ‘territory’ beyond the experiences any of our species has ever encountered.
Meanwhile, it seems perhaps extensive regions of the Greenland ice sheet are currently enduring ‘heatwave’ (air temperatures above freezing) conditions. See the YouTube video by Jason Box titled How do foehn or chinook winds enhance a north Greenland heatwave?, published 27 Jun 2023, duration 0:09:14. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SXFzkgDJsiw
Barton Paul Levenson,
Perhaps I should have added the adjective “proper” to describe the absence of consideration of melting ice caps by IPCC FAR, SAR, TAR & AR4. AR5 does make good the damage and is a couple of years prior to 2016, thus the “Back before 2016, and before that.”.
You ask for a citation. While the ARs are a mite big for a simple citation, I could respond with the valid reference that it was well-known, but time has marched on. So consider TAR CH11 which managed to project the components of 2100 SLR as follows:-
• thermal expansion of 0.11 to 0.43 m, accelerating through the 21st century;
• a glacier contribution of 0.01 to 0.23 m;
• a Greenland contribution of –0.02 to 0.09 m;
• an Antarctic contribution of –0.17 to 0.02 m.
The TAR ‘central’ estimate’ for total SLR 1990-2100 is +0.49m. The small contributions from the polar ice caps are due to the “improper” modelling. And when models for local SLR were attempted (Fig 11.13 & Table 11.15) they are provided with the comment “Sea level changes due to land ice and water storage are not included.”
MAR: a Greenland contribution of –0.02 to 0.09 m;
an Antarctic contribution of –0.17 to 0.02 m.
BPL: You said “SLR had been treated by the IPCC without consideration for melting ice caps.” You then attempt to refute me by showing me where they considered melting ice caps.
MAR: Given the short but dodgy reply you do make, it is perhaps fitting that you say no more.
BPL: Look, you said the IPCC hadn’t considered polar ice cap melt. Then you listed where they considered polar ice cap melt. If you can’t see the contradiction there, I can’t help you.
Killiansays
Ice dynamics *were not* part of IPCC IV. SLR was, That was 2007. The next IPCC was in 2014. Ice dynamics STILL were not represented and the same 1/3 meter-ish nonsense was trotted out.
Hate to agree with MR given his hyper-reticence in dealing with rates of change and future-looking issues, but they’re right. It was that total lack of ice sheet dynamics in IV that caught my attention and got me started paying real attention to climate issues.
Students and Faculty at Ohio State Respond to a Bill That Would Restrict College Discussions of Climate Policies“You can say gravity isn’t true, but if you step off the cliff, you’re going down,” says climate scientist Katharine Hayhoe about restrictions on teaching.
COLUMBUS, Ohio—Keely Fisher chose to pursue her Ph.D. at Ohio State University because she wanted to learn about climate change from a world-class faculty.
Now one year into her program, she wonders if she belongs here.
The problem has nothing to do with Ohio State and everything to do with the Ohio General Assembly and a proposal that would regulate higher education. The wide-ranging bill includes a provision that designates climate policy as a “controversial belief or policy” and says faculty must “encourage students to reach their own conclusions about all controversial beliefs or policies and shall not seek to inculcate any social, political, or religious point of view.”
The “controversial concepts” specified in the law include “climate policies, electoral politics, foreign policy, diversity, equity, and inclusion programs, immigration policy, marriage, or abortion.”
It looks ugly. I would not take such a university for serious.
But we also say “However bad, it is good for something!” and further “I allways look at the bright side of life”
If it relates to one and only one university in one and only one US- state, and is due to one and only one grand old party in that state, then it is good to know where we have them.
Because, in all autentic temples and Gothic cathedrals, the Devil is also mounted and pictured in a special niche and corner made for him. Else he will spread all over the room and people will look for him and find him everywhere. So by doing it rather the cunning way The obvious official ERROR is allways found somewhere, consciously and cunningly pictured and mounted, in any Masterwork.
This is a very important rule of Mastership. It is also done in order to know where the devil- worshippers will assemble.
Because, ERRARE HVMANVM EST, that is to be remembered.,
Wherefore mankind , not even Masters, should go God into his craft and try and make everything perfect. That will only become Hell.
So we should rather hope and pray that it will remain there, clear enough, so it does not spread out over the very US..
Bye-bye, ASI! Thus spake Zara… er… some climate scientists. Under any and all scenarios, a BOE is gonna happen sometime between now and 2050, with the smart money seeming to sit between 2030 and 2040. Key finding:
My counter? Run the numbers with sub-300 ppm achieved by 2050. What happens then?
Let me repeat myself: There is only one option that meets the risk assessment: Rapid, pervasive simplification. And it’s completely doable. Remember: The longer you wait to solve a problem, the narrower your options become. We’re down to our last option.
Thanks a lot for your objection that should the surface cooling by water evaporation work, we sholuld observe clearly lower average temperatures in heavily irrigated areas like San Joaquín Valley in California, in comparison with nearby deserts located in the same region.
I made a short Google search and it appears that there might be about 120 000 square kilometers of irrigated land in California, and that perhaps about 40 km3 water is annually spent for irrigation,
Should the figures be correct, then an average annual evaporation from the irrigated land in California could be about 333 mm of water column, what roughly corrresponds to latent heat flow 27 W/m2.
The average annual temperature in Palm Springs shall be about 19.9.°C. Provided that it is also the value of the average radiation temperature there, corresponding average longwave radiation flow according to Stefan-Boltzmann law is 417.9 W/m2.
By subtracting 27 W/m2 for the latent heat, we obtain an average annual radiation temperature for “irrigation chilled Palm Springs” 15 °C, 4.9 K lower than the observed annual temperature there.
Annual average temperatures for cities in San Joaquín Valley are not that low,
I found e.g. for Sacramento 16.8 °C. The difference in annual precipitation (217 mm in Palm Springs, 613 mm in Sacramento) is 396 mm, what could roughly correspond the difference in evaporation that may be ascribed to irrigation, whereas we still observe only ca 3 K difference in average annual temperature instead of the expected 5 K. Moreover, Sacramento is located significantly more northern than Palm Springs and supposedly has also commensurately less sunshine.
I hope there might be studies analyzing the influence of irrigation on average temperatures in California in detail. If so, I believe these studies also clarify in which extent the increased irrigation increased the average absolute humidity in irigated areas. Such studies could also clarify in which extent the enhanced greenhouse effect of water vapour actually “cancelled” the surface cooling caused by evaporation.
Perhaps could the moderators help and give us a hint towards such a study?
Many thanks for these references. I believe that both of them provide a piece of valuable evidence that you, JCM as well as those scientists across the world who express their concern that human interventions into the water cycle have contributed to the observed climate change, may be right.
In this regard, I appreciate all contributions made in the present discussion, because I believe that despite of frequent disaccord, the ongoing debate already clarified* at least one point, namely that
(i) contrary to frequently spread misinformation that latent heat flow from the Earth surface cannot play a role in global climate because the condensation heat released in the atmosphere allegedly “stays in the system”, water cycle is in fact one of essential elements of Earth climate regulation, because
(ib) the average global annual latent heat flow defined by global annual precipitation does represent a significant part of the global Earth energy budget.
There is still an ongoing argument whether or not we indeed contributed to the climate change by prior changes made in the water cycle, and, if so, whether or not we can / should repair the possible damages. I still hope we will learn more also in in this respect. Let us continue step-by-step.
*unfortunately, I just noted that we have not convinced zebra yet
that despite of the greenhouse properties of water vapour, cooling effects of water evaporation on both the local as well as the global scale are real and significant.
Perhaps the references you provided change his opinion.
patrick o twentysevensays
I think I can provide a bottom-line outline of this:
OLR (LW flux to Space at TOA) is the only significant outflow of energy from the climate system, and it is thermal radiation, thus dependent on temperature. So if we hold H2O, clouds, snow, vegetation, etc., constant, generally, any cooling in any location at or above the surface must be compensated by some warming – could be at a different place, time, or vertical level, in order to maintain energy balance (balanced fluxes at TOA) in the global-time average. Ie./eg. forced enhanced convective cooling (eg., by irrigation) can have a local cooling effect, which reduces net radiant cooling at that location; the extra convective flux heats some other location, so that net radiant cooling at this warmed location balances it.
Caveats and exceptions: The average Temperature change needn’t be 0, because OLR is more sensitive to temperature changes at some heights and conditions (atmospheric H2O, clouds, baseline temperature) than others. Which leads to the exception – changes in Temp that are completely hidden from above in the LW (eg. under a sufficient cloud layer) do not require compensatory changes at other locations – although there is the matter of where the extra convective fluxes add up.
Hence, I would guess, if you are irrigating and it is not overcast skies, whether this achieves net/average surface cooling depends either on whether you can get more cloud cover – in particular, low-level clouds that tend to have a stronger solar albedo effect than a greenhouse effect, such that upper level warming needn’t happen, or whether lower-level humidity, or upper level warming does not wipe out the surface cooling via enhanced greenhouse effect (I would guess the upper level warming would tend to add more H2O at upper levels and increase/raise upper level clouds (higher clouds are more effective at reducing OLR than lower level clouds, typically – because they are colder).
None of which is at odds with extreme heat waves become more extreme due to drying, or wet surfaces having reduced temperature increases over the daytime heating, etc.
patrick o twentysevensays
“Which leads to the exception – changes in Temp that are completely hidden from above in the LW (eg. under a sufficient cloud layer) do not require compensatory changes at other locations ” – well, maybe not quite; a colder surface radiates less flux upward into the overlying humidity and clouds, etc., having a cooling effect on them; in particular the cloud base would cool. The extent to which this is transferred to the top of a cloud depends on whether the cloud is relatively thin and whether it is in a convecting layer.
patrick o twentysevensays
I think I messed that up a bit. For simplicity we could start with the assumption that all changes in fluxes are balanced in the same vertical column. In the case that irrigative-enhanced convective cooling occurs under clouds, I imagine the same total net upward LH+SH+LW radiant flux could occur up to cloud level (with from Temp-dependent radiant+SH flux to Temp+other LH fluxes), so that the cloud level recieves the same flux and doesn’t cool, and OLR is unchanged without any warming to balance cooling at the surface, setting aside changes in cloud base?, H2O, etc… Then if we have horizontal advection on top of that, the cloud level may cool locally while warming balances that at some horizontal, possible temporal remove… Etc.
patrick o twentysevensays
Correction: – although there is the matter of where the extra convective fluxes end up.
I would not lean towards depending on irrigation/water management as a major climate mitigation strategy (H2O resource, other land use needs, and potential climate side-effects eg. shifting monsoons, storm tracks? severe thunderstorms (are you creating drylines?) etc.), but maybe it could help marginally. And of course irrigation is important to food production, but we need to conserve water – but solar-powered reverse osmosis – but expense… And of course, let’s try to preserve our wetlands and manage H2O resources to prevent floods and get through droughts…
Maybe in the future we could use models to optimize irrigation and wind turbine use, etc., to avoid increasing cloud cover over solar panels when the wind is light or the birds are in flight and electricity demand will be high, or modulate wind turbine usage to … bring the rain into the hydroelectric reservoirs etc., bearing in mind the interaction between energy demand, supply, and weather. – or the benefit might be too small to justify the effort?
I don’t think it makes sense to irrigate the Sahara desert to cool it off, unless we’re planning on having a bunch of people live and farm there – although if you’re creating brine pools to mine Li and Mg and … Okay… It may make more sense to use night-cooling and thermal storage to keep solar cells cool for their efficiency(?), except wherein the can be combined with water preheating for use in buildings/etc.
Also: CO2, in addition to being a greenhouse gas, absorbing some solar radiation, and altering seawater chemistry, also has a direct effect on transpiration, by allowing plants to breathe it in with less H2O loss – which also allows plants to grow in dryer conditions and higher elevations, I think … and has a surface heating effect, unless the soil just stays that much wetter, although leaves may have a surface area and height advantage… of course I think this affects different plant species differently.
I must answer here because the coloumn above gets too thin.
Your conscepts of “turbulent convection” and “latent flux” with so fine and profressional words, does rather betray unawareness of what it is about, and in the same way hiding elementary and trivial reality for yourself and for everyone.
Kalisz may be excused for being Polish. Seemingly with better anchoring in facultary educative diciplines.
. Being an amateur does not allow one to commit class tribal and racial stuggle and civil war against due higher formation.
Permit me to suggest Cumulonimbus rain and hailstorms with thunder, that is even electric convection with turbo if large enough. but why not simply a thunderstorm? or Burza z piorunami in polish. And specified in Latin LATIN for understanding worldwide. , as “Cumulonimbus” a majestetic word..
Thomas Kalisz at least may get it better if I start discussing “hvite blomkålskyer med tordenvær”, “Oskväder” in Swedish.
But what about “Rassabøyer”? That are quite dangerous under sail. It means dangerously strong and unpredictable gusts of wind at sea, obviously turbulent..
All theese things are “solar”. in combination with BIG BANG, namely the chill of space and the chill of dark night with solar right on…. where the air ecomes thin and the sky more dark blue.,
The chill of space, not of the north pole that would have melted long atgo by all that warmth, and is too far away from it to have any effect, whereas “BIG BANG! is there rather locally everywhere, and begins just 12 Km right above your head..
The chill of space cools the turbo- hot steam-thermo- dynamic engines as their necessary condenser to lower the pressure again and to re- cycle the water, in order for the weathers to run on and on and on—- .
.The largest of all in that turbo- convective and – electric latent heat flux – verticle class with turbo is the tropical hurricanes,
The tropical hurricanes with a hole in the middle of the turbine are having snow- hurricanes on the wide and flat top of it even with the sun right in zenith with hardly with any sunscreening
That Turbgo cooling and sundriven air- conditioning system .cools the earth especially efficiently over very large areas, bringing down bitties and barrels of ice cooled water right from the condenser when the sun has heated long enough. .
I have seen it fror myself. All the water is flying in the air. All smasll pools are blown emply, Crocodiles and rattlesnakes may be flying in the air together with roofs and chimneys. Cars are blown to sea and large ships on land. High voltage networks are blown out like spiderspin, even asphhaslt is blown in flakes off from the roads and into the bushes
But the strongest Turbo convective tubular cooling things is found to be the tornadoes.
Why not mention that instead Hr. Kalisz, so people could judge it critically and cunningly from their own experience especially over there in the states?
Aerophotos of it afterwards that I have seen, show clear evidence of Turbo convection ., longt and lartge stripes of just milled rubbish as if a very large and strongly motorized , turbo-rotating cutting and milling device has made its way through the US sub-urban settlements.
Why not rather tell what turbulent and cooling convection really is?. , The fameous convective and turbulent dust- devils, for instance We calol it ,Skypumpe- sky- pumps.
Even obviously tubular covective turbo in some cases, that are driven by solar heated hot air and steam when the sun has warmed the ground and the sea long enough and there is also chill enough on the other end for condensation, to keep it going.
It may happen more ofrten in Polen that is a bit warmer allthough not so moist. In Norway we only have it in the south and on the coast, in the summer warmth. An imjportant premise known especially from the USA is chill in the heighth for especially steep and dangerous vertical temperature gradient.
That also repeats in the fameous small strong sudden and dangerous arctic hurricanes in the winter.
Where, still summer warm and vapouring seawater is coming in under deep polar night chill in the air. They occur in winter near to the polar sea ice edge and are especially unpredictable.
All theese things , Cumulonimbus, Tornados and Skypumpe, Tropical and polar hurricanes work by sucking up hot water vapour near to the ground and at sea, that goes up vertical by turbo- convective forces, and are getting cooled and condensed by BIG BANG namely the chill of space, at the top. And return icy water and even hails in bitties to cool down the sea and the landscape. Fisherboats in the arctic night may suddenly be blown full of rapidly freezing seawater. and capsize from that sudden heavy weight over deck and in the rig..
As in Antarktis, when all the penguins lay down flat on the ground with all the beaks pointging in one way and tail the other way, , all the people will also know where it will come from.
Old houses on those shores in that extreemly dry climate are strongly sand- blasted eroded after 50-100 years. As Antarktis also have fierceful subpolar hurricanes.
It cools the earth it cools the sea, and recycles the water, solar driven by turbo convection and latent heat flux.
But, you can hardly accellerate and improove this allready natural, latent heat turbo-convectional cooling and airconditioning system by spraying scarce riverwater and groundwater against desertification and global warming.
Better find Gavin Schmidts fameous turning knob on the global airconditioning turboconvectional tubular device, , and try and operate on that, if you whish a better climate and a better understanding of it.
JCMsays
“natural, latent heat turbo-convectional cooling”
This is progress. Not necessarily cooling more generally, but of an active constraint member in the non-equilibrium steady-state.
Latent heat cannot flux you see, then it is not latent anymore.
I find it very hard to believe that the IPCC and the NASA GISS has not understood and integrated /”modeled” that of phase- transition- entropies and of solar- driven and radiator- cooled PdV-energies in the air.
It is public school pensum on the bathing weathers and daily thunderstorms for me. Ask Rasmus benestad, he is from the bible belt next by wher such things must be grasped. And what about the trade- winds. We would have starved wityhout them.
It is quite much easier to believe that you and the turbo diesel adiabatic lapserate compression with vertical even latent turbo- flux pumping and airconditionintg – cooling argument….
……. is a systematic propaganda from qvasi- scientific and sponsored side on Frank Lunz recommendation against any kind of historical responsibility and guilt for Big Coal and Big Oil by that Grand old Party with P. both west and east……
as you also officially find peoples fascination with the CO2- radiative argument “awesome”.
Your troubble is that there would be no vertical dieseling, cooling and even strong turbo pumping without that radiative interferece of natural, oligo atomic gases with dis- continuous spectra.
Class warfare, Racial and political civil war against this is the flaw of Hans Jelbring & al`s “Atmosfäriska effekten” argument.
That engine cannot diesel and and even turbo- pump heat adiabatically in tubes.,….. without any CO2- Katalysator in it, namely the greenhous gases mixet as catalysators into the air in order to make it f moove, cycle and re- cycle,. , turbo, and pump.
It is Tubal Thermo- dynamics turbo- convectional air condition with Katalysator, solar driven, quantum mechanical and cooled with Uranos directly on the Radiator, you see.
That is what you have to deny and ridicule and better improove in your way..
That takes more than just membership background and blind belief in the scriptures where the earth is flat and air is but a particular, dry material classical mechanical and political sandstorm,
PS By the way, how do you draw out your cash? I just wonder. DS.
.
JCMsays
“hard to believe…..has not….integrated /”modeled” that of phase- transition- entropies”
To all and everyone
about PdV electric turbo engines in the air
I forgot to mention that it is Tor with his hammer in his warrior waggon driven by Ram- Bucks … rolling over the situalion and through the heavens in his obvious and convincing also turbulent way.
and even Zevs with up to 6 teravolt turboelectric sparks, beat that.
Tesla did remain way behind. .
zebrasays
zebra’s denialist troll test
They never answer questions.
I don’t usually spend as much time on these people as I have with Tomas, but I thought it would be a good illustration of that observation, which I have brought up many times. What I find interesting is how similar they all are in presentation, despite variations in specifics and accent. Sometimes I think there is a genius/dumb AI producing sock-puppets… it does individual personalities great, but it can’t produce arguments that don’t obviously defy the laws of physics, and uses the same rhetorical/logical fallacies over and over.
Is Tomas going to be the new Victor? It’s up to you to decide.
But I do have a real question. Where did the absurd water-cycle meme come from in the first place?? Did someone decide that it would be fun to drive scientists crazy, proposing to solve the GHG problem… by increasing GHG? Who thinks these things up?
Perhaps the cooling effect is not as high as suggest the simplest calculations by subtracting the corresponding latent heat flow from the average radiative heat flow from the same land without irrigation, but it still seems to work decently.
Therefore, if you see irrigation as an attempt to decrease surface temperature by increasing the greenhouse effect, you offer a conundrum that I cannot resolve. I simply do not know why irrigation does work when it should not. The only thing that comes to my mind is that you perhaps too much rely on certain assumptions that may not be fulfilled in the specific case under consideration.
For example (I already mentioned it in connection to my comparison of latent heat transfer in the atmosphere with latent heat transfer in technical cooling elements called “heat pipes”), isn´t it possible that if we have another heat transfer mechanism that is under chosen conditions much more powerful than radiation, we do not need to care about radiation anymore?
Maybe I know the Polacs better. We are neighbours. They are experinced, reliable, they come and they are very good at work. They are not snobbish. But there are exeptions also in Polen namely the old comrades. . Hr Kalisz is hardly one of them.
Genosse Schürle is more of that religious heritage from old Dresden, Ljeningrad and Greifswald Arbeiter und Bauernfakultät.
King Donald Grozny also showed to be an inaugurated national socialist ultraleftist young pioneer from the progressive STASI- career- training camp.
I try all the time to take them by ideological and technical archaeology as I am aquained from Early Music, on who learnt what from whom, who had whoom for his / her GURU prophet and professor of systematics. craft and behaviours. And find that denialism here where I live the so called “climate- realists” do have obvious roots back in the LENIN STALIN progressive QVISLING- Mussolini- order and state religion.
Who later assembled (due to political opportunism) through the Grand old National Socialist labour Union Party that took up all those elements. .. They later became the failed pioneers and trained KADRE and teacher- class, who lost their military backing as the wall fell down in Berlin.
(SIC TRANSCIT GLORIA MVNDI!)
They were frired and unemployed and took stray jobs on arbitrary denialism and surrealism but the antivaxine and climateb denial moovement could largerly employ and give themj new hope again.
They have now tended strongly to become populists for a while..
When I am writing “Genosse”, then I am insinuating that state religious background.
The grandchildren of the old genossers systematically became “Populists” and climate- denialists that could be cheaply employed for the republican war on science. They are “The intellectuals of the left” from the GDR- missionary school class in the provinces worldwide.. Today maybe even Puttlers advocates.
But this may even be too provincial and special. So a deeper hypothesis is that they are , the autentic Trolls and “Orcs” by Blood! and pure race, who can take service wherever needed. It is due to Mendels laws of heritage, the fathers sins that is inherited and shows up again in 3rd and 4th generation., namely Old surrealism and irresponsible clueless fucking of that class.
The results of such old sins is bought up very cheaply, and worth gold for the MAFIA due to their political Cadaver- diciplinary training, to the revolution that did not come.
Here in Norway that “class” or Blood was deeply frustrated as Gro Harlem Brundtland took over the grand old Party with P and suddenly demanded higher education without cheating, for possible advancement to the high- grades in that special Party with P (Kalisz will know which Party with P, , the grand old one)
. Gro H.Brundtland came from the faculoty of medicine of The Royal Frederiks. She was orderly educated and examined and founded the IPCC. as a synthesis of UNEP and WMO.
She Understood Roger Revelle and James Hansen from NASA GISS because she felt no need to refuse, deny and to fight the Apollo- landings.
Victor is more a trained populist and Orc of the Puttler/ Trump KGB-STASI class order, whereas Thomas Kalisz is not, he shows rather clear, polish syntax, manners, and grammars.
To check up people wherther they are autentic, I have also asked them for uranological events such as sun and moon and major planets as seen from their global standpoint. And on behalf of of myself “Now it is 11 PM and deep azur blue sky, rosy red all over in northwest and hardly with stars.”
JCMsays
This is an entho-centric political perspective. First one must appreciate what is happening beneath our feet. It is from there which the policy-makers can be informed more adequately. The urban populations know only asphalt.
also up in the sky and the starry heavens. See the difference of Cumulus and Scirrus, woolen or feathery clouds, that is liquid water droplet fogs different from solid icy cristal smokes., having different electrostatic properties.
and for asphalt, there you are misconsceived again. They are having huge bandages on their hind paws and walk only on vinyl that is industrially flattened for them. Asphalt is rather pleasant walking barefoot if not too hot. Offroad is better.
Shoes and boots yes or no, that is what makes the major difference. With shoes boots and sandals on, people do not watch their steps anymore.
patrick o twentysevensays
What the ____?
Yes, DNA goes into making a person. And epigenetics, which I do not much about. And the biochemistry of the womb, etc. And the environment after birth – which includes other people, their cultures and personalities, parenting obviously, economic situation, … and nutrition, pollution, pollen, weather, and media – TV, books, etc. (ultimately other people, but also pictures of trees n’ stuff) – of course these are not all independent factors but anyway -, and their own decisions, which ultimately have exterior causes, of course, but it is important to note that a baby changes the course of their own life whenever they turn their head and see something they would have otherwise missed. There’s some systematic/predictable stuff but a lot of stochastic stuff in there as well.
It is a core part of bigotry to assume the aspects of a group – real or imagined – apply to an individual.
If you are attempting to mock the racism of others, it is not clear that this is the case; best leave that level of political comedy to the experts
PS betraying one’s own – often otherwise known as transcendence
enlightenment
being a hero
patrick o twentysevensays
I was alluding to the accusation of “traitor to your kind” sometimes hurled at the hero by the villain. Of course, the hero in actuality may not be betraying any one; the villain just (chooses to) see it that way.
And by weather, I didn’t mean it the way Aristotle did. I meant things like somewhat might be inspired to be an artist, scientist, etc. upon observing an awesome thunderstorm.
…Likewise, consider the joy of seeing swallows performing their stunts, swooping low over the ground, corkscrewing down and doing figure 8s ’round others at high speed, etc.
I must add here that I may have been told Le Chateliersprinciple wrong.
I checked up Wikipedia, , and hardly learnt it especially as “Le chateliers law” on phase equilibria before, That seems to be the original version.
But it is given quite in general in my pensa many times as::
“If, in a system of complex , stable eqvilibrium determined by many parameters, one of the parameters is mooved to bring it out of eqvilibrium, the other determining variable will react and moove in a direction such as to re- store the stable eqvilibrium!”
This fameous principle seems quite universal and appliciable to any stable and dynamic systems, at stable equilibrium, wherefore it is so practical and useful, and wherefrore I have found it mentioned and used in the litterature arguments and in the laboratory on so many different places.
For instance on complex wave mechanical -morphological systems in musical wind instruments (organology) where stability soundcolour and intonnation- pitch must be kept and tuned together for fine artistic musical purposes. One finds le Chateliers principle all the way in the complex and consonant, integrated orchestra
I could write on behalf of science that : “Roses of timeless wisdom does not ask the faculty of fine arts where to grow!” which was appreciated.
Then further in complex machinery with viscous, mechanical, and thermodynamic systems and eqvilibria, and in the chemical glasses. .
In meteorology and climatology of course, you will find yourself better equipped having Le Chateliers principle in mind, that will protect your thoughts and your soul, and helps you from thinking and performing mono- causal surrealistic like a blind flat earther and believer and desert walker all the time, who is chasing Fata Morgana in the horizons. . Maybe even against drunken sailors who are advocating bushfires in our days for better pissing and to save the earth..
One could surely derive Newtons and Kepplers laws from it also.
Le Chateliers principle seems to have been known worldwide by wise men and women, at any time everywhere.
..Thus it is timeless wisdom that you should secure for your engineering and philosophical toolbox. It disqualifies the alternative and false beliefs and speculations.. .
Also in politics, provided that complex stable and dynamic eqvilibria should be acheived or can be found even there.
nigeljsays
Thomas, your scheme to cool the climate by promoting extra irrigation and thus evaporation and the consequent release of energy from condensation when it rains is completely hopeless Ejecting all that extra water vapour into the atmosphere causes a greenhouse warming effect, and latent heat release of condensation ADDS to the warming and most of that happens at the middle and lower atmosphere . . Only a little bit of rain is caused very high up with cirrus (?) clouds such that the heat of condensation might escape to space via exciting CO2 molecules. This is outweighed by the extra heat retained.
And the scheme would require massive levels of irrigation draining rivers and aquifers already over used. Its a hopeless idea. I’m a lay person, but its intuitively obvious and I would bet serious money on being right about this.
I think Zebras right. Some of these water cycle advocates are cranks, and probably have links to the fossil fuels industry.
JCMsays
“caused very high up with cirrus (?) clouds such that the heat of condensation might escape to space via exciting CO2 molecules.”
Again, avoid teaching when you fail to understand things. It is childishy ape- manners. Children cannot understand what the teacher teaches so they ape after their teacher and begin to teach wildly.
C0ndensation heat is reality. Permanence of energy and heat is reality, so when heat is released in clouds formation high or low, where shall it go?
and you teach that this is non- sense.
Instead of telling the accute truth, which could be “I do not understand this elementary physics either.”
Manners in school, manners first in the classroo0m you see.
JCMsays
It seems rather self evident there is no need for the various phases of atmospheric H20 emission agents to be exciting CO2 molecules in order to dispatch energy to space. The condensate has a particular advantage for it emits continuous spectra. If trace gas were to be the only available emission agents the Earth would be a very hot place indeed. That increasing trace gas, along with their relatively ineffective power of emission, must have a warming influence is not in dispute. However, I see no reason to speculate that trace gases are the only contributors to OLR. It has been my understanding that the bulk of emission is in fact outside the CO2 band(s). This is a critical component of the non-equilibrium steady-state condition.
Yes, I also tend to think so., that at least some of these water cycle advocates are the Devils Cadavre- diciplinary advocates obeying under their owner in all respects and into minute details, furthering the sales promotions of progressive racial Monopoly Capitalism, Big Oil and Big Coal on the free market.
patrick o twentysevensays
The convective lapse rate is globally-complicated, but in a 1-D model at least, a switch to a moist adiabat at a lower level (if Temp. is unchanged below) will cause warming above that over the depth of the troposphere above – it will approach a dry adiabat up high but it will be a different (shifted to higher T) dry adiabat.
I chimed in on this conversation partly because I noticed some errors being made about latent heating not being able to be balanced by radiant cooling within the troposphere. Yes, denialists have argued as if convection were some magic that would just whisk heat away to nowhere, but this isn’t that. It’s a bit like the negative lapse rate feedback to global warming, but in this case the convective lapse rate change, if necessary? (see next sentence), is being forced by surface wetting, so the cloud and H2O effects may be different. I’ve gotten the sense that enhanced albedo via more cloud cover (I presume lower clouds?) may have some tendency to win out over enhanced greenhouse effect.
That being said, there is a risk of side effects, etc. – modelling could mitigate that, but also H2O resource concerns – we may need to irrigate even more in the future but we’ll need to be smart about it … Irrigating the Sahara doesn’t make much sense – maybe it would be harmful even not considering local etc… (Saharan dust fertilizes the Amazon basin, doesn’t it? …) – I mostly agree…
(allowing possibly a marginal role – but watch out for the heat index/wet-bulb temp, of course – although the albedo… etc.)
… that irrigative cooling shouldn’t be relied upon as a major part of climate change mitigation.
patrick o twentysevensays
Oops, I meant there would be a lapse rate change to balance surface cooling with upper-level warming to keep up the OLR (unless there is surface warming elsewhere) but with cooling over-all due to albedo increase (or maybe irrigation were limited to cloudy conditions(?), which would be a bit odd.)
It’s good to see on the webpage you link-tosomebody else plotting the year-on-year Antarctic SIE anomaly (so without the big annual cycle). Of course it shows 2023 running along for most of the year as “lowest for this time of year”. The ‘hitting’ actually occurred on Boxing Day last year with 120 of the 167 days since then being “lowest for this time of year” (those other 47 days with 2023 being either in second place or equal-second place).
Abstract. “By influencing the circumpolar westerly winds, the stratospheric polar vortex has played a major role in the Antarctic surface climate in recent decades. However, the footprint of the polar vortex variability in the year-to-year changes of the Antarctic sea ice cover remains obscured. Here, we combine satellite retrievals and reanalysis data to study the response of the sea ice extent around Antarctica to changes in the polar vortex strength. We focused on the last two decades that have seen sharp changes in the stratospheric zonal flow, the tropospheric westerly winds, and the sea ice cover (the latter climbed to record highs in 2013 and 2014 before dropping to record lows in 2017 and 2022). We found that this unprecedented interannual variability has been noticeably influenced by the polar vortex dynamics. The signature of the stratosphere-troposphere coupling is apparent on recent all-time records (highs and lows) in the sea ice around Antarctica.”
nigeljsays
Macias Shurly (7 June) said
“ms: — Our GranMaster Dr. Gavin Schmidt says: The warming potential of water vapor is ~50%, for clouds ~25%, // for CO2 19% and for all other greenhouse gases ~6% of the total GHE (~160W/m²) * 75% = ~120W/m².”
“In contrast, the cooling effect at the surface of evapotranspiration is ~ -86W/m² and that of clouds ~ -47W/m². The water cycle thus has a net cooling effect of ~ -13W/m².”
“By this net balance, the earth is a water-cooled planet – whether you like it or not.”
Its good that MS has done some analysis and some math. But can someone with some applicable expertise please CHECK what MS posted?
JCMsays
“can someone with some applicable expertise please CHECK”
lol.
Piotrsays
nigel: ” can someone with some applicable expertise please CHECK”
M. Shurly: “Dr. Gavin Schmidt says: The warming potential of water vapor is ~50%, for clouds ~25%, // for CO2 19% and for all other greenhouse gases ~6% of the total GHE (~160W/m²) * 75% = ~120W/m²; cooling by clouds [albedo] ~ -47W/m²
But then Shurly subtracts these from some unidentified source evapotranspiration ~ -86W/m²””
This number is not from Gavin’s paper (no “evapotranspiration”, “86” or “85” there). I presume that Shurly took it from a value of evapotranspiration from some radiative budget. And this is the problem:
– Gavin’s numbers are the NET fluxes: difference between emitted by Earth and escaped into space.
– Shurly’s evapotranspiration is a GROSS flux – the 86W/m² of removed from Earth. WITHOUT subtraction of the majority of that 86W/m² that is reemitted back toward the Earth, thus does not cool the Earth
Let see if it makes a difference – from Trenberth radiative balance we get: 531(= 78+80+17+356) W/m²absorbed by atmosphere, of which 333W/m² is radiated back toward Earth surface. This means that on average only 1/3 of the heat absorbed by atm. is emitted into space.
Now let’s see what it does to Shurly’s calculation of the Net GH by water:
Makes a bit of difference, to the conclusions, doesn’t it?
Shurly: “The water cycle thus has a net cooling effect of -13W/m²”
Reality: “The water cycle thus has a net WARMING effect of +44 W/m²”
Shurly: “The earth is a water-cooled planet – whether you like it or not ”
Reality: “The Earth is a water-HEATED planet (3 times MORE heated, than
Shurly’s cooling) whether you like it or not.”
So thanks to MS, I was able to kill 3 birds with a single stone:
1. Macias Shurly – by proving his calculations wrong, and by putting his self-assured claim: “The earth is a water-cooled planet – whether you like it or not” on its head.
2. Tomas Kalisz – by proving that his plan for massive evaporation – instead of cooling, would cause (much larger) net warming of the Earth instead.
3. JCM – by cutting him down to size, after he arrogantly replied to Nigel:
Nigel: “can someone with some applicable expertise please CHECK what MS posted”
JCM: “lol”
Surface net radiation = Surface total radiation – surface emitted radiation
98 = 494 – 396
Surface net radiation = H + LE + surface storage.
98 = 17 + 80 + (1).
Following the slab two stream radiative approximation, as illustrated in Hartmann 1994 text Figure 2.3 and various other conceptual diagrams:
Surface total radiation = 2 x OLR
494 = 2 x 239 + (16)
Notice this value in the residual 16 is matching the magnitude of the sensible heat.
Without the heating flux H, atmosphere appears to match radiative two stream closely, with also the net radiative surplus +1 into the surface.
In my interpretation that residual surface heating flux H is unlike the net negative LW radiative and latent moistening surface flux agents.
H isn’t going much of anywhere outside the boundary layer is my read.
As for the atmospheric absorbed radiation, again from the slab two stream radiative regime.
The atmospheric absorbed radiation = 3/2 x OLR
Atmospheric absorbed radiation = 3/2 x (239) = 358.5
Trenberth is listing a 356 for these radiative exchanges. Pretty close.
And the relationship between the LE and the transmitted flux in the current state of affairs:
The transmitted flux = 1/2 OLR – LE
The transmitted flux = 0.5 (239) – 80 = 39.5
Trenberth is listing 40 for this value.
Holding all else constant, 1 unit more LE corresponds to 1 unit less surface radiative transmission.
A change in the average rate of evapotranspiration must, however, change the proportion of H, change the air temperature down here, and change the radiative surface emission temperature.
In my estimation at this time there should be no anticipated surplus LW radiative effect from an increase in the rate of evapotranspiration.
Additionally, H has been somehow mischaracterized I think, and one doesn’t seem to need a special longwave cloud radiative effect. Cloud is fitting into the standard two-stream just fine without special LW consideration.
In a true unperturbed non-equilibrium steady state there is no heating or cooling influence by any of these mechanisms, so it is a poor mental framework to begin with. The freedom of agents is constrained against one another in maximum tension.
ms: — (1/3)*86W/m² is probably the idiot-piotr factor, because even if you don’t know anything…you always have to say something.
According to dr Gavin Schmidt – GHE (H2O) = ~ 120W/m² !
Why are you double-subtracting another amount for the GHE on the right-hand side of the equation? !!! These are the cooling energy fluxes – you sleeping pill.
!!! So remember !!! on the left the warming GHE of H2O +120 —> on the right the cooling effect of evaporation -86 and cloud albedo -47 = ~ -13W/m². This is the net balance.
In addition, you and the other noisy desert lurkers here have apparently still not noticed that additional evaporation on land surfaces correspondingly reduces the values for LW up surface & sensible heat and thus also decreases LW down surface.
You haven’t even begun to understand how a greenhouse gas is quantitatively defined.
Roughly speaking, it is the absolute amount of greenhouse gas, its ability to absorb a wide range of long-wave bands of radiation and its residence time in the atmosphere that determine the strength of a greenhouse gas.
In the case of H2O, it is the total volume of currently 12-13000km³ in the atmosphere that has been in the atmosphere since the oceans formed ~ 3 billion years ago. Less in ice ages – more in hot periods.
Now if you add smaller amounts of evaporation from irrigation, like currently ~1025km³ per year, these amounts of water vapor only have a residence time of ~9-10 days – and thus a negligibly small GHE.
In addition, the discussed IPCC graph still tells us that current irrigation of 1025km³/y and the resulting cloud albedo has a cooling effect of ~ -0.15°C. Unfortunately, what the graph does not tell us is the warming effect of man-made evaporation losses, which I calculate and estimate at ~ 6-7000km³/y (~ +0.9°C) since 1950.
Maybe you should share your phenomenal 1/3 findings with a nice letter to the IPCC, so that I can finally have my peace of mind.
Anyone who throws stones at birds has not yet completed their puberty. Calculating, provings and down size of other persons are apparently not exactly your parade disciplines either. — XXXS across the board.
In my understanding, the article simply takes the difference in black body radiation flow 155 W/m2 that corresponds according to Stefan-Boltzmann law to observed difference 33 K between the observed mean surface temperature of Earth (15 °C) and calculated mean surface temperature without atmosphere (- 18 °C), and strives to formally distribute this value between various “greenhouse agents”.
Please note that in this approach, all non-radiative energy flows (approximately 100 W/m2, if we count both latent as well as the sensible heat) are already included among these “greenhouse agents”.
I suppose that the observed value characterizing the greenhouse effect would have been, actually, significantly higher than observed 33 K if there were no non-radiative heat fluxes at all. Thus, the non-radiative flows are already subtracted from the actual greenhouse effect. In other words, Gavin et all simplify the real situation by assuming that there is radiative energy transfer ONLY, and then formally ascribe the observed temperature difference to real “greenhouse agents”.
I am afraid that this approach cannot bring the sought clue to the question if an isothermal increase in water cycle intensity will cool the Earth as assumed by me, macias and JCM, or warm it, as assumed by our opponents.
2) As regards the relationship between water cycle and the latent heat flow in Trenberth’s diagrams for global energy budget, I still think that Piotr may be mislead.
and consider that evaporation of 12.5 mm water column requires annual heat flow 1 W/m2, we get latent heat flow 79 W/m2 fitting well with published diagrams. Herein, I should correct myself – the 130 000 km3 mentioned by macias is certainly not the volume of global annual precipitation, because for 990 mm, the annual global precipitation will amount ca 504 000 000 km3. I think that the 130 000 km3 was rather the amount of annual precipitation on the land that does fit with macias’ data, wherein the latent heat flux is 86 W/m2.
Irrespective of uncertainties in the values of the global rainfall, I think these are one of a few relatively fixed points that may help us to progress further in the present debate. I think so because all the water that fell down from the sky
– had to evaporate previously and
– would have not condensed if it had not lost its latent heat.
I have not tried to calculate how much the condensation of 500 000 000 km3 water would have heated the atmosphere if the released heat were not radiated out in the space. I think it is basically unnecessary, because if the latent heat comprised in the vapour could not be released, all this water vapour would have never condensed nor precipitated and would have actually stayed in the atmosphere instead.
I therefore suppose that Piotr’s objection (that we should consider the back-radiation of a significant part of the condensation heat towards the Earth surface) is in fact unsubstantiated, and that all this ping-pong between upwelling and downwelling radiation is already more-less correctly included in diagrams showing the “energy budget”.
3) As regards Claudius Clapeyron equation
I admit that although I am physical chemist by education, I have never studied non-equilibrium thermodynamics and do not know if the validity of this equation can be somehow extended to non-equilibrium systems, as supposed by Carbomontanus. Honestly, I rather tend to agree with macias who assumes that from the viewpoint of classical thermodynamics, the Earth is a non-equilibrium system, and that extending laws derived for the equilibrium systems to the entire Earth may be tricky.
4) To the exchange between macias and Barton Paul
BPL: “you post things like less water vapor in the atmosphere causing a temperature increase”
I think that Barton Paul misinterpreted what macias strived to communicate, due to an incorrect assumption that water content in the atmosphere must be commensurate to evaporation intensity. There is, however, no such simple relationship, because water condenses and precipitates. As macias mentioned, global annual evaporation (and precipitation) is about 500 000 000 km3, whereas the mean water amount in form of atmospheric vapour is about 13 000 km3 only.
I do not think there is a principal rule preventing the Earth from changing the global annual precipitation value of 500 000 000 km3; it is in my opinion just the present value. Of course it may change with changing mean surface temperature, but I strived to show that it can change also in an isothermal regime.
In other words, even when the surface temperature stays constant, you can change these 500 000 000 km3 of annual precipitation significantly, if you will turn Earths 13000 km3 of atmospheric vapour around more quickly or more slowly.
5) Remark regarding geoengineering
Production of non-condensing greenhouse gases is no way the sole geoengineering experiment the humankind is running. In the industrial era, we can mention e.g. production of sulfate aerosols or production of compounds depleting the ozone layer.
The longest human geoengineering experiment is, however, introduction of agriculture, urbanization and huge changes in Earth water regime related thereto. I think that the efforts exhibited by macias and JCM who tirelessly strive to show the importance of this fact deserve not only attention but also respect.
I would like to add that neither macias, nor JCM, nor me proposed to deal with water cycle repair INSTEAD of mitigation of the greenhouse effect, as incorrectly assumed by Piotr
I am aware that even merely asking publicly relevant questions can be harmful or even deadly in certain extreme situations. An example can be e.g. disclosure of secrets important for defence or other vital interests of the democratic society, but I believe that there is no such threat in the present discussion.
I think that the only prevention against serving as a useful idiot is a good understanding to what is actually going on. In this sense, I thereforre think that asking questions, wherever one sees or feels discrepancies in the publicly accepted picture, may be helpful.
I believe that if my questions are mislead, the faults can be explained and corrected. I do not see any particular harm that might arise from such procedure, rather oppositely. I think that our debate already showed that some seemingly clear things are in fact more complex and hope that a further thorough discussion may improve my understanding further.
ms: it is the absolute amount of greenhouse gas, its ability to absorb a wide range of long-wave bands of radiation and its residence time in the atmosphere that determine the strength of a greenhouse gas.
BPL: The first two are correct, the third is not. The strength of a greenhouse gas doesn’t depend on its residence time in the atmosphere.
TK: Gavin et all simplify the real situation by assuming that there is radiative energy transfer ONLY
BPL: They were only looking at the radiative transfer in that breakdown. Of course they ignored other effects. Did you look at how they arrived at their figures? For example, for carbon dioxide, they calculated the change in temperature (1) removing CO2 and running the simulation, and (2) starting out the simulation without CO2 and then adding it. The non-radiative processes were free to respond as they usually do. Changing them would have made some difference to the results, but would have been unrealistic. You isolate a process to study that process. Reductionism is how science works. You don’t deliberately complicate the experiment.
Piotrsays
macias shurly: (1/3)*86W/m² is probably the idiot-piotr factor
P: An idiot is what idiot writes:
– MShurly: According to dr Gavin Schmidt – GHE (H2O) = ~ 120W/m² !
– P: and … that’s what I used, when I recreated YOUR calculations, so …why the exclamation?
– MShurly: Why are you double-subtracting another amount for the GHE on the right-hand side of the equation? !!!
– You don’t recognize YOUR OWN calculations, Genius? HOW ELSE have you calculated YOUR net balance of “-13 W/m2” IF NOT by “subtracting” from 120W/m² those 86W/m² and 47W/m²?
I merely recreated your calculation:
Piotr, Jun 6: “Shurly’s Net GH = 120 – 47 (cloud albedo) – 86 = -13 W/m²
See? YOUR “net balance” of -13 W/m².
So much for your:
– MShurly: These are the cooling energy fluxes – you sleeping pill.
!!! So remember !!! on the left the warming GHE of H2O +120 —> on the right the cooling effect of evaporation -86 and cloud albedo -47 = -13W/m². This is the net balance.”
At the request by nigel – I have checked your calculations and found a mistake that changes your whole conclusion. See my previous post:
==========================
Piotr, Jun6:
” Mr. Shurly is subtracting apples from oranges.
Gavin’s numbers are the NET fluxes: difference between emitted by Earth and escaped into space. Shurly’s evapotranspiration is a GROSS flux – the 86W/m² of removed from Earth., WITHOUT subtraction of the majority of that 86W/m² that is reemitted back toward the Earth (thus does not cool the Earth).
Let see if it makes a difference – from Trenberth radiative balance we get: 531(= 78+80+17+356) W/m²absorbed by atmosphere, of which 333W/m² is radiated back toward Earth surface. This means that on average only 1/3 of the heat supplied to the atmosphere escapes into space.
Now let’s see what it does to Shurly’s conclusions about the Net GH of water:
Shurly’s Net GH of water = 120 – 47 (cloud albedo) – 86 = -13 W/m²
CORRECT Net GH of water = 120 – 47 (cloud albedo) – (1/3)*86/m² = +44 W/m²
Hence: Shurly: “The water cycle thus has a net cooling effect of -13W/m². The earth is a water-cooled planet–whether you like it or not ” Reality “The water cycle thus has a net WARMING effect of +44 W/m².The Earth is a water-HEATED – whether Shurly likes it or not.”
=====
I leave to the readers to decide from themselves who of us two, me or Macias Shurly,
turned to be a full-of-himself idiot.
In the good old days as there was order in the Parlament, the Hon. spokesman of the Party A, the grand old one, spoke: “The spokeman for B must be blunt, not to understand that,… etc etc etc.”
To which the Hon. spokeman B replied: “No the spokesman for A must be blunt for not to understand that,.. bla bla bla..!”
The high Parliament Precident then knocked off with his hammer, and said: “I recommend it it to the high representatives not to discuss each others bluntness!”
I heard it myself on the radio in the good old days when there were still high parliament precidents to administer the debates in the Parliament.
about TK & al and his basic interest, Learnings, , and mission:
I have suspected it now for a long while as it resembles style and æsoterics liturgy of the pre- war labour union progressive political missionary pioneering leftist surrealist moovement,…..
…………….that what you suggest for them as partial derivation analytics in multi- dimensional and causal systems, elsewhere known all the way in facultary science on complex systems a mess of events and how to pick into rapiudly interfering reacting and decaying- radiating….
compositions , stews and garbage,….. in dynamic quasi- eqvilibrium…..
….. that they simply were not permitted to it and allowed to learn about it and how to tackle it and live with it and make the best out of it.
because such knowledge might disturb their warrant and pioneering mission in society and worldwide. .
And the sins of the Fathers you see, of their eldelies high prophetsb and teachers,….. are inherited and show up again and carry on in the third and fourt generation as if the book (Moses § 2) was right on that point.
The same also follows from Mendels laws of genetic heritage especially from clueless , sinful fucking of artificial illusions and idols / of virtual reality,….,…. among the “fathers”. The consequent revenge haunts them as if they were Mendels beans.
Ideology and vulgar religous fanatism in society also seem to Follow Mendels laws over the generations..
But Allah guarantees sustainable and happy nomadic lifestyle in a semi- arid environment for 1000 generations at least if one only can just resign on such clueless, sinful behaviours.
I would expect from then Polacs that they are autentic, and should have learnt rather from Copernicus, Frederic Chopin, Maria Sklodowska, Pastor Vojtyla from Krakow, , , and Lech Valenza. And not administer the coalsmokes and the rivers and other peoples livingrooms / lebensraums along with Adolph and Stalin.
Piotrsays
T. Kalisz: “ Gavin et all simplify the real situation by assuming that there is radiative energy transfer ONLY, and then formally ascribe the observed temperature difference to real “greenhouse agents”. I am afraid that this approach cannot bring the sought clue to the question”
This would have been true ONLY if all evaporative latent heat escaped into space into NON-RADIATIVE form, i.e. in the heat contained in air PARTICLES that escape the Earth’s atmosphere. Which, when compared to the radiative fluxes involved, is practically ZERO.
Which means that ALL latent heat is reemitted in form of IR, with MOST of it ending up absorbed by the Earth, and only a ultimately escaping into space.
Of the total amount of heat put into atmosphere, only about 1/3 escapes into space, probably considerably LESS for latent heat which is deposited closer to the Earth than
for instance solar rad. absorbed by stratospheric ozone (the closer to Earth the bigger the chance you would be absorbed by Earth).
Which means that AT LEAST 2/3 of latent heat flux returns to Earth and has no cooling effect. Which puts Shurly’s calculations on its head as discussed in my previous posts:
“Shurly’s Net GH of H2O = +120 – 47 (cloud albedo) – 86 = -13 W/m²
“CORRECT Net GH of H2O = +120 – 47 (cloud albedo) – (1/3)*86/m² = +44 W/m²
But it may get better – since Gavin’s paper quantifies the warming effect of various components by changes in the outgoing LW and SW radiation at TOA (top of the atmosphere) – the effect of latent heat may already be IMPLICITELY INCLUDED – if running their model without water evaporation they set also the evaporative latent flux to 0. Which would made: Net GH of H2O = +120 – 47 (cloud albedo) = + 73 W/m².
Either: +44 W/m² or + 73 W/m² – mean that contrary to the claims of your little friend, Macias: the water cycle thus has a net WARMING effect.
Which is consistent with increasing evaporation being the POSITIVE, not negative, feeback with temperature.
Which makes your plan absurd – you propose to throw $ trillions and cause massive GHG emissions needed to pump and spread 13 000 km3 of seawater over 9 mln km2 of Sahara, to cause … increased Global Warming.
– ” the 130 000 km3 mentioned by macias is certainly not the volume of global annual precipitation, because for 990 mm, the annual global precipitation will amount ca 504 000 000 km3. ”
– ” As regards ClauSius Clapeyron equation ”
ms: — I never claimed anywhere that global precipitation = 130000km³. On my website they are declared at ~100000km³ (over land) and 380000km³ (over sea). 500,000,000km³ is precipitation for 10 years.
Applying the Clausius-Clapeyron equation to the atmosphere and expecting that a 1°C warmer atmosphere will contain 7% more water is your friend Carbomontanus’ nonsense. Water evaporates faster, but unfortunately only as long as water is available.
47% of the land regions are “dry gets three” regions in which precipitation & and with it evaporation are falling. In the “wet gets wetter” regions (27%), higher rainfall spread over fewer rain events primarily causes more runoff.
Drought and flooding are indicative of poor distribution of an element whose primary climatic function is actually the distribution and transport of energy.
Gravity measurements (GRACE-FO) have shown that the continents lose about 100km³ of water annually, which contributes about 10% to sea level rise.
89% of these are glaciers, permafrost that are bound for a relatively long time without contributing much to evaporation. But if only 10% of the lost water circulates over land with a residence time of 10 days, that is 400km³ less evaporation – every year.
Clausius-Clapeyron, in his quest for 7% more water vapor, fights a variety of enemies. Desertification, further urbanization, continued loss of forest cover, falling water tables, compacted soils with less organic matter, closing stomata…etc.etc. Declining relative humidity for decades (or centuries) is the quantitative answer to these evaporative losses
(> = 6-7000km³).
@ bpl says: – ” The strength of a greenhouse gas doesn’t depend on its residence time in the atmosphere. ”
In the context of contributions of different gases to atmospheric warming the concept of global warming potential (GWP) can be useful. GWP is a measure of how much energy a greenhouse gas would add to atmospheric warming in a given time compared to CO2. A molecule’s GWP depends on three factors:
1.) the wavelengths where the molecule absorbs. (The absorption needs to be in the thermal IR range where the Earth emits and will be more effective if it absorbs where water vapor and CO2 do not.)
2.)the strength of the relevant absorptions. (The more energy the molecule absorbs, the more effective it will be in warming.)
!!! 3.) the atmospheric lifetime of the molecule. (The longer the gas persists, the more warming it can produce.) !!!
@piotr says: – ” The Earth is a water-HEATED ”
ms: — IPCC says: irrigation & albedo cools up to -0,15°C.
The full-of-himself idiot is you.
patrick o twentysevensays
re Piotr – a couple corrections/clarifications: latent heat released low in the atmosphere is still carried upward as sensible heat (but mostly stopping before the stratosphere, of course; net convective heating = convergence of convective flux, generally (or at least on average) positive over the troposphere and negative at the surface)
BPL: The Global Warming Potential is not “the strength of a greenhouse gas.” That would be measured by the absorption coefficient (monochromatic), or the integral of the absorption coefficient over a range of wavelengths of interest (polychromatic). You used the wrong term.
I thought it took a well known issue, and by quantifying it makes it very interesting.
Geoff Miellsays
Published on May 23 at The Conversation was a piece headlined Study finds 2 billion people will struggle to survive in a warming world – and these parts of Australia are most vulnerable. It begins with:
Two billion people, including many Australians, will find themselves living in dangerously hot places this century if global warming reaches 2.7℃, research released today reveals.
The authors calculated how many people would be left outside the “human climate niche” by 2100. The niche is defined as places with an average temperature of about 13℃, or about 27℃ in the tropics. Human population has historically peaked in these areas.
The Conversation piece refers to a Nature Sustainability article by Timothy Lenton et. al., published on 22 May 2023, titled Quantifying the human cost of global warming. It includes Fig. 4: Regions and population densities exposed to unprecedented heat at different levels of global warming. Fig. 4a shows large regions of the world expected to be exposed to unprecedented heat (MAT ≥29 °C) under +2.7 °C global mean warming scenario. Fig. 4b shows regions of the world expected to be exposed to unprecedented heat (MAT ≥29 °C) under +1.5 °C global mean warming scenario.
It appears from the map that the region between Port Hedland and Broome extending inland, and around Kununarra in Western Australia, could start to become increasingly unlivable at the +1.5 °C global mean warming threshold. https://www.nature.com/articles/s41893-023-01132-6/figures/4
Fig. 5 shows the country-level population exposure to unprecedented heat (MAT ≥29 °C) at +2.7 °C and +1.5 °C global mean warming scenarios in a world of 9.5 billion people (around 2070 under SSP2).
Professor Stefan Rahmstorf tweeted a thread on May 25 (translation from German to English), including:
The area no longer inhabitable for humans (purple) changes depending on the extent of global warming. Current study from Nature Sustainability, https://nature.com/articles/s41893-023-01132-6
= = = = = =
The 29°C annual mean temperature (in Potsdam: 10°C) is of course only a simple criterion and therefore the limits are not exact. The study also discusses precipitation, humidity and temperature extremes, such as the number of days above 40°C. Around 1980, about 0.3% of the world’s population lived in the zone above 29°C.
The problem when it gets too hot: the data shows increasing mortality and pregnancy problems, decreasing labor productivity, the ability to think and learn, and problems with crop yields, so that many people try to move away from such regions.
= = = = = =
The animation shown was provided by the authors of the study.
More on the study in the Guardian.
…including a gif animation of a colour-gradient temperature map for global mean surface temperature scenarios ranging from +1.5 °C, stepping through +0.3 °C increments, up to +4.4 °C. https://twitter.com/rahmstorf/status/1661450321766371329
nigeljsays
The water cycle advocates on this page believe that massively increasing the irrigation of the land by spraying vast quantities of water around will lead to more evaporation and a cooling effect. Yes it does but this is only in a few rural areas where population density is often very low, so its not much use to most people who are living in the cities, and is counter balanced by the release of heat energy from condensation higher up and affecting weather patterns and also the increased rainfall would likely exacerbate flooding.
And it adds to the greenhouse effect, which would negate a very significant part of the evaporative cooling effect. And of course you have to find trillions of litres of water from rivers and aquifers already under strain. Over irrigating the land also makes it water logged. I think Piotr may have pointed this out.
It doesnt look like a wise use of resources. Better to put these into reducing CO2 emissions.
Agreed. MS, JCM, and TK say “ignore carbon dioxide, we can do it all with giant irrigation schemes” school–which means that, whether they’re aware of it or not, they’re working for the interests of the fossil fuel industry. Their schemes are just wrong; they won’t work; they’re pseudoscience. But if you point that out to them, you’re part of the (alleged) CO2-only AGW conspiracy. They can’t be taught. But we can at least set lurkers right.
JCMsays
“Better to put these into reducing CO2 emissions.”
The politics of the matter and solutions-oriented focus is influencing our ability to comprehend what is the nature of the system.
The irrigationists, too, are offering a solutions-oriented perspective on the system. They seek to engineer the lost ecosystem services after the fact.
While not explicitly stated, the irrigationists likely concede that one of the many mechanisms of unnatural temperature changes at various scales is the profound loss of historical evapotranspiration ability in space and duration. That is the root of the observation. The “land-use” change albedo parameter does not scratch the surface.
Coupled to profound loss of historical evaporative landscape is the increasing hydrological extremes associated with concrete-like catchments. Lands characterized by unnaturally flashy hydrographs with net loss of moisture.
The psycho-social forces are powerful on these pages and insidiously erode productive discourse. I detect a lot of baggage here and mis-categorization of your allies in earth science.
@nigelj says: – ” increasing the irrigation of the land … will lead to more evaporation and a cooling effect. ”
ms: — !!! IT IS THE IPCC; WHO CLAIMS THAT !!!
…and in the 35 years of activity of the IPCC – ! the most important climate gate and failure of this organization. !
Actually, in the relevant IPCC graphic (see below) instead of “irrigation and albedo” there should be two other terms, namely * evapotranspiration and cloud albedo *, because even YOU CANNOT EXPLAIN what the difference in evaporative cooling between artificial irrigation and natural precipitation should be.
In addition, it is now well known that the UHI and the warming in regions where there is extensive deforestation are mainly based on decreasing evaporation. I estimate the man-made losses since industrialization alone at ~ 6800km³ – 6-7 times as high as the current evaporation from irrigation (~1000km³), which the IPCC assigns a cooling effect of 0.15°C.
So we can attribute a warming over land areas of about ~1°C since 1750-1850 to the evaporation losses. Since the land areas have warmed by approx. 1.56°C to date, increasing concentrations of greenhouse gases can only be responsible for a temperature trend of approx. 0.56°C.
This is described in more detail on my website – and the CERES data since 2000 also speak a clear language in this regard. The trend towards desert and clear sky atmosphere is very clear in the following global energy balance.
MS. The IPCC do indeed say ” increasing the irrigation of the land … will lead to more evaporation and a cooling effect. ” but I recall they ALSO say do not rely on it as a major climate mitigation tool.
Radge Haverssays
And if I’m not mistaken, and I admit that I often am, water loss to evaporation is already a big conservation problem in stressed arid lands. See the American Southwest, for example.
And just as a word of caution regarding water in general, note Syria’s civil war, sparked by draught, and what has evolved out of that.
And if you whish to become unpopular in this world, then take in by an Arab, They are especially known for their hospitality. And begin stealing his water!
A colleage quite practical, went through Sahara with his Landrover. And thought, when we go to Sahara, then perhaps build in an extra tank of freshwater in the Landrover….
That showed very practical. That tank opened all doors. Because, When 2 high Beduins meet with their camels in Sahara, they give out and exchange a glass of water first.
Because if you cannot do that and have gone out in Sahara without enough water, you are a child having ran away from your mother, and duty to Allah is to help you home to your Mother then. Which is expensive.
Or you are a crook who is out for other peoples water.
Radge Haverssays
Climate, water, and food insecurity are certainly linked. One of the causal links in Syria’s “bread war” is climate change.
Here are some knock on effects: the civil war draws in Russia; Russia commits atrocities with impunity; emboldened, Putin struts into Ukraine; shit hits the fan; grain supply from Ukraine is jeopardized; the world’s boat is rocked; political realignments ensue… fubar, fubar, fubar.
Not saying climate change is the sole cause of this mess, just that it’s a multiplier. It makes everything worse.
Personally, I think there can be local advantages to more wetland, more tree cover, etc. Evapotranspiration is usually A Good Thing.
But it’s delusional to think that we’re going to be able to manipulate the water content of the entire atmosphere in this manner, and thereby mitigate AGW.
Tomáš Kaliszsays
Dear nigelj,
Actually, I started the present discussion with proposal of an urban experiment.
If we need lot of electricity for air conditioning during sunny summer days, it might be good producing it locally from solar panels.
The possible disadvantage may be that the “waste” heat caused by low albedo of solar cells in combination with their low efficiency may worsen the “urban heat island effect”.
Interestingly, some climate models predicted that massive solar installations should bring more precipitation into deserts e.g. in Saudi Arabia. I therefore came to an idea that it could be perhaps possible to test these predictions and reliability of the respective models in urban heat islands as practical models of the desert and of the contemplated solar installations therein.
And, to make the test more convincing, I suggested to test in parallel also the opposite hypothesis that asserts that making the desert even hotter brings hardly more precipitation thereto. This dissent hypothesis asserts, instead, that we should restore the small water cycle in dry arid areas first. This hypothesis assumes that if we succed with creating sufficiently strong local water cycle on the land, it becomes self-sustaining, because it will re-start also the broken long range water transport from the ocean.
The second, parallel branch of the proposed urban experiment should therefore test this alternative hypothesis, by collecting precipitation in cities and using the collected water for irrigation and spray-cooling of streets, roofs, etc.. That could include also evaporative cooling of the installed solar panels.
Large-scale solar energy production could be then designed properly depending on the results. Honestly, I do not dare to predict which of the both opposite approaches will be more successful in bringing more precipitation into treated urban heat islands, and would be very curious which models will correctly predict the outcome of the urban experiments.
The idea with sea water is nothing else than a logical extension of the proposed experiment (in case that it confirms the “wet” alternative as the right one) to arid areas, wherein we do not have enough water for restarting the water cycle. Of course it would not be good to just spray the salt water on the ground, as Piotr objects. We should just allow the salt water concentrate, not evaporate to dryness. The resulting brine could be then either deposited in already existing salt lakes, or brought back into the ocean (provided that it would have not be harmful e g. for sea streams).
I do not think that any of the people discussing the importance of water cycle herein is an agent of evil represented by fossil fuel industry. We have just a concern that proposed climate repair by decarbonization may fail if we do not repair the broken water cycle in parallel.
We think so because we assume, contrary to you, that 130 000 km3 annual precipitation does represent huge neat cooling effect in the global climate, and because we afraid that the land-ocean heat exchange has been strongly deteriorated by human activities in the past, with the result that present latent heat flow on land may be significantly lower in comparison with the past.
I do not know if it is true – maybe the global warming will make Sahara green automatically without my ridiculous proposals. There are some predictions of this kind as well. From my perspective of former chemical technologist, making an experiment in a significantly smaller scale and then upscaling step-by-step is a good practice, much more reliable than directly designing an industrial plant or establishing a policy merely on basis of a theoretical model, irrespective how impressive the model may look like.
Greetings
Tom
patrick o twentysevensays
Note the climatologically-effective albedo of a solar panel, arguably, should include the efficiency. If a 20% eff. panel replaces a surface of 20% albedo, there would be no net change (aside from aging, derating (reductions in actual efficiency)… and evapotranspiration, although shade-grown crops are a thing but they wouldn’t need as much H2O, presumably…) – except for the heat from the use of the electricity, which I am taking as a given here. Of course, solar panels are (at least generally, AFAIK) more efficient when they are cooler (makes since given they are effectively heat engines wherein the charge carriers are the working fluid and the crystal lattice (or amorphous structure) of atoms is the heat sink (which extracts a portion of the energy along with the bulk of their entropy, leaving the potential to do work (electrochemical potential – difference between quasi-fermi levels? in the two bands), if I understand it correctly) – but it may be better to do this through water preheating in a rooftop or perhaps community-based setting?
nigeljsays
Tomáš Kalisz
“We have just a concern that proposed climate repair by decarbonization may fail if we do not repair the broken water cycle in parallel.”
Humans have indeed disrupted the water cycle. For example deforestation reduces evaporatative cooling locally, but this is not a reason to dream up experiments to spray water everywhere at massive scale to combat global warming as a whole. This is not a sensible way to repair the water cycle for reasons stated above. Instead deforerstation is a reason to plant more trees, which has multiple benefits including a bit of local cooling.
And clearly planting gardens and watering them is a good thing. And spraying water to combat a heat weave might make sense. Your comments on solar panels may have validity. The IPCC does say irrigation causes a local cooling effect – but I recall they say not to rely on it as a major climate mitigation tool.
“We think so because we assume, contrary to you, that 130 000 km3 annual precipitation does represent huge neat cooling effect in the global climate.
It’s very difficult to understand how rainfall would cause a net climate cooling effect when 1) the cooling of the air near ground level is balanced by warming due to condensation higher up and 2) it only rains a small percentage of the time (places like Norway excepted) . Either way a strategy to cool the climate by increasing the rainfall would clearly and obviously require massive resources for very minimal effect and risk causing flooding.
Or perhaps you mean water vapour has a net cooling effect on the climate? Increasing the level of water vapour has a net warming effect according to the IPCC. This is not an assumption, it is calculated. Also read Piotrs related comments and maths above June 10 “Nigel, Mr. Shurly is subtracting apples from oranges….” So deliberately increasing the water vapour by irrigation and evaporation at large scale as a major mitigation tool to cool the climate doesn’t make much sense. You have got quite a few scientists telling you that in various ways. I’m not a scientist, but its fairly obvious to me.
– ” Humans have indeed disrupted the water cycle.
– The IPCC does say irrigation causes a local cooling effect ”
ms: — nigelj – it is not a local effect, but a global cooling effect of ~ -0.15°C shown in the IPCC graph, which is of course caused by the many local irrigation events.
In comparison, we currently have a global warming trend of +0.22°C per decade.
To declare -0,15°C as a minor effect is a great, historical stupidity of Piotr, Zebra, Bpl, Carbomontanus… and some other desert lurkers here in the forum. With just 1025km³/y additional evaporation we could stop global warming and turn it back by years. At the same time, however, you should see that the man-made loss of evaporative landscapes and disrupted water cycles is meanwhile happily spreading, as you yourself attest.
– The current annual evaporation from global irrigation with ~ 2560km³ is ~ 1025km³ and is therefore only ~ 38% efficient for the plants. Simply increasing efficiency and switching to more efficient irrigation of 76% (drip irrigation / Israel is world champion) could bring about this cooling effect. What can it cost? you always ask first…just ask the Israelis.
A little-recognized effect of effective irrigation is the miraculous increase in evaporation, which consists of evaporation, clouds, and precipitation from irrigation striking a land surface again, thereby amplifying the cooling effect of the small water cycles through repetition.
We see the great water cycle in the GEB (land only) by Wild et al :
~ 19W/m² (~ 46200km³) net are imported from the oceans and a bit more flows back into the sea via the rivers, since the continents have been drained by about 100km³/y for many decades. The small water cycles (38W/m²) correspond to the amounts of water that circulate over the land areas and which we increase by ~ 2% = ~ 0.7W/m² by irrigating 1025km³/y.
Since Aristotle ~ 2% more clouds are formed due to 2% more evaporation. So the cloud albedo over the land area increases by ~ 0.94W/m² (2% * -47W/m²) according to the graphic below by M. Wild et al.
The GHE generated by additional clouds is ~ +0.56W/m², – resulting in a net cooling effect of ~ 0.38W/m² – a radiative forcing that then also goes well with the IPCC graph and the stated cooling of -0 .05°C to 0.15°C .
The problem with the IPCC, and yours, is that you cannot quantify the warming potential of human-induced evaporative losses. I calculate them at least
6800km³/y, which have accumulated since ~1850.
nigeljsays
Macias Shurly
“it is not a local effect, (irrigating the worlds crops causing cooling) but a global cooling effect of ~ -0.15°C shown in the IPCC graph, which is of course caused by the many local irrigation events.”
OK, although that cooling is experienced most strongly near the irrigation. Whether it is a significant number depends on perspective. You say its significant compared to a decade of warming (0.22 degrees). Its fairly insignificant given we have already had one degree of warming and could have about 4 degrees of warming. So you will have to put me in the same box as the other desert walkers, (BPL, Piotr, etc, ect)
“With just 1025km³/y additional evaporation we could stop global warming and turn it back by years…..The current annual evaporation from global irrigation with ~ 2560km³ is ~ 1025km³ and is therefore only…”
This is not stopping global warming. It is only countering the warming effect near ground level, not the additional energy in the system, and it is only countering just one decades worth of global warming approximately (0.22 degrees). Global warming will then march on unless we stop emissions.
And this is a huge amount of water. Its not clear how making use of irrigation more efficient (less irrigation for same outcome for the crops) helps because this would reduce the quantity of water used. It just doesn’t look very practical from any angle. Just because the maths says it can be done in theory doesnt make it practical.
To cancel a degree of warming would need about seven times more global irrigation! Even less practical and definitely in the crank science category. Plenty of people have noted the numerous practical difficulties and deficiencies so no need to repeat them (Piotr, BPL, Zebra, RL, etc)
“A little-recognized effect of effective irrigation is the miraculous increase in evaporation”
How much does the evaporation increase and please provide copy and paste and a link. Im a bit suspicious of miracles. .
IMO the way to look at the issues is to be holistic. So how do we shift things in a more positive direction environmentally that has multiple benefits and minimal downsides, and works well as a whole, and is likely to gain traction with the public ? ,Plant crops for food as required and minimise non sustainable industrial inputs, water the crops, plant forests, water the young forests, restore wetlands, conserve water, and yes make irrigation more efficient. This all improves a range of outcomes, and has some cooling as a side effect without adding to the GHE significantly.
ms: The problem with the IPCC, and yours, is that you cannot quantify the warming potential of human-induced evaporative losses. I calculate them at least
6800km³/y, which have accumulated since ~1850.
BPL: Then write up your thesis as a paper and submit it to a peer-reviewed journal. Pontificating about it on an internet blog won’t get you anywhere.
Here you are deeply misconsceived and uneducated again.
It aint not recommended just to paint that and then expect people to buy it, they will feel cheated and sue you for fraud, and you will have to pay your lawyers also.
Honesty is the best policy Genosse Schürle.
Aristoteles did not discuss Nephelai. That was Aristophanes, do not mix up those two.
When one bitty of water goes up…. anything but one bitty of clouds will be formed
I consult my painters and tell them and teach them, and they are doing the work for me and they thank me for it, serve me, defend me, and protect me.
. Surrealism is also quite a style and an art and I am quite good at that also, genosse.
But I once said to a seeminhgly quite decadent, chronically intoxicaded personality from India, who was out after Isopropanol in the lab for more efficient burst, that “Art must stand on Knowledge!”
“No!” he replied.
I never heard or saw from him since.
His ” fameous” paintings were hardly more than dark obscure figureless smearings.
How to shake up and scare the world with paint and to make them pay and even come on the national Museum for it,….. that is quite an art.
There is a history of Till Eulenspiegel & al having performed Des Keisers neuen Kleider as Painters in Bohemia for the high nosed noblesse there fahionable political court and ballroom decorations, ,……. earnt Dalers Wines, Beer, Ham, Sausseages, Schwarzbrot, and Materials for it for several weeks, and having got away with it also.
Art, not even Comedian art, liberates you from knowing how and from knowing what.
The Schürlers seem to be lacking BACCALAVREVS 1 and ARTES LIBERALES TRIVIVM & QVADRIVIVM, together EXAMEN ARTIVM , so they hardly keep up, not even with Eulenspiegel in the disputes, and in the climate.
1) A crucial point that I strive to clarify is the still widespread belief that latent heat flux may cool Earth surface but cannot have a global importance because the respective condensation heat released in the troposphere “remains in the system”. In my opinion, this view is entirely false and misleading, because the released heat in fact does not “heat” troposphere. Actually, it drives weather phenomena across the globe and, in annual average, it escapes to the space in form of infrared radiation, wherein the corresponding mean energy flow about 80 W/m2 must in its annual sum over the globe quite exactly correspond to the condensation heat of water corresponding to the global annual precipitation.
This assumption will be fulfilled almost exactly in case that the average global temperature remains stable, then also absolute water vapour content (according to macias about 13 000 km3) remains constant. Nevertheless, even in case that, according to various estimations, a global mean temperature rise 1 K brings a 1 % (130 km3) increase in the average absolute humidity, this additional 130 km3 is a negligible amount in comparison with global annual sum of precipitation which is about 500 000 000 km3.
In other words, it is from my point of view a very reasonable assumption that any change in global annual precipitation does quite exactly represent a corresponding change in the latent heat flow that cools the Earth surface – the more accurately, the less the mean annual temperature changes.
The energy flow about 80 W/m2 transported in the atmosphere by latent energy (LE) flux is thus a neat cooling effect, very important for the actual difference between the average surface temperature (about 15 °C) and average emission temperature of the Earth (about – 18 °C) which we used to call the “greenhouse effect”.
2) The above described cooling effect does no way disprove the fact that a substantial part of the RADIATIVE greenhouse effect, caused by absorption of the infrared radiation released from Earth surface and described as a downwelling radiation from the atmosphere that HEATS the surface, is caused by water vapour in the atmosphere. It is my understanding that, due to the circumstance that water condenses and precipitates and its content in the atmosphere is thus almost independent from the water cycle intensity, the cooling effect of water cycle is basically decoupled from the heating effect of the water vapour in the atmosphere – the more precisely the accurately the average global temperature remains stable.
3) I see as quite unfortunate that in popular discussions about climate, it is often assumed that the “observed” greenhouse effect (in terms of temperature difference between mean global surface temperature and average emission temperature) is basically identical with the radiative greenhouse effect. In the present debate, many colleagues still seem to assume that it must be so because “it is scientifically proven that the greenhouse effect is caused by greenhouse gases”. Nevertheless, the average global surface temperature is in fact a result of an actual balance between cooling effect of energy flows from the surface (wherein the LE seems to still play a decisive role) and energy flows towards the surface (that are definitely influenced by the increasing radiative greenhouse effect).
4) If any change of the global mean temperature must be caused by a change in this balance between “heating” and “cooling”, it seems reasonable to ask questions in which extent an observed change was caused by a change in cooling and in which extent by a change in heating, what factors may cause a coupling / feedback between cooling and heating, and in which extent we can manage one or another part of this balance artificially, by human intervence.
Greetings
Tom
nigeljsays
Tomas Kalisz
Thanks for your comments.
Unfortunately you are back with your notion that evaporation can somehow cool the atmosphere near the ground, and also remove heat from the earths system with the heat of condensation all escaping to space. But its basic climate science that most of that heat does not escape. You have been told this many times by the experts.
You are also back claiming water vapour has a net cooling effect. Your fancy words, evidence free assertions, feelings and unsubstantiated opinions dont convince me. The IPCC review the peer reviewed science that shows water vapour has a net warming effect. Piotr responded to MS showing water vapour has a net warming effect by doing the maths. (Piotr 10 June above thread). Until you prove them all wrong mathematically in neatly tabulated form you are not remotely convincing to me. I’m sure other casual readers of this website would concur with me.
Nobody here has claimed the observed temperature is not a result of a mixing of warming and cooling effects. So your claim is a strawman.
You probably genuinely believe your ideas but they are wrong and clearly belong in the crank science category. I do suspect you are essentially trolling, and work for a climate denialist agency of some sort. Your style indicates you have had some schooling in public relations techniques by some agency.
TK: A crucial point that I strive to clarify is the still widespread belief that latent heat flux may cool Earth surface but cannot have a global importance because the respective condensation heat released in the troposphere “remains in the system”. In my opinion, this view is entirely false and misleading, because the released heat in fact does not “heat” troposphere. Actually, it drives weather phenomena across the globe and, in annual average, it escapes to the space in form of infrared radiation, wherein the corresponding mean energy flow about 80 W/m2 must in its annual sum over the globe quite exactly correspond to the condensation heat of water corresponding to the global annual precipitation.
BPL: The latent heat flux from the surface, of perhaps 80 watts per square meter, is an energy output from the surface but an energy input to the atmosphere. It cools the surface but warms the air.
patrick o twentysevensays
1 m * 500 *10^12 m^2 = 500 E12 m^3 = 500 E3 km^3 = 500,000 km^3 (U.S. usage of comma); – I think you left an extra factor of 1000 in your conversions.
Yes, take away the latent heat part of convection, and the surface would be warmer. Remover the greenhouse effect, leaving everything else the same, and aside from a few caveats …
(imperfect surface LW emissivity would raise the equilibrium Temperature, the nonlinearity of the Planck function over temperature combined with horizontal-temporal temperature variability would lower the equilibrium Temperature)
…, the surface temp ~255 K, regardless of convection – in fact it would be difficult to sustain convection in that case (direct solar heating of the atmosphere would actually make the whole atmosphere like a stratosphere-thermosphere hybrid; a non-radiative flux would be necessary to bring this heat down to the surface; it’s hard to get convection to do that, so it would tend to be largely conduction/diffusion(?)). The convective lapse rate modulates the temperature effect of the greenhouse effect. Convection is assumed to be allowed, according to the applicable physics, when the greenhouse effect is stated as ~33 K.
…condensation heat released in the troposphere “remains in the system”. In my opinion, this view is entirely false and misleading, because the released heat in fact does not “heat” troposphere. Actually, it drives weather phenomena across the globe and, in annual average, it escapes to the space in form of infrared radiation, wherein the corresponding mean energy flow about 80 W/m2 must in its annual sum over the globe quite exactly correspond to the condensation heat of water corresponding to the global annual precipitation.
This, as they say, is clear as mud. Let’s break it down.
…the released heat in fact does not “heat” troposphere. Actually, it drives weather phenomena across the globe…
What about the radiant energy passing through the atmosphere in both directions? Don’t those fluxes also drive weather phenomena? How could they fail to do so?
…and, in annual average, it escapes to the space in form of infrared radiation…
Wait, how is that possible if it “does not “heat” troposphere?”
…the corresponding mean energy flow about 80 W/m2 must in its annual sum over the globe quite exactly correspond to the condensation heat of water corresponding to the global annual precipitation.
OK, that at least makes some sense; if the heat fluxes resulting from evaporation and condensation didn’t balance over time, we’d presumably have been in big, big, BIG climate change trouble eons ago. But if they balance over, say, multi-annual time scales, then where’s the energy coming from to “[drive] weather phenomena across the globe?”
My familiarity with thermodynamics is quite superficial, but that doesn’t seem right.
patrick o twentysevensays
Of course, if you truly remove all the greenhouse effect and keep solar heating as is, I’m guessing that much of the atmosphere would get so hot it would start to glow in the same parts of the spectrum in which it absorbs solar energy. This would reduce the equilibrium surface temp.
And actually, O2 and N2 do have a little bit of a greenhouse effect – small compared to CO2, H2O, clouds …?, and much more so on a per mole basis of course (neither O2 nor N2 has a built in electric dipole (like H2O) or a vibrationally-induced electric dipole (eg. CO2 bending and antisymmetric stretching modes), but there are magnetic and quadrupole… stuff (See “rotational-vibrational spectroscopy” at Wikipedia, also “rotational spectroscopy”)
But anyway…
(Using a globally-representative 1-D column perspective:) Introducing latent heat fluxes to convection reduces the temp. of the surface and some lowest part of the troposphere and raises the temp higher in the troposphere, by changing the tropospheric (convective) lapse rate(s) – while holding the greenhouse effect and solar heating steady. In this case, the total net LW (radiant) flux + net convective fluxes remains the same (in climatological equilibrium) as they must to balance solar heating. This would also be true even if the greenhouse effect changed, so long as solar heating is held fixed. In the case of surface wetting to allow evaporation and the latent heat flux, the general reduction in the vertical temperature gradient (at least near the surface) would tend to reduce the net upward LW flux (near the surface), and I imagine the net upward SH flux as well (near the surface), with increased LH flux taking up the slack. Enhancing the greenhouse effect would tend to reduce the net upward LW flux even more, and require some increase in the combination of LH and SH net upward fluxes (so as to balance solar heating).
As to whether the combination of adding H2O vapor and clouds, along with the energy fluxes of the water cycle, has a net reduction of surface temperature, I don’t know offhand. I’m not sure if Piotr’s method will lead to the correct conclusion – the fluxes that sustain an equilibrium are not always the best guide to what happens in a change (eg. greenhouse gases+clouds allow net radiant cooling of the atmosphere wherever solar or convective heating occurs. Increasing the greenhouse effect does not tend to cool the troposphere, although it does tend to cool the solar heated parts of the approx. non-convecting layers above – specifics depending on spectra; some cooling can occur there even without solar heating, etc.). The Manabe and Strickler article did not present a dry-convective adjustment for CO2+O3 gases by themselves; that could be compared to the 6.5 K/km lapse rate adjustment for H2O+clouds+CO2+O3.
But the conclusions therein wouldn’t necessarily apply to the totality of the effects of forced surface wetting such as by irrigation, relative to the baseline that already has a lot of wet surface area, in particular given the particular space-time-weather distribution.
It could also be different from the lapse rate+H2O+cloud feedback to global warming (PS the feedbacks are entwined as the lapse rate affects the distribution of H2O and clouds), wherein the RH, at least in a global sense, doesn’t change much, and the lapse rate change is due to the (Clausius-Clapeyron) H2O saturation vapor pressure’s temperature dependence. With forced (as opposed to climate-maintained) surface wetting, you would tend to increase the RH near the surface in various locations and times.
… I was going to say some other things but Barton Paul Levenson and Kevin McKinney beat me to it.
Well, I will just add – note that with the convective lapse rate change, surface cooling and upper-tropospheric warming that occur when LH flux is ‘turned on’:
As I said, the net upward LW (radiant) flux decreases. This is due to a combination of reduced emission from the surface and lower troposphere, and increased emission from the upper troposphere. Thus, Piotr is qualitatively correct – some of the upward LH flux causes an increased downward radiant flux – and reduced upward radiant flux, thus an additional net radiant radiant heating of the surface (the same is true for ‘turning on’ SH flux, relative to the pure radiative equilibrium case). Aside from the H2O+cloud radiant effects, this heating can only be < 100%, of the LH flux, because a decreased SH flux can make up the difference – the combined net upward convective + LW radiant fluxes have to balance net downward solar flux (and the total net LW cooling of the whole column (sfc+air) = OLR = solar heating; the warming and cooling have opposing effects on OLR which balance). So the fraction of downward radiation caused by water-cycle heating of the air is probably not determined by LH heating as a fraction of total heating of the air… but anyway, it does change the temperature distribution.
And then there is some warming + cooling acting on the whole troposphere+surface caused by H2O+cloud radiative effects.(with shifts in convection to balance the vertical distribution of radiant effects while maintaining the convective lapse rate, with all the complexities noted about the 4+D system…
But I do accept the finding that irrigation may be causing an average surface cooling (though so far I'm not sure about SSTs) – very uneven, but not entirely limited to just the locations where irrigation enhances evapotranspiration, and enhanced precipitation downwind, etc., but with at least one case of drying the irrigated area ('repelling' the monsoon rain), and maybe other cases of warming and drying…
(Carbomontanus got carried away with the drying example I mentioned – it doesn’t generalize so much. Of course it makes sense that a source of moisture could locally enhance precipitation – e.g. lake effect (or enhanced) snow – although temperature is a factor there… But it’s like being near the coast vs far inland, possibly in a rain shadow. Common sense suggests a seaway cutting through the high planes of North America ought to generally enhance precipitation in the center of the continent; then again, common sense has limits – My guess is monsoonal rains should respond differently than frontal cyclone rains/snow.)
– and reduce hot extremes.
And maybe with lower clouds having some additional cooling effect such that there doesn’t need to be much warming in the upper troposphere? (is it possible to have such an albedo effect so as to cool the whole troposphere depth (global annual average) this way?) Vs. enhanced greenhouse effect would it be possible to completely undo the surface cooling that way?)
Of course there is the surface emissivity/albedo effects, other complications I’ve previously mentioned, and the heat index (must be considered. And this will presumably depend on the location and timing of irrigation, the plant species, etc.
patrick o twentysevensays
2 more quick points:
Of course, in an equilibrium climate state, there is no net heating or cooling within the system, in total, as the fluxes are balanced, and nothing changes that; it is when a change is made (to the boundary conditions, ie. a (change in) forcing), there is a change in equilibrium, and so there is a disequilibrium, ie, a net imbalance in fluxes (of energy and/or other things) that decays over time as the climate responds to approach the new equilibrium. It is during this change when there is an unbalanced, generally decaying but otherwise sustained/persistent (time-average), net heating or cooling (or net acceleration, net divergence of mass, etc., depending on the type of change) in various parts of the system. The resulting changes in temperature, momentum, etc., cause other flux changes that tend to restore the balance.
2.
Yes, convective and conduction/molecular diffusion fluxes (generally when we speak of convection from the surface, it is implicit that we are including the initial step of conduction/diffusion through the surface and thin layer of air in immediate contact with the surface (PS this leads to a potential for a significant drop in T from the surface to the air a short height above; evapotranspiration reduces this; I expect enhanced surface area (eg. leaves, sea spray) would also help (including with SH transfer). But a hot surface (other things being =) will emit more radiation, some of which may get through the atmospheric window, and that can actually have a cooling effect for the atmosphere, in equilibrium terms) are treated differently from radiant fluxes, but I believe for good reason.
Photons can generally traverse macroscopic distances, even in the most strongly absorbing parts of the spectrum, except perhaps for within dense clouds(?). This means the net radiant LW flux is not tied to the local temperature gradient; it depends on spatial differences in temperature, but this may be temperatures some cm to m to km to 10s of km distant. It helps to be aware of where both the upward and downward fluxes are coming from, then. (The greenhouse effect basically works by limiting how far you can see in heat vision.)
In contrast, net SH and LH fluxes depend on the enthalpy in the air that is moving, and so depend on the local temperature and H2O concentration (relative to air, ie. specific humidity or mixing ratio).
In fact, the SH and LW fluxes stated are commonly net fluxes; in typical Earthly conditions, decending air is not completely devoid of H2O, nor is it at 0 K. So there is a significant downward flux; the upward flux is just larger. And that’s just convection/advection strictly speaking. Imagine the upward and downward fluxes of molecular energy and H2O molecules through molecular collisions and diffusion. I’m guessing these values are enormous at most heights. But they are generally very, very, very close to equal, except very near the surface, and a very thin (by mass) layer at TOA (upper thermosphere) – due to the long mean free paths there (but perhaps not much H2O at all to work with at that level) (the other instances where molecular diffusion and conduction are important (AFAIK) involve cloud microphysics (growth and evaporation of cloud droplets and ice crystals, while keeping temperature of the air and condensed water similar) and other aerosols.
patrick o twentysevensays
I just remembered the other points I wanted to share:
Yes, atmospheric H2O amount and the rate of H2O cycling are not simply proportional. There could be ways, I believe, to have one fixed while the other changes. For example, I’m guessing a sufficient combination of solar brightening (increased solar heating) and reduced greenhouse effect might keep the same amount of H2O in the air while increasing the rate of cycling (evap. and precip. (+dew+frost)) (?? I might be wrong about this?) – in the global time average.
Remember that (changes caused by) UHI have been edited out of the temperature records used to assess large-scale climate change for the purposes of being able to attribute changes to other causes, eg. CO2, CH4, aerosols, etc. UHI may have local indirect effects (downwind precip. enhancement? – could be used to farmer’s advantages?), but …
In addition to evapotranspiration changes, there is a urban greenhouse effect at street-level due to the surrounding buildings (they can block radiation) (Related – mountain-valley breeze diurnal cycle).
Also, runoff could enhance evapotranspiration in the places it ends up, if it doesn’t simply go into rivers, etc. (assuming river surface area, etc., and surrounding water table are not changed much…) – in a climate with dry periods, such places could remain cooler for longer after the last rains/etc. I’ve suggested runoff from solar power plants (the kind that would have runoff – ie., as opposed to providing shade for crops) could be used to boost production of neighboring land.
But obviously, it benefits the people in urban areas to reduce UHI.
Which reminds me, I forgot about solar panel LW emissivity when I commented on their effective albedo earlier. I’ve read there are way(s?) to increase the emissivity to help the panels cool a bit.
” I do not think that any of the people discussing the importance ofv water cycle herin is an agent of evil represented by fossil industry….. repair by decarbonization may fail …. better repair the broken water cycle in parallel.”
I cannot see that “the water cycle” is any kind of broken.
And “If it aint broken, dont mend it!”
The land ocean water cycle is an old mysterium..
A certain Athanasius Kirchner did even suggest that the oceans are drained by a fameous Turbo , the “Maelstrom” outside of Lofoten known by the Hansa from medeival time and is re-cycled throught tunnels and convectional tubes underground and out again as water- wells at the top of the Alps.
Meant for serious.
in order to clear up the mysterious water- cycle.
Published in finest luxurious Vatican print and press, issued with golden swine leather for everyman everyone.to believe in.
Moral: if there is anything broken or changing by the water cyclus, then look to the flow of the worlds freshwater rivers first. It is called hydrology. And then try and explain how that can go on and on and on even with Turbo.
I learnt it in public school how that cycle is sustained. and thus how we can turbo sustainable
turboconvectional electricity from it even from latent flux flow of energy..
There must be limits and Kircher went beyond the limits and is labeled the man of misconsceptions by Scientific American.
Piotrsays
Tomas Kalisz: “I do not think that any of the people discussing the importance of water cycle herein is an agent of evil represented by fossil fuel industry.”
If they are not paid by the fossil fuel lobby, then they are what Lenin’ called: “useful idiots”
of the fossil fuel interests.
If somebody promotes manipulating global water cycle INSTEAD of dealing with root cause of climate change, and persist in promoting it despite being shown again and again that it can’t possibly work – then the difference between a paid denialist and a useful idiot who does it for his ideology or ego gratification – no longer matters. By their fruits you shall know them.
@piotr says: – ” By their fruits you shall know them. ”
ms: — The transpiration of 1025km³/y of irrigation via photosynthesis absorbs about 3.7 to 7.4Gt CO2 – (10-20% of annual man-made CO2 emissions) – more than the decarbonization strategists will achieve in the next few decades.
If I develop water-cooled PV-T modules with similar specifications as the datasheet below…-
…then certainly to promote decarbonization. So where is the problem to drive both strategies, to mitigate the consequences for future generations.
Your role here in the forum seems more like that of a brake pad with an integrated puke bag.
” You shall recognize them by their fruit. “
Piotrsays
Piotr: “If somebody promotes manipulating global water cycle INSTEAD of dealing with root cause of climate change, and persist in promoting it despite being shown again and again that it can’t possibly work – then the difference between a paid denialist and a useful idiot who does it for his ideology or ego gratification – no longer matters. By their fruits you shall know them”
macias shurly: “If I develop water-cooled PV-T module then certainly to promote decarbonization”
Then what are you still doing here? Don’t talk, go and develop it, INSTEAD of what you
have been doing so far – playing into the hands of the fossil fuel lobby by implying that we don’t need to decarbonize, because we take care of GW … by evaporating enough water – see the Kalisz’s proposal supported by you and JCM.
Ron R.says
By their fruits you shall know them. Matt. 7:16-20
Yep. Funny, I’ve been thinking the same thing. Another one,
Piotr, “playing into the hands of the fossil fuel lobby by implying that we don’t need to decarbonize, because we take care of GW … by evaporating enough water”
Exactly. What they are trying to accomplish, as far as I can tell, is analogous to being told by a doctor that one has life threatening lung cancer and he needs to immediately</b stop smoking. They will cut it out as best they can and give you chemotherapy, but the tobacco companies that you’ve been giving a lot of money to whisper in your ear, “Nah. You can keep on smoking. Just take the chemo or you can go to this fancy European health spa for one of their fancy treatments”. Who logically would you trust and what should you do?
Come on, why all these backflips just so we can continue a bad habit? It’s not that hard.
” The possible disadvantage may be that the “waste” heat caused by low albedo of solar cells in combination with their low efficiency may worsen the “urban heat island effect. ”
ms: — Somewhere at some point I suggested to you to heat the winter with the warmth of summer and cool the summer with the cold of winter. However, this requires a powerful heat generator such as PV-T modules, which BTW I develop myself and which feed the heat into larger, seasonal heat storage and thus quadruple the energy efficiency of PV panels.
The right heat pump converts this heat store into an ice store in winter, which can also be charged with heat on milder winter days (> 0°C). I consider air conditioners to be inefficient power guzzlers and ultimately they heat up cities even more (UHI). My carbon footprint consists at least mostly of heating and hot water needs.
Tom says: – ” Interestingly, some climate models predicted that massive solar installations should bring more precipitation into deserts e.g. in Saudi Arabia. ”
ms: — Somewhere I pointed out to you that in many deserts between the equator and 23,5°, very dry air flows in from ABOVE and significantly reduces the chance of convective cells with subsequent precipitation.
But I don’t want to destroy a well-intentioned but not very promising vision without naming an alternative. —
Invest part of your PV electricity in desalination plants and thus combine to AGRO-PV. Or build your PV systems over freshwater lakes, e.g. Lake Victoria (>60000km²). Each m² of swimming PV can reduce evaporation by ~1000-2000mm/y and still keep the lake water cooler. The cooler water remaining in the lake increases the output of hydroelectric power plants downstream and can be used for agricultural irrigation along the Nile to Egypt.
This only increases total evaporation over the course of many years, because it allows vegetation in the desert to spread out more easily without damaging the tropical, water-rich region around Lake Victoria.
PV over freshwater lakes between 50°S and 50°N can make a huge contribution to increasing or maintaining water availability.
Ray Ladburysays
Tomas,
I think that perhaps part of the problem you have is that your language is imprecise. While it is true that modulating the water cycle can have significant effects on local climate, it will not significantly affect the global climate. This is because the hydrological cycle is confined to the lower troposphere. It will not significantly affect either the solar energy coming in or the LWIR escaping the planet (except perhaps for a small effect due to clouds–which, depending on the type of cloud can either warm or cool the planet. An IR photon is either outside the absorption bands of the GHGs (in which case, it will escape), or it is (in which case there is plenty of CO2 above cloud tops to absorb it before it escapes. Earth ain’t a swamp cooler.
Thank you very much for comment. It appears that we have not clarified yet whether or not the Earth atmosphere acts as the “closed room” with respect to heat released by water vapour condensation in the troposphere.
Let me return to my doubts about your opinion that I expressed in my earlier posts
contradict your opinion (and from my point of view sound convincingly), I must respectfully disagree with your assertion that Earth surface cooling by latent heat flux (LE) cannot play a role in global energy budget (GEB).
I think that my view is supported also by the circumstance that LE is a standard part of various GEB schemes discussed on this forum, and that its present value about 80 W/m2 seems to fit very well with mean total annual precipitation (about 990 mm), in accordance with the simple assumption that if the evaporated water should release its latent heat, it must condense and return back on the Earth surface in form of precipitation.
Please note that in Trenberth’s diagrams showing the GEB, neat value of the upwelling infrared radiation from the Earth surface diminishes as the opaqueness of the atmosphere towards IR rises. According to these ubiquitous GEB schemes, non-radiative heat transport mechanisms prevail, and LE is the most important one.
Please consider these arguments and, in case that you still find your view in accordance with standard climatology represented by the above mentioned GEB schemes, explain in more detail why do you think so.
Greetings
Tomáš
Ray Ladburysays
Tomas,
The basic problem is this: More evaporation does not move the heat high enough into the atmosphere that it escapes the planet. More water vapor also absorbs more heat. Near cloud tops, the atmosphere is a lot cooler, and so it emits a lot less energy (Stefan-Boltzmann Law). If an outgoing IR photon is outside of the absorption bands of the greenhouse gasses, it escapes to space, regardless of where it is emitted. If it is within those bands, it only escapes if it is emitted high enough in the atmosphere that the probability of being re-absorbed is negligible. This altitude is referred to as Top of Atmosphere (TOA).
So, your proposal fails to remove heat due to increased IR, because it doesn’t move the heat high enough in the atmosphere AND because at those altitudes, the lower temperatures mean less heat is being emitted.
The proposed mechanism of clouds blocking incoming sunlight is not as easily dismissed. However, the atmosphere only holds so much water vapor, and clouds can both heat as well as cool. At most, it is likely to be a small feedback.
This is not to say that we should not be managing water, soil etc. better. It just isn’t going to be the game changer you seem to think it will be. There are no easy solutions. Plenty of very smart people have been looking for them for nearly half a century.
patrick o twentysevensays
re Ray Ladbury – While I mainly agree with your policy recommendations, I think you’re looking at the spectrum in a too ‘black-and-white’ manner – optical depth spans a range from small to very large values over the spectrum. H2O vapor in particular provides a large bandwidth in which the emission weighting function, as seen from Space (or from TOA looking down), is largely in the troposphere. CO2 provides some such bandwidth as well, presumably all the GHGs do in various amounts. Clouds do as well.
An increased convective flux from the surface could heat the troposphere, including the upper troposphere (depending on the effective convective lapse rate or changes to it), so as to increase the temperature there, so as to increase net LW radiant cooling, to balance the reduction in net LW cooling at the surface and in the lowermost troposphere due to their decreased temperatures, so that the total OLR remains unchanged. Studies have been done which suggest irrigation may have a surface average cooling effect. (Perhaps it particularly enhances the coverage of lower, warmer clouds??) See my other comments above and below.
I have further elements to your irrigation argument.
First, a deciliter of hot water contains way less heat energy than 100 grams of hot steam, Proof, Espresso coffee machines.
Thus by steaming the water by solar on the ground and let it lift up to the clouds, you lift up solar warmth from the grounde to the clouds simply by free convection that takes no energty, rather delivers energy.
And you change it from dry to moist lapserate,…. by solar. You will cool the ground and heat up the middle troposphere. But from there you will have dry lapserate again up to the isoterm layer. That cannot change temperature.
Now , how is this possible?
I believe either it will become warmer elsewhere on the ground because of your spraying of water somewhere to cool it. the isotermj layer being steadily repaired by horizontal laminar convection….. ……. or….. the Isoterm layer will have to travel higher up.
And then you will have an overallo warmer global situation due to overall lapserate.
I even believe that this is a set of recent conventional IPCC theories that they have conscidered.
Wherefore they also explain it the easier way by constant solar and increasing CO2 in combination with constant cloudiness due to self- balancing water.
No water cyclus seems to be broken on an average globally.
Less cloudy in recent decades seems explained rather as the effect of still another element, Sulophur and transcision from oil and coal to gas, and shrubbing of the combustion exhausts.
Shrubbing reduces the white- cloud- parasol- effect for cooling. Sulophur and sulphates in the atmosphere cools the earth. That is also the main effect of the volcanic eruption global chill reaction. Maybe even the fameous little ice age. .
Yes, more rain may fall from less clouds. For rain to fall, there must be cloudy, and the clouds even solidly below the freezing points on the top.
All in all keep the isoterm layer and the lapserates and the conservation of energy in mind first, then thoughts get easier.
Else, you will run into collision with many real things and not just some participants on this website.
If you drain water from the colorado river to cool peoples lawns and living in southern california, you will have more evapotranspiration there , but get it hotter in Utah and Las Vegas. where you will have to run aircondition on fossile fuels. And Mexicans will blame you for stealing their water.
zebrasays
Maybe They Can’t/Don’t Read?
I actually did read the paper presented as Absolute Proof That Irrigation Works!!!!
The cooling in some regions, however, is offset by warming in other regions, predominantly the northern high latitudes, at least in our model. Dynamical changes, such as a slight strengthening of the Aleutian Low, seem primarily responsible for this high-latitude warming. On the global average, therefore, irrigation has a negligible effect on the near-surface temperature.
And since even actually reducing GMST by itself doesn’t actually solve the energy imbalance, shall we call this stuff “absurdity^2” ?
My quick take on the deforestation/evaporation loss and the irrigation “solution” debate (if I’m understanding it right) is this: Yes, deforestation does reduce the transpiration losses from the pores of plants (though keep in mind that some of the hottest places on earth – the tropics – are also some of the wettest and most humid). And it’s true that evaporation (eg, sweating) does temporarily increase cooling (a reason why kangaroos lick their arms and stand in the shade when it’s hot out https://youtu.be/bbaX1yeSatQ ), but to, one, imagine that this would be a permanent solution to global warming, just keep irrigating the land (again, if I’m reading that right), and conveniently ignore Co2, a proven greenhouse gas,
Instead, can we stop deforestation ASAP please, plant a lot more trees, AND reduce Co2. While we are at it, let’s reduce the human population growth, which is at it’s root.
The irrigation solution advocates should know, btw, that temperatures are increasing, not just over land, but over oceans as well, and there’s all the water in the world and lots of evaporation happening there:
Remember that the world is covered in 70% water, and so far, it’s staying here (TIKO). Yet the globe as a whole is warming. So is it just because of deforestation? I don’t think so.
The resulting brine could be then either deposited in already existing salt lakes, or brought back into the ocean (provided that it would have not be harmful e g. for sea streams).
Think about it. You remove massive amounts of seawater (and keep removing it for centuries?) put the salt back in the oceans, They get progressively saltier and saltier. Yes, of course, that’s definitely going to have an effect on the life there (and possibly the AMOC?)! Right now there are lakes with high salt content with little to no life in them. Think the Dead Sea for example. Flamingos like it, but not much else can live there. Sadly sometimes the chicks are entrapped and die in high concentrate salt lakes when salt becomes hardened around their legs.
I know you were just throwing that idea out there, but maybe we should just throw it all the way out, period.
But I’m wondering, is the plan in essence to empty the oceans by taking great quantities of water out, because that’s what it would take (and fresh water is rather limited), for as long as global warming continues? A geo-engineering trick that’s really, I’m sorry, a lame solution. It’s like the “solution” I read about one time of “solving” the problem of global warming by having people just buy air conditioners. It’s like continually buying dental pain gel rather than just fixing the source of the tooth directly. It’s treating the symptoms rather than the cause just so that we can selfishly keep up this fossil fueled way of life.
If I misunderstood it, let me know.
Tomáš Kaliszsays
Dear Ron,
Thank you very much for your questions.
There is lot of misunderstandings in the present debate, partly because it spreads already over third month and is fragmented into many threads.
The example with covering Sahara with solar panels and evaporating sea water thereon had to show that
(i) latent heat flux is an integral part of climate regulation,
(ii) water transpiration shall be treated as an independent “forcing”, acting parallel with greenhouse effect caused by non-condensing greenhouse gases and partly mitigating the warming effect thereof,
(iii) actively managing this forcing in certain range may be technically possible and can be considered as an additional option to management of greenhouse gases,
(iv) there are hints that this artificial evaporation management might be powerful enought to cause substantial changes in global air and water circulation and thus in the global climate,
(v) for all these reasons, water cycle and options for its management, yet neglected topics in the climate debate, should be considered and treated seriously.
What I acually proposed is an urban experiment that should practically test hypotheses and computational models related to the active evaporation management in urban heat islands that might be, in my opinion, perhaps taken as a good hydrological model for dry hot deserts.
Greetings
Tom
P.S.
An interactive dynamic scheme of this proposal, together with a track of previous discussion on this website (except the oldest and newest contributions that I have not managed to introduce yet) is available on my public orgpage which is easily accessible under following link:
If you are not familiar with OrgPad yet:
Zooming with mouse wheel, clicking (with left mouse button) on closed cells (those having a fine shadow around) opens hidden contents; through Ctrl A + click on the double arrow in the pop-up window that appears, you can open all closed cells at once.
Tomáš, “What I acually proposed is an urban experiment that should practically test hypotheses and computational models related to the active evaporation management in urban heat islands that might be, in my opinion, perhaps taken as a good hydrological model for dry hot deserts”.
Thanks for your reply. The experiment is fine. Irrigating the world’s deserts, if I understand you correctly, the Sahara for instance, would take a vast and a continuous amount of water. Bad idea, in my estimation.
My reply hasn’t shown up. Anyway, perhaps you’re talking about cooling the solar panels with water because they are black? That makes a bit more sense . Especially if the water is recycled. I was imagining that you wanted to irrigate the desert itself. Still, the sand, while not as white as snow, I think does provide some albedo. And you’d be covering that (and eliminating an ecosystem. But still. It’s still a lot of desert and thus also a lot of water.
I’ll. tell you what I do with my little solar powered watering timer. I have a couple of layers of white gauze on the panel to protect it from the elements. The sun’s light can still get easily through. It’s diffused but ample. I know I’m losing some though. The actual panel is quite small. About 1″ square but quite impressive. The rest of the timer I have covered in foil. That protects it not only from sun, but also from rain. But I suppose the white gauze (or something like that) can cover the whole thing. It would theoretically simultaneously provide some reflectivity, or albedo, but also keep the heat in. It can also be painted white. With this timer I water about 35 plants, those are a bunch of trees and shrubs. If I want I can water them much more than I do.
Some people might question the foil, but nature does something similar.
I had to decommission it in the winter. It’s working time was April 1 to November 1. It’s crudeish compared to a commercially made solar water heater, I suspect, since it was homemade, but the owner of that site volunteered once that that was one of his more popular pages. :) You could also cover yours at night to keep the heat in. I did that too, though it would be different with commercial solar panels. You might also play around with the idea of having a reverse polarized glass over it – something that gets dark at night but lightens when the sun comes up. You might also have two sheets of glass, one almost on top of the other, and a water filled layer between them to cool and prevent evaporation.
But another point is though that these are only mitigation measures. Treating the symptoms. They are NOT a substitute for addressing the cause, the burning of fossil fuels.
Tomáš Kaliszsays
Dear Ron,
Indeed I spoke about solar cell cooling by their designing for water transpiration. As there is not enough available water in deserts, such cooling would have required sea water pumping and transport for this purpose..
Should the global warming be solely the result of increased greenhouse gas concentration, I agree that forced evaporative surface cooling would be a mere treatment of symptoms. Should changes in clouds and warming resulting therefrom be at least partly results of land drainage, soil degradation, deforestation and of changes in water cycle corresponding thereto, then the discussed efforts to restore evaporation could be seen also as attempts to deal with all relevant causes of the observed warming, not ONLY with carbon dioxide.
– ” such cooling would have required sea water pumping and transport for this purpose..”
– ” Should the global warming be solely the result of increased greenhouse gas concentration,… ”
ms: — As a painter, I can tell you that sometimes it’s much better to completely paint over a large canvas – or just crumple a small piece of paper.
Large-scale power generation in the desert usually takes place via CSP (concentrated solar power) in mirror power plants.
Basically, in addition to electricity and heat, the CSP can also supply cooling and solar fuels. It is also used to purify water.
CSP & thermal storage enable base load solar energy.
Solar thermal power plants combined with photovoltaics has unbeatable advantages. During the day, PV provides electricity while CSP charges thermal storage. This interaction allows a particularly economical use of solar energy. Inexpensive photovoltaics are combined with solar thermal storage technology, which is more economical than batteries. The resulting waste heat can then be used for thermal seawater desalination plants.
The optimum in the desert would then also be PV-T modules that are only water-cooled on the back side, because on the one hand they increase the electricity yield and can produce fresh water with the collected heat.
Modern thermal desalination plants (where evaporation naturally also takes place) have a thermal energy requirement of 180 kWh/m³ of distillate.
You can produce 200Wp electrically and 600Wp thermally per m² PV-T module – on a good day in the desert, about 2KWh electrically and 6KWh heat.
With 30m² of module area you can now irrigate ~1000m² of agriculture. This has the unbeatable advantage that you only have to set up approx. 300,000 km² of solar panels in order to transform 10 million km² of desert into evaporative landscapes and productive agriculture.
You can then use this water to do additional agriculture and, in addition to the desired additional evaporation, you have the opportunity to improve your drinking water and food security, to build up organic soils, vegetation and water reservoirs in the desert, and thus to extract additional CO2 from the atmosphere (3.7 – 7.4Kg / m³) – and finally you earn money with it and create work – modules sprayed with salt water are in no time —> electrical and investment scrap.
Why even expensive projects to increase evaporation ?
On agricultural land that has the greatest global potential for evaporation, soil improvement to store CO2 & water is not an expensive affair (e.g. a winter crop plowed under in spring) and is rather beneficial for the landowner as they save on fertilizer and have more water available.
It costs little for a city to pass a building code that requires buildings to have a water butt or cistern. If it’s recycled from plastic waste – so much the better. Even large, sealed areas such as parking lots etc. should be separated from the sewage system and drain and filtered and connected to the groundwater.
Globally, these areas alone have a potential of around 600km³/y of rain and water retention over land areas.
Together with increases in efficiency in agricultural irrigation (~ 1000km³/y), mankind would have contained the volume of annual sea level rise and thus stopped the SLR.
ms: Together with increases in efficiency in agricultural irrigation (~ 1000km³/y), mankind would have contained the volume of annual sea level rise and thus stopped the SLR.
ms: — RAIN AND WATER RETENTION:
Putting up a rain barrel, working humus into the soil and improving the efficiency of irrigation (among many other retention measures) has been known for thousands of years and are practiced every day.
Only sheep & idiots can’t understand that.
Who do you actually belong to ? Maybe a mix ??
ms: — RAIN AND WATER RETENTION:
Putting up a rain barrel, working humus into the soil and improving the efficiency of irrigation (among many other retention measures) has been known for thousands of years and are practiced every day.
BPL: No kidding, but that wasn’t what I was saying was impossible. Read for context. I said containing sea level rise that way was impossible, which it is. We’re due for a meter of sea level rise by 2100. Containing all that with your methods is impossible. We simply don’t have the technology to do it.
ms: Only sheep & idiots can’t understand that.
Who do you actually belong to ? Maybe a mix ??
BPL: I’m a scientist. You’re not. Thus our different takes on science.
@bpl says: – ” We simply don’t have the technology to do it. I’m a scientist.”
ms: — Wait, Levenson – not every sheep that looks through a telescope is a scientist.
And you claim that in your miserable sheep pen there are no rain barrels, no humus and no water hoses as “necessary technology”???
Are you doing your science in the Stone Age???
Observing, thinking, knowing and acting are the basics of a scientist.
Posing as a master here while simultaneously preaching strange, unscientific presbyt. fairy tales of creation and the Deluge on Sunday morning—that suits you.
What you don’t seem to understand about “decreasing sea level, earth temperature and CO2 concentration” is this:
– You ignore the IPCC with its statement that with the irrigation of ~1050km³ and the resulting cloud albedo a global cooling effect of -0.05-0.15°C is connected.
– You ignore NASA, CERES and Dr. Norman Loeb, who estimate the warming caused by the falling cloud albedo to be greater than the effect of rising greenhouse gases.
– You ignore the fact that sea level was more than 130m lower 20,000 years ago, proving that 1m more storage on land areas is physically and technically not a problem at all.
Also, +1m SLR by 2100 assumes the earth is getting warmer – but I would like to cool it down by 0.2°C with additional watering of 1600km³/year, which means an immediate 4mm drop in SL.
So far I have not heard any fact-based reasons from you why rain and water retention with improved cloud albedo should not represent a sensible and, above all, quick and cost-effective climate protection.
nigeljsays
Macias Shurly
“You ignore the fact that sea level was more than 130m lower 20,000 years ago, proving that 1m more storage on land areas is physically and technically not a problem at all.”
The ice sheets were a natural process over thousands of years. I assume you understand that just because a natural process achieves something, doesn’t mean humans could do so at large scale and in a small fraction of the time.
Your plan is storing one metre of SLR in rain barrels. Or half a metre. Whatever.
From someones calculations of water volume of 1 metre of SLR: “To raise the surface by one meter, you would have to add 3.6E+11 cubic m of water. 1 cubic m of water contains 1,000 liters of water.”
Lets assume one of your rain barrels is about 1000 litres for the sake of argument. You would need 3.6E+11 rain barrels. Thats rather a lot of rain barrels, plus supporting infrastructure. Do you seriously think that is a practical plan for one metre of SLR, or even just quarter of a metre?
Or perhaps you mean something else by rain barrels. Who would know. All you water cycle people write so badly its hard to know what you mean.
I think your ideas are completely crazy. But entertaining. I wonder if you are taking stimulant drugs like methampphetamine or LSD.
@nigelj says: – ” Your plan is storing one metre of SLR in rain barrels. Or half a metre. Whatever. ”
ms: — So you dumbhead want to tell me what my own plans are ???
After 2 years and 100 explanations, you pathetic idiot still haven’t understood how a water butt with an overflow on an unsealed surface affects the water reservoir. The roof area and annual rainfall determine the potential of a water butt – not its volume. The storage takes place in the ground water (~400km³/y).
It is unbelievable – save the world with such staff like you – forget it.
Travelers to the desert should not be stopped. Just keep taking your sleeping pills and you won’t feel a thing.
JCMsays
@macias,
catchment conservation and restoration, by any means, is to commence AFTER net zero. Perhaps within the lifetime of my grandchildren. Most likely next century or two at the earliest. any assertion otherwise is in the realm of cranks and quacks. You may be allowed to install trees, however, in rare circumstances.
For all these years the proclamations that we can walk and chew gum at the same time, the pleading that every fraction of a degree matters, and the use of meme: “what if it’s a hoax and we create a better world for nothing” has all been a sham and a lie.
The focus is streamlined and myopic. There is to be no hedging of risk; not even a voluntary request to landowners at no cost.
The ritual is to meet the notions of hydrological restoration with derision, ridicule, accusations of bad-faith, and scorn.
nigeljsays
Macias Shurly
I am not an idiot. I had forgotten your plan. . Perhaps you should read the moderation policy about no insults and personal abuse. if that’s not too much trouble for you.
“The roof area and annual rainfall determine the potential of a water butt – not its volume. The storage takes place in the ground water (~400km³/y).”
How many roofs and associated rain barrels .would be required to deal with one metre of SLR? (For example) Show people that maths in nicely set out format that people can follow. I ask because it intuitively looks like the numbers would be massive and impractical.
How do you convince huge numbers of people to buy these water barrels and modify how the storm water drainage works? Its going to cost significant money, and its difficult getting people to support renewable energy policies, stop flying, and buy EVs and you are asking them to spend MORE money to have an insignificant impact on SLR on an individual basis,
Getting the water to suitable half empty aquifers would presumably require substantial pipe instillations. Have you thought about who would do that and how you would persuade them? The costs would be massive.
Or are you suggesting the water just be directed into soak holes adjacent to the houses? And just hope that works?
You need to do a better job of explaining things to convince anyone here. WE will all end up paying for your scheme one way or the other, so we need to see proof it is a practical and sensible use of scarce resources. Havent seen any reasonable proof so far. Sorry about that.
I( tend to believe that you are basically misconsceived and comitting Adulterare, Goldmaking to cheat the kings and politicians, when advocating irrigation to get more rural and national moisture and percipitation worldwide.
It is a fundamental principle of bio and of physical chemistery that you probably failed to learn in your special professional political school, that if you add the product or the result of the process artificially to speed up the natural cycle or process, then you will rather counter- act it and inhibit it. But as the whole processes also take time, the full weight of the result may also be a bit delayed in time..
Pissing in your pants in winter to get warmer … will soon have rather the opposite effect.
But it is a question of positive and negative feedbacks and of phase- shift.
If this is not studied understood and clear to you in all connections, you should not advocate either. .
Patrick o twentyseven has now referred to a finding of http://www.Downtoearth.org.in along with which, artificial irrigation in large scale in the Indus and Ganges area using riverwater and groundwater is summa summarum reducing the moisture by using up the available aquifers and…. actually counter- acting, delaying and reducing the natural monsune in the area.
I shall not believe it until I have it also from an independent source, …. but it is to be expected as a quite common natural negative feedback in a complex quasi- eqvilibrium dynamic system.
There is another example the drying up of the Aral sea and desertification of those regional landscapes due to progressive, logical and scientific political and evident “knowitalls” namely Stalin interference with it as recommendet by the late soviet scientific academy. Largescale irrigation did cause largescale desertification of that area, not the opposite as foreseen by the experts..
Moral: Quit that scientific and logical academy.
The religious and supersticious belief among desert walkers, flat earthers and blind believers is that you will cause more normal rain in addition to it by artificial irrigation in large industrial scale, draining on the natural aquifers. Which is the progressive Partys very logical argument.
But, you often cause quite the opposite due to the nature of natural cyclings, that were never learnt in those progressive and scientific Partisan – training camps. .
Tomáš Kaliszsays
Dear Carbomontanus,
Your example with irrigation in a monsoon area does definitely represent a useful warning that the idea should be examined carefully and, if applicable, implemented stepwise.
I would like to repeat that the most pronounced effect might be expected primarily in dry areas, not in a monsoon climate with a quite high air humidity.
They were discussing the Indus and Ganges area with a large dry desert in between, and that artifricial irrigation for agricultural and traditional reasons updated by modern industrial techniques….. did cause less monsune rain nextby, and that was some of the very point.
Luxurious politically progressive “scientific” necessary, obvious and elementary irrigation in that large scale may o0press the poors in Rajastan nextby. Who only have their archaic deep wells and their camels.
Do not phatacize and construct further on this or try and get away from it.
I learnt it in p0ublic school allready here where I live, as we were not flat earthers occupied by Moscovia …………why air is lifting with vertical convection… so that the more moist and cool sea- winds will come in….. alltogether lift and make Cumulus. upp to Cumulonimbus.
In the nnight, do not hide the the decline…. the wind goes around the other way. This is not provincial misconsceived, it is global also.
You cannot irrigate and watering upm the regional and global hghn aqnd low pressure and belts. Ever heard of, the Barometer…. a National remedy he4re where I live and I am no nidgger. Ever heart o9f Torricelli? a pupil of Gallileo Gallilei. Why do the Polacs of our time follow Moscovia and Mao tse tung instead of Copernicus?
and later Dalotons law and the molar weight proportion of H2O/ Air = 5/8.
If you cool your desert enough with water spray, the air will not lift either and give solar breeze and monune- rains. Dia- lectic contradictions are unqualified. Daltons law Gay Lussacs law, and solar wind sea breeze first.
I saw you discussing bringing saltwater to Sahara to cool it.
Think of bringing seawater very long distancdes to cool the centralo continents and bring more rain and freshwater there.
Saltwater to death walley and Las Vegas Utah and Sahara , to Salton sea and Salt lake city to cool it.
Are you Chineese and learnt it from the Hoang Ho situation how to poison and conquer
Ron R.says
So basically you’d have to dig a gigantic hole in the ground to store the. salt.
Yes, those holes are allready there quite centrally in the continents where the landcrabs and flat earthers were bathed and baptized in church and to publoic school and joined the unions and the Party with P..
And they widen………. Death walley and Las Vegas and the Aral Sea disaster is being purchased and propagated, and is spreading out.
We are having the sales agents of it among us, here at the Real Climate
I have recommended home- made pepperspray also against it.
The succulent Cactus vegetation has developed long spikes against politics and sales promotion of that kind , and is saving its water for inner and vital purposes and do not spread it around for “cooling”
Become a Cactus against such sales and political commercialo propaganda in the climate.
.
Silvia Leahu-Aluassays
June 12 it’s Hug a Climate Scientist Day! Thank you all at RealClimate for your work, perseverance in a not rational enough, science-based context and for your generous knowledge sharing. Hugs!
Having a moment of dejection. Let’s face it. It seems we are talking to ourselves here. Preaching to the choir (for the most part). Even if we know what the problem is with the climate (and other pressing ecological issues) we cannot seem to (and many won’t because they simply don’t want to) unite on a solution(s). We are as if in a rowboat with but one paddle. Yeah, it’s possible, but it’s very hard to steer a straight course.
First there are all the trolls and hooligans who like to disrupt the discussions just for the hell of it. Then there are the committed deniers and obfuscators who quietly seek to preserve the destructive status quo for their own financial reasons. All the logic in the world won’t convince them.
Then there’s the East/West divide, a giant chunk of humanity, wherein the East, as a majority, is simply not listening. Think differently! Not even aware of CC. Have other, more immediate priorities. Believe that CC is a Western conspiracy.“European and North American countries held the highest overall scores, while Asian and African countries saw the lowest, globally.”“Many Muslim majority countries bear the brunt of climate change, but their cultural awareness of it and climate action are often staggeringly limited.”
Update: While researching for this post, it looks like some in the East are getting it. Hopefully they’ll get it as a result of the evidence, not just a knee-jerk response due to politics.
Oh about the adaptationists who want to find a way to just mitigate the heat while keeping up using FF, I though this analogy was pretty good,
“If the Earth’s climate were a car, right now we’re already driving dangerously fast and accelerating. Carbon pollution cuts would be the brakes, and geoengineering would be the airbags. Kahan’s experiment tells people that we don’t need to use the brakes because the airbags will protect us, and we can have fun going fast in the meantime.”
Oh about the adaptationists who want to find a way to just mitigate the heat while keeping up using FF, I though this analogy was pretty good,
“If the Earth’s climate were a car, right now we’re already driving dangerously fast and accelerating. Carbon pollution cuts would be the brakes, and geoengineering would be the airbags. Kahan’s experiment tells people that we don’t need to use the brakes because the airbags will protect us, and we can have fun going fast in the meantime.”
Yes!
There are some problems here, but the strawberries, Fragaria vesca L., are coming and soon there will be St.Hans. There are to few Cumulus, and Cumulonimbus has not shown up yet.,
Ron R.says
Sorry to be obtuse, Carbomontanus, but I’m not sure how this applies…
I am writing such aesoteric formulas now and then in order to tell whoever ought to know it, that I am hardly owned by the Party with P,
Fragaria vesca L coming at St Hans together with cumulus and cumulunimbus tells rather exacty where I am living and who I am.
Whereas the alternatives, the Pioneering Puttlers and their full, scientific support will not get it.
Barry E Finchsays
Perhaps “Marine Cloud Brightening” in the Atlantic off the coast of Africa could get more water vapour and perhaps droplets into the Sahel & Sahara Desert. I haven’t studied it at all, I don’t know the prevailing wind, perhaps I mean the Indian Ocean.
The GISTEMP LOTI numbers have been posted for May with the anomaly at +0.94ºC, down on April’s +1.00ºC and the second lowest monthly anomaly of the year.
May 2023 is the third warmest May in the GISTEMP record (also 3rd in ERA5 SAT re-analysis, 4th in UAH TLT, in GISTEMP SAT behind 2020 (+1.02ºC) & 2016 (+0.95ºC) while ahead of 2017 (+0.92ºC), 2014 (+0.86ºC), 2019, 2022, 2018, 2015 & 2021 (+0.79ºC), these the ten most recent years.
The Jan-May average remains at 4th warmest start-to-year (5th in ERA5 SAT, 7th in UAH TLT) and, with the predicted El Niño still on track, 2023 looks like it will be challenging 2020 for the ‘warmest year on record’ title.
On the disrupted water cycle or at least the disrupted sea to land water cycle transport, and the fameous desertification in central continental areas due to deforestation: and urban heat islands
All in all, forget it!
The fameous drying up and desertification of the Aral sea and Lop Noor in central asia is obvious consequenses of artificial irrigation and spraying of available freshwater for higher “Evapo- transpirational cooling” in those areas, and I am allmost able to bet also that the same is true for Lake Mead, Las Vegas, Southern California, and Salt Lake city and even for the dead sea.
“What the hell are we/ they fighting for?”
Potencial and scarce freshwater resouces of course and for our / their traditional right to misuse it wildly. .
Thus also denialism and surrealism to it all the way.
Question: is Donbas and Krim/Kryim a semi- arid steppe with very scarce and allready intensely even militarily administered critical freshwater resources for “evapo- transpirations and industrialized turbo- convectional systems , or aint it not?
Comrade Stalin labeled Donbas the heart of the soviet union due to its huge Stali- Steel and Stali Coalsmoke- resouces. Thus so traditionally vital to them further in our time.
Comrade Stalin committed large scale industrial etnical racialm entreprises to secure those vital resources to his progressive, scientific system.
And what about the freshwater resources for the holy land system in the middle east, its use and eventual mis- use? Are there any etnical bloody racial national entreprises going on also there?
patrick o twentysevensays
Water cycle, land surface, irrigation: this might have some info; Chapter 2 in particular (haven’t gone through it yet) https://www.ipcc.ch/srccl/
PS urban heat islands – they try to ‘edit that out’ (or changes over time caused by that) to get global and regional temperature trends, so localized changes in evapotranspiration associated with urbanization presumably wouldn’t show up in many graphs, etc.
patrick o twentysevensays
“I suppose that the observed value characterizing the greenhouse effect would have been, actually, significantly higher than observed 33 K if there were no non-radiative heat fluxes at all. Thus, the non-radiative flows are already subtracted from the actual greenhouse effect. In other words, Gavin et all simplify the real situation by assuming that there is radiative energy transfer ONLY, and then formally ascribe the observed temperature difference to real “greenhouse agents”.”
First part – yes. But 2nd part – no.
The climate tends toward an equilibrium climate in which fluxes in and out of a volume (accounting for conversions where necessary) are all balanced in the time average. Globally there is no horizontal in and out, so in the Global time average, vertical fluxes must balance. Specifically, approximating the role of kinetic energy/ work transfered vertically as 0, the net downward solar radiative (~ SW) flux , which is the total solar heating below a level, must be balanced by net upward convective fluxes and a net upward LW (terrestrial) radiant flux.
In the simplest version, a 1-dimension vertical column representative of the Earth’s climate system, a pure radiative equilibrium will occur if there are no convective fluxes. This can produce a layer that is unstable to convection. Now allow convective adjustment, where convection is assumed to maintain a convectively-neutral lapse rate wherever radiation would tend to destabilize the air – now we have a troposphere. Start with only SH (no latent heat flux) and then allow LH (latent heat flux). For an Earthlike case (From a graph in “Global Physical Climatology” by Hartmann…), pure radiative equilibrium produces the highest surface temperature and the coldest 1st cold-spot above. Allowing only SH convection, and the surface temp drops, and the tropopause is warmer than that earlier cold spot. Allow LH along with, and the convective lapse rate is reduced, the surface cools farther, and the tropopause rises and warms.
The potential for SH and LH fluxes (based on surface characteristics) may be regarded as boundary conditions (along with Earth’s rotation (Coriolis effect, length of day) and tilt, orbital characteristics (distribution of incident solar radiation at TOA over day, year, latitude), gravity, specific heat capacity and molar mass of air, size of Earth, mass of atmosphere, geography and topography, ocean depths, evolved species, etc… and the optical properties of the atmosphere, including the greenhouse effect (the amounts and spectra of gases, clouds, etc.)).
For the sake of understanding just the greenhouse effect, a model may be constructed which leaves everything else fixed. But this may mean the potential for SH and LH fluxes, not their actual values. Ie., they adjust to the radiation. – take away the greenhouse effect and the convective fluxes pretty much disappear automatically.
Note that in such a model, the optical effects of H2O and clouds may be separated from their roles in convective heat fluxes, and the LW effects separated from the SW (solar heating) effects, and the LW effects may be prescribed as if they did not respond to climate itself, as it does in reality. Likewise with ozone. Ice sheets and vegetation may be treated as boundary conditions, or as interactive components of the climate system, depending on the purpose of the study/model, etc. What effectively counts as the climate system is time-scale dependent – slower-responding parts (extreme example: it takes a while to erode geological topography) may be approximated as boundary conditions for short periods of time.
In the case of surface wetting, the forcing acts on the potential for LH fluxes, and so the convective flux may change, for all other boundary conditions held constant. I expect this would tend to cool the surface and warm the upper part of the troposphere, and raise the tropopause height. This does not include the radiant effects (solar and greenhouse) of the effects of surface wetting on clouds and H2O.
Also, while I started with a 1-d model, this all generalizes to the full 4+d climate system (vertical, horizontal(2), time of day, time of year, phases of various modes of internal variability… eg. thunderstorms, frontal cyclones, jet stream shifts, QBO, ENSO, …)
It’s a bit more complicated, then – the tropospheric lapse rate is effectively convective in a sense but the convection includes not just local vertical overturning but larger-scale overturning motions (Hadley cells, baroclinic waves), and extends to places, and times of day, where convection would otherwise not occur, and in some cases the troposphere is stabilized to local overturning by the larger-scale overturning, and moist convection does not automatically occur whenever it is energetically favorable, and of course kinetic energy is generated – and some work is converted back to heat via forcing colder air to rise above warmer air, etc… (and some of that occurs outside the troposphere).
But there is some equilibrium distribution of temperature variation over space and time within the troposphere for any given climatic state, and forced surface wetting (separate from climate-maintained surface wetting) will of course cause some shift in that.
PS some forcings are more idiosyncratic than others. Surface temperature is a
JCMsays
Robert Fajber finds that:
“Evaporation adds moisture to the atmosphere, while condensation removes it. Condensation also adds thermal energy to the atmosphere, which must be removed from the atmosphere by radiative cooling. As a result of these two processes, there is a net flow of energy driven by surface evaporation adding energy and radiative cooling removing energy from the atmosphere. Here, we calculate the implied heat transport of this process to find the atmospheric heat transport in balance with the surface evaporation.”
If the atmospheric heat transport represents a net flow of energy from surface to space, and if the atmospheric heat transport is matching the magnitude of surface latent flux, then it stands to reason that the sensible heat cannot be included in the total atmospheric heat transport, nor in the net flow of energy. By simple logic then surface partitioning of heat flux is critical to earth energy balance.
patrick o twentysevensays
“then it stands to reason that the sensible heat cannot be included in the total atmospheric heat transport, nor in the net flow of energy. ”
This really does not make much sense – yes, okay, latent heat flux from the surface is globally dominant, and the paper you cite seems to indicate (I could only read the significance+abstract) that horizontal heat transport is dominated by horizontal variation in latent heat flux from the surface, but your statement would seem to indicate that sensible heat flux (at the surface) must be 0.
From the aforementioned Fajber et. al.: “Atmospheric heat transport is governed by meridional gradients in surface evaporation in modern-day earth-like climates” abstract:
“In modern-day Earth-like climates, evaporation varies strongly between the equator and the poles, while the net radiative cooling in the atmosphere is nearly meridionally uniform, and as a consequence, the heat transport governed by evaporation is similar to the total poleward heat transport of the atmosphere. This analysis is free from cancellations between moist and dry static energy transports, which greatly simplifies the interpretation of atmospheric heat transport and its relationship to the diabatic heating and cooling that governs the atmospheric heat transport. ”
Moist static energy refers to the sum of gravitational potential energy (approx.= g*z), (dry) enthalpy (cp*T), and latent heat (latent enthalpy); the dry static energy being the sum of the 1st and 2nd terms only, AFAIK. I posted a question on this concept back in Unforced Var. April, because I’ve encountered the idea before and it’s long perplexed me, because: d(dry enthalpy) = cp*dT = cv*dT + p*d(specific volume), the last term being to the work of thermal expansion at pressure, which is the work of lifting up the overlying weight of atmosphere. Ie., enthalpy includes the graviational potential energy of the overlying air. So it seems like double counting … What am I missing??
The atmospheric IR Q net (negative) is distributed pretty evenly whether at equator or closer to the poles. Here is the effect of atmospheric heat transport in steady-state configuration. While the solar insolation and latent heating is strongest towards the tropics, the associated outgoing radiative flux “heat tag” is occurring remotely.
The net radiative cooling poleward is balanced by an import of diabatic heating of the lower-latitude free troposphere. This latent heating and radiative cooling is the mechanism of steady-state thermodynamic atmospheric heat transport.
The poleward flux in atmospheric transport of magnitude 6PW is sourced from latent heating of the free troposphere, whereas the surface sensible heating is limited to the boundary layer. Unnaturally limiting surface latent flux and therefore latent heating aloft surely has far-reaching impacts and must perturb the steady state energy balance configuration. I should note, however, In all these papers I see an insufficient emphasis on the fact that condensation is the only mechanism for heat to be delivered to the free troposphere from the surface. Surface sensible heat flux does no such thing. https://www.eoas.ubc.ca/courses/atsc113/flying/met_concepts/03-met_concepts/03f-BL_obstacle_wake/images-03f/abl-color.png
In Fajber’s words from PHD thises section 4.8:
“These results have highlighted the important role that the hydrological cycle plays in determining heat
transport in the atmosphere. There are two ways to look at this. The first is the dry, or θ perspective:
the large amounts of latent heating in the atmosphere, particularly in the tropics, creates warm airmasses
that need to be redistributed to the subtropics and poles where there are large amounts of longwave
cooling. The transport of these air masses away from the tropics dominates the heat transport through
the low and mid latitudes, and dominates the variability of θ in the midlatitude midtroposphere. This is
the perspective from analysing the atmospheric heat transport in terms of HTconv + HTcond. The second is the moist static energy, or θe perspective: evaporation adds large amounts of energy to the atmosphere that must be first condensed and then balanced by longwave cooling. Latent heating does not change the total θe of an air parcel, but it will transfer it from latent energy to thermal energy. The total heat transport primarily balances the heat being added by evaporation with a fraction of the total cooling in the atmosphere.
Tomáš Kaliszsays
Dear JCM,
Thank you very much for this reference, it appears to be very relevant indeed. Let me study it in detail for a while.
Best regards
Tom
patrick o twentysevensays
Well, I am very familiar with potential temperature θ. It is of course the temperature an air parcel would have if adiabatically (isentropically; no net heating/cooling at any point in the process) brought to a reference pressure (correspongindly, there is potential density). In a well-mixed layer (of constant composition), wherein θ is constant over some depth, the pressure variation over height is such that cp*T + g*z = dry static energy (if I remember correctly) is also constant over height and preserved in dry adiabatic processes. Hence the dry adiabatic lapse rate is roughly 10 K/km (a little less, g ~= 9.81 m/s2, and cp is ?… 1004 J/K kg, correct? (**from memory).
But the relation is different when the lapse rate is not = *the* dry adiabatic lapse rate; the actual lapse rate depends on pressure and so will vary with the environmental lapse rate.
Generally, an adiabatic lapse rate may include the latent heat release, assuming thermodynamic equilibrium (for whatever reactions are allowed) is maintained (it is generally delayed a bit due to the need for molecular and thermal diffusion (which generate entropy, and thus are not adiabatic, though this is a minor point here) to and from growing phases, and the activation energy of nucleation of new phases (aside from any chemical reactions, which don’t really apply for Earth’s atmosphere) (PS this generally applies to the ocean, mantle, core…); the later is a significant delay for ice crystal formation, allowing an abundance of supercooled droplets; fortunately the latent heat release for this step is relatively small (but not insignificant) compared to condensation).
Anyway, θe (and I’m not clear offhand if there is a distinction between equivalent potential T and … well, anyway…) if I recall correctly, this is the potential temperature attained when an air parcel is sufficiently depressurized (adiabatically) that all latent heat has been released.
The part (other than phase change delays and diffusive processes in phase changes) that is not adiabatic is when the water precipitates, or when cloud air mixes with dry air, resulting in evaporation (any mixing or unmixing, really).
Given the occurence of moist convection with precipitation, air can dry out as it descends before reaching the cloud base level in ascent, and so must radiantly cool in order to continue descending along a moist adiabat (pushing down a dry adiabat would generate available potential energy (APE) in a horizontal temperature gradient between regions of moist ascent and dry descent such that the dry air would tend to bounce back up, etc.)
And maybe you knew all that but I just wanted to go over it for others’ sakes, + it’s interesting.
Anyway, I’ve not seen or gone over the mathematical relationship between θe and moist static energy cp*T + g*z + latent heat (per unit H2O * H2O amount, etc.) (technically it’s an integration over g*dz as g varies slightly…)
One interesting thing I’ve seen is that if all atmospheric motion (I think) is plotted on a graph of θe over latitude, it looks like the Hadley cells fill both hemispheres.
patrick o twentysevensays
Corrections/clarifications:
But the relation is different when the lapse rate is not = *the* dry adiabatic lapse rate; the actual adiabaticlapse rate depends on pressure and so will vary with the environmental lapse rate.
Generally, an adiabatic lapse rate may include the latent heat release, assuming thermodynamic equilibrium (for whatever reactions are allowed) is maintained (PS this generally applies to the ocean, mantle, core…)
(the state is generally delayed a bit relative to equilibrium due to the need for molecular and thermal diffusion (which generate entropy, and thus are not adiabatic, though this is a minor point here) to and from growing phases, and the activation energy of nucleation of new phases (and delays in reaching chemical equilibria –
– which doesn’t really apply for Earth’s atmosphere, as chemical reations in the air are generally too slow (or otherwise minor) to have a significant direct impact on convection in such a way (**AFAIK**)) –
-; difficulty in nucleation produces a significant delay for ice crystal formation, allowing an abundance of supercooled droplets; fortunately the latent heat release for this step is relatively small (but not insignificant) compared to condensation).
…
JCMsays
@ pat
“””But the relation is different when the lapse rate is not = *the* dry adiabatic lapse rate; the actual lapse rate depends on pressure and so will vary with the environmental lapse rate.””””
My interpretation has been with unlimited moisture supply the moist adiabatic lapse rate can be computed by temperature and pressure alone.
“For example, with a pressure of 1000 mb and a temperature of 288 K, we find that Γ m = 4.67 K km-1 (see Fig. 1). As the temperature increases, the moist adiabatic lapse rate decreases.”
The difference between the moist adiabatic lapse rate and dry lapse rate controls the upward heat transport. And we know the average relation is always causing an upward atmospheric heat transport, from the surface to the free troposphere.
However, in reality the actual moist adiabatic lapse rate (environmental lapse rate) is limited by moisture availability (evapotranspiration). It is not following an idealized case.
So it is reasonable to suggest that unnaturally limiting moisture in space and duration must unnaturally limit upward heat transport. A smaller average difference between the environmental lapse rate and dry adiabatic one must have a relative warming influence near the surface, and a relative cooling influence in the free troposphere.
I should note that the inclusion of moist convection was parameterized implicitly by using a representative tropospheric lapse rate. But in principle the effect is as described.
In general, net radiant heating and cooling try to drive the temperature profile toward a pure radiative equilibrium state; in so doing, they create potential energy and instabilities that can help shape and drive various motions which convectively cool and heat parts of the atmosphere, maintaining a temperature distribution that causes net radiant heating and cooling to occur.
Here you have it again. “First part- Yes. But second part -No!” he gives you.
Being consequently wrong and repeating that all the time may entail that you are heavily misconsceived on a vital and central basic point. And shuld ask yourself: ” What can be wrong with my opinion and personal learnings- beliefs- methods and feelings on such a central, primary point?”
I would recommend that you separate and isolate some elements that add up or multiply, superpose- work together in the same wholeness. It is called partial derivation or analysis.
you have
1, the action of CO2
2, The action of H2O gas in the air, that is another invisible, oligo- atomic natural gas
3, white clouds with proper ice on the top. .
1& 2 are proportionally following and work together, 2 is a positive feedback of 1 , not a climate driver but a feedback.
But 3 is known to work both ways, depending, I have suggested the fameos thermo- static effect and function of water in the climate, and added contra surrealists that the earth is not a water- cooled planet, but a water- thermostated planet.
Water in all its aggregational states together is efficiently damping all the global temperature swings and extremes and in many ways. .
The one- eyed and all those who “hide the declines” are forgetting or hiding the whole- ness, calling themselves “Holistic” probably racial ideological and political reasons. For instance , they are obliged by deep comission to deny or at least reduce the climatic function of the special CO2 gas best they can. Even on the cost of elementary personal scientific credibility.
Keep that danger in mind also.
What you can do to try and save your argument is not to fight Gavin Scdhidt and NASA GISS, but to look after the proportion 1&2 weight / 3 weight. And see if that proportion is rather stable constant at globally changing temperature,…. (which I believe is Gavins opinion. ) Or whether that proportion curves solidly down at rising temperatures.
That is also my intuitive hope for the climate, ,namely that water will save us. But Claussius Clappeyron and Aristoteles should not be politically rinsed out then. to defend ones silliness..
If you can discduss 1 & 2/3 Then you have tried a so called multi variable analysis of a complex system.
And not teach that Gavin has subtracted or should not have fortgotten namely the non radiative fluxes. . Who can work both ways and rather work as a thermostat. As has been suggested here by severals.
My first meeting with the climate dispute was at the University exhibition, That told of CO2 My first spontaneous reaction as a very experienced summer bather in a rather chill climate was:;
“BUT, WHAT ABOUT THE CLOUDS?”
So I have thought of that before anyone else of you here, as an experienced summer bather in a fameously chill climate.
Where clouds yes or no can decide wether you dare to go to swim yes or no.
The answer I shall never forget: ” No… the clouds are something else…. according to the IPCC. ”
What else, she could not tell, so I had to wonder and find out for myselfr. And have found point 3 above.
That is not subtracted or forgotten by NASA.
============000
today we had a first summer Cumulonimbus shower that did save the the grass, berries, vegetables, trees, and potatoes.
We are having strict water restrictions and high danger of wildfires at the moment..
It is 30 C swinging 13 deg day and night at sealevel which is normal here . , and I felt it at once, Warm gloomy tense weather near 100% relative moisture. (Air moisture even smell of it is felt by our especiallyn high IR- sense in our faces) Then the rain and thunder came, with pools on the asphalt also for the birds, rushing water in the cisternes. .
It “refreshes”, cleans everything even thoughts, and clearly cools down the situation,
It was a long desired gentle gift from BIG BANG coming especially to us.
.
If there is any especially vital gas then it must be Hydrogen. Venus is Hell due to lack of it. .
JCMsays
I should caution that the only environmental holist on this page is nigelj.
it is a widely held taboo among practical conservation specialists to resort to this ideology. It is in the realm of environmental spiritualists, hippies, and Shamans. Their “harmony” and vibrations. Such personnel are to be avoided.
However, the holists are welcome into the lay volunteer conservation corps. It is good for fresh air and for a renewed sense of purpose. Staff will guide them towards quite specific and actionable items in addressing the circumstances at hand.
JCM
Holists, there you must specify better. There are many of them, as many philosophies have used that populoar label, It seems to be a universal and natural human religious instinct rather than any specific system or ideology.
I can be consciously holistic in some respects and surely specific & secteric & provincial in other respects. That depends, and is normal human arsenal of mentalities forms of opinions and behaviours I believe.
Meaning, one does not need to be holistic all the time. One can also resign on it and be more specific when necessary. All in the same political party, Society, , Website, Free market, , and Tavern / pub / discussion. .
JCMsays
the terms Conservationist vs Environmentalist/holist are distinct for a purpose. Discussion of environmental-holism is to be avoided in many critical contexts. Conservationists are traditionally among the progressive anglers / hunters / farmers / foresters /herdsman / naturalists / stewards.
Environmentalist/holists generally do not operate effectively in the vast rural-conservative context of disturbed landscape. It is quite sensitive culturally and politically.
In consideration that the vast majority of the lands in need of stewardship are rural in nature, the urban environmentalist ideologues are generally to be avoided for such roles, naturally. It seems also the modern environmentalists need a great deal of coaching. It is a cultural phenomenon and people can spot the difference straight away.
patrick o twentysevensays
Weather, and daily and seasonal cycles, are of course associated with temporary flux imbalances (including not just energy but momentum, angular momentum, masses of various substances); these obviously tend to average to 0 over sufficient time; one way to think of it is that there are fluxes through time that balance the other fluxes (now you’re ready for the stress-energy(?) tensor!)
The troposphere, through heat capacity, and through horizontally-significant overturning motions, extends into times and places where otherwise there would be none (eg., night).
when the air rises and cools to reach saturation, it starts to follow a moist adiabat. Moist adiabatic lapse rates are smaller than a dry adiabatic lapse rate, but approach a dry adiabatic lapse rate as the temperature decreases (because there is less H2O vapor left) …
(and also depends on pressure (more air for the same saturation vapor pressure means less latent heat per unit heat capacity per unit temperature drop))
… which basically means there is a tendency for the convective lapse rate to decrease with global warming – except not everywhere, given the complexity of the 4+D climate system; some places and times will experience the opposite tendency. But the decreased lapse rate tends to win-out globally, at least for near-present conditions, at least for the anthropogenically-enhanced greenhouse effect – this is the negative lapse rate feedback, as it allows a smaller temperature change at the surface (global time average) to equilibrate with the forcing. Other than that and changes in horizontal temperature distribution, etc., the troposphere and surface tend** to warm or cool together in response to radiative forcing of both together (such as measured at the tropopause as a forced change in net flux), with convective fluxes responding to shifting vertical distributions of net radiant heating/cooling. ** except, again, for the complexities absent in a simplified 1-d model – well that may have been implied in the lapse rate and horizontal redistribution of variations just mentioned… anyway…
patrick o twentysevensays
cont. from my: “some forcings are more idiosyncratic than others. [global time average] Surface temperature is a”…
convenient way to gauge the magnitude (size) of climate responses to some types of forcings. But different forcing mechanisms have different (4+dimensional) ‘shapes’, and the same is true of the climate responses (whose shapes won’t exactly match those of the forcings because the feedbacks have their own shapes). And global average surface temperature, though it is an average of one part of what we (ought to) care about, is not the entirety of what matters. The water cylcle, and Atmospheric circulation – for it’s role in shaping precipitation and temperature distributions, clouds, etc. – for ecosystems and their services to us, also for us directly, our (hopefully becoming clean) energy infrastructure, farms, buildings, roads, etc.
Even among well-mixed GHGs – ie., CO2, CH4, N2O, CFCs…
(PS AFAIK, CO2 is the only truly well-mixed (outside/above forest canopies n’ such – ie., the free troposphere and above, AFAIK) – CH4 and N2O decrease going up through the stratosphere; I think this is true of CFCs as well – they get chemically reactive up there – I’m guessing in part because of UV exposure)
… there are at least some subtle differences in shape. I expect a subsequent doubling of CO2 has a slightly different shape than the prior doubling (band widening reduces net radiant cooling of H2O in different parts of it’s spectrum, corresponding to different heights).
Solar forcing is certainly different in shape from CO2 forcing – notably it’s my understanding they have different effects on convection (also stratospheric temperature, other stuff) – hence solar-based geoengineering that is not carefully ‘shaped’ (ie, a particular latitudinal/temporal shading plan, or spectrally-selective shading – IMO the ideal would be to block those parts of solar IR which would be absorbed by H2O and other gases in the atmosphere).
And so an irrigation or desert-greening solution is potentially problematic, for this as well as other reasons (CO2 ocean acidification – and also remember CO2 directly can reduce transpiration, although one may view that as a benefit).
Protecting and restoring wetlands, etc, reducing UHI (which is not generally included in the measured global average surface temp response, at least not directly), etc. are good ideas, certainly. But bringing back the Sahara grasslands? That was selected by nature for extinction (Milankovitch cycles – wait long enough, it’ll come back). Now we’re talking about bringing together two ecological-climatological systems, separated by thousands of years. Who knows what we’ll happen? (I hope people appreciate the Jurassic Park allusions).
The Hartmann book I mentioned shows something similar in a figure in Chapter 2 – Shahara – Arabian Peninsula region.
I didn’t finish a though above – solar geoengineering based on just shading the Earth all over (eg., a non-spectrally selective object at the Lagrange point (1st one?) – the shape of the response is such that it can’t completely undo the effects of CO2.
We need clean energy and energy efficiency (not that you said otherwise); besides that I think mining basalt and perhaps anorthosite and other such rocks to sequester CO2 is perhaps a promising option. There’s also biochar. And ocean fertilization – I’ve read one account which made it sound like a win-win-win-win (whales, seafood for people, CO2 sequestration … forgot the other win but anyway…) although I’ve also read it may not work so well…
Puma and Cook, 2010
“Effects of irrigation on global climate during the 20th century” https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1029/2010JD014122
Table 1 compares their results with 3 others; 1 finds a small net land av. sfc.* warming (*?surface air warming, I think), the others find cooling – one found 1.310 K cooling using ~100 times the irrigation water (there were some other distinctions among the studies), this study found 0.095 K cooling. The cooling that did occur was certainly unevenly distributed, and there was some warming in places and times. In particular, there was a little warming in JJA on Greenland – that is not what we want to see! (But this is presumably irrigation for food production, so we can’t just stop – well, how much is for livestock feed? (but not everyone can tolerate nuts…)) Of course, this study did not have an interactive ocean (did any?), so…anyway.
Irrigation and other surface water management are very idiosyncratic – by which I mean the shape of the forcing (which is not entirely characterizable in terms of an energy flux per unit area) is complex compared to CO2 or solar brightenning (some day-night variation, annual, latitudinal and geographic variation, weather-dependent stuff). Although there is the possibility of tuning the space-time distribution to maximize benefits and minimize side-effects. But how does that work out for food production and ecosystem needs.
Milankovitch cycles are also rather idiosyncratic – they can cause ice ages with essentially no global time average forcing (it’s pretty much all in the latitude-season dependence and the feedbacks, AFAIK).
Solar geoengineering – maybe just shade Greenland and Antarctic ice sheets?
patrick o twentysevensays
PS to be clear, those were all averages over global land area.
Ron R.says
Tomas, I’m not expert, but clouds have a dual effect on the weather. Day time cooling, but night time warming. Can you evaporate those day time clouds in time at night in time to keep it cooler?
“Production of non-condensing greenhouse gases is no way the sole geoengineering experiment the humankind is running. In the industrial era, we can mention e.g. production of sulfate aerosols or production of compounds depleting the ozone layer.”
Two wrongs don’t make a right.
“I would like to add that neither macias, nor JCM, nor me proposed to deal with water cycle repair INSTEAD of mitigation of the greenhouse effect, as incorrectly assumed by Piotr”
You said mitigation, that’s treating the symptom. Is that the point of this, to treat the symptom so that we can continue to emit? Let’s treat the cause please before we start messing around with an evolved, fine-tuned planet like a boy with a toy.
Tomáš Kaliszsays
Dear Ron,
So far, my understanding was that there are mitigation strategies and adaptation strategies for dealing with global warming.
Mitigation strives to milder or stop the warming, adaptation means efforts to find out how to live in the warmer climate. In this sense, it was my understanding that “decarbonization” of the world economy belongs to mitigation strategies as well. Am I wrong?
Your right, in that, AFAIK, adaptation strategies, as commonly understood, involve how we as humans can hopefully adapt to a future of GW, while mitigation involves various strategies on how to stop the planet itself from warming so that we, and the other 10 million species on that share this planet with us, don’t have to adapt or in non human’s case, go extinct – YET reducing Co2, the number one and by far most important item on that list, is being frustratingly IGNORED in favor of various non-carbon reducing, after-the-fact geoengineering mitigation strategies (treating the symptoms rather than the cause) for the globe. That is my understanding. Cut carbon now and you may not need those other expensive mitigation measures later.
In other words, why not emphasize first and most importantlystopping smoking (e.g. switching to a new energy source (or should we keep driving Model Ts indefinitely and dying from it (just an analogy) simply because it makes a few Model T makers rich?) rather than just only treating the symptoms of cancer so that we can continue smoking a while longer (and the Model T makers can keep getting rich)? Do you see how backward that is? Obviously the first and most important thing to do to “stop the warming”, as you say, is to cut the carbon – to stop smoking. That’s what all these climate scientists, who are actually the world’s doctors, and have studied the issue in minute detail have told us we have to do.
If I’m wrong on my definition someone can correct me.
should, as a side-effect of human adaptation on global warming and, specifically, on summer heat waves in cities, improve our understanding to two aspects of the present global change:
(i) if the global change has a single cause in rising concentration of non-condensing greenhouse gases, as assumed by majority of participants in this discussion forum, or if it is rather a multicausal phenomenon as suspected by me, macias and JCM, and, more specifically,
(ii) if one of the causes enhancing the observed global warming might be less effective Earth cooling due to “land use” changes caused by human activities.
If the possibility of combining decarbonization by solar energy use with surface cooling and (possible) precipitation increase due to artificially enhanced evaporation shall be named rather adaptation or rather mitigation, it is for me a quite secondary issue, to be honest.
I think it can be both, but I believe that we should test its feasibility and possible drawbacks step-by-step first and assess its applicability iteratively.
Tomas, It’s still a little unclear to me whether you are wanting to experiment on an adaptation or mitigation scheme. An experiment of the former kind I think is ok AFAIK, of the latter kind is not. I think you would need to do it on paper and peer review publish the results first before you go messing with something major.
“(i) if the global change has a single cause in rising concentration of non-condensing greenhouse gases, as assumed by majority of participants in this discussion forum…”
No, you’re mistaken. No one, not the IPCC, nor any one else here except the three you mention is claiming that there is only one reason for the rising temperatures. They all say that obviously deforestation is involved in that plants take up Co2, and thus massively reducing trees are reducing this ability. For example:
“From 1750–2011, CO2 emissions from fossil fuel combustion have released an estimated 375 [345–405] GtC to the atmosphere, while deforestation and other land use change have released an estimated 180 [100–260] GtC”
But the main concern is our massive addition of extra carbon to the atmosphere, especially since the Industrial Revolution (beginning around 1750) at the same time that we are cutting down trees that filter the air (or killing off plankton https://climate.nasa.gov/news/2621/tiny-organisms-giant-impact/). You are in doubt about that. Here you will find lots of arguments from deniers against Co2 as the cause and their answers.
The worry is that the purpose of all these diversions and a failure to address the main cause (smoking, to use this analogy) is ultimately another trick intended to stall action and to keep us hooked on oil. You are acknowledging that GW is real, but it’s not, mainly, if at all, caused by the carbon we are pouring into the atmosphere (if I understand you correctly) even though that’s what climate scientists have clearly stated. Even though Co2 is clearly correlated with temperatures.
Again. by working on after-the-fact GW mitigation schemes while avoiding the main issue causing GW is treating the symptoms while avoiding the cause, cause you want to keep smoking. It makes no sense. But If you, as a cancer patient, want to argue with the doctor, okay I suppose.
I’ve gone too far into this and really hate continuing to argue whether the earth is round or the moon landing was faked.
—
“Gridlock is the greatest friend a global warming skeptic has, cause that’s all you really want…. We’re the negative force. We’re just trying to stop stuff.” Marc Morano, climate change denier, in Merchants of Doubt
JCMsays
@ Ron R
“purpose of all these diversions”
it is not a diversion nor a threat at all to CO2 mitigation programs. Please try to understand. Sometimes a focus in the misunderstood and dismissed subjects is necessary for understanding. This is true for all societal issues. There always runs the risk of majority attitudes overwhelming and bulldozing less popular subjects. For the all-powerful CO2 mitigation perspective has all but displaced environmental reason on many levels. Do not fear the space carved out for hydrological consideration by a small minority.
ms: — The most important thing you and Tom should correct – stop talking about irrigating 10 million km² of desert with sea water. All the gardeners and electricians in the world laugh themselves to death and think you’re complete idiots.
I have described here what additional evaporation can look like in the desert:
If you have made the quantum leap between salt and fresh water, you can think about how much additional CO2 can be assimilated by how much additional irrigation & photosynthesis (3.7-7.4 kg CO2 / m³) and whether (e.g. by more organic humus in the agricultural soils) it can further improve water and carbon storage.
A volume of 1250km³ corresponds to the current, annual SLR/y = 3.5mm (= 8.5mm over land) and can compensate 25% of the annual, man-made CO2 emissions (~37Gt CO2) and produce ~ 1250 Gt of clouds at the same time. This increases evaporation and cloud albedo over land by about 1.8%.
Before you start discussing mitigation and adaptation, you should know what you want to mitigate or adapt to. Anyone who wants to slow down, stop or even reverse global warming must reduce or reverse the Earth Energy Imbalance EEI @ TOA.
The trends of the last 2 decades of climate development:
In the GEB 2000-2020 ( a combination of climate model & observed satellite data) you can see at the bottom right that evaporation (LH) has decreased by -0.86W/m².
This increased sensible heat SH by 0.17W/m² and LW up surface by 0.69W/m².
Less evaporation —> less cloud albedo —> less GHE.
The ice and snow albedo, which is also decreasing, has a very similar effect. The underlying sea and land surfaces can radiate their heat better.
The radiative forcing through the GHE (W/m²) is defined by the difference of LW up surface – OLR. It has increased by 1.43W/m² over the past 20 years, although the radiative forcing due to CO2 is only calculated at approx. 0.58W/m² / 20y.
The high increase in LW up surface of +2W/m² and imbalance (+0.77W/m²) is mainly explained by:
– increased, short-wave, absorbed radiation (+1.54W/m²),
– the warming due to less evaporation (+0.69W /m²) and only
– +0.54W/m² due to higher LW down surface (as is typical for higher climate gas concentrations)
2 + 0.77 = 1.54 + 0.69 + 0.54
Whether you call it mitigation or adaptation, increasing evaporation and cloud albedo seems to me to be a much faster, cheaper, and more promising strategy. But please don’t stop (trying) to reduce CO2 emissions.
Ron R.says
IOW, If by irrigating you are talking about cooling desert solar panels which you tell me you are talking about, that would be adaptation. If you mean irrigating the desert itself that would be mitigation. And a very, very water intensive, problem fraught geoengineering strategy it would be to boot. I’m not sure which you mean.
@ Ron R. says: – ” if I’m wrong I’m open to correction ”
ms: — The problem with the IPCC and yours is that you reduce yourself to well-measured greenhouse gas concentrations – but cannot quantify the warming potential of man-made evaporation losses.
I count them at least 6800 km³/year – accumulated since about 1850.
Relative humidity (RH), which has been falling globally for decades (~ -0.2% per decade), is quantitative evidence of these evaporation losses. It is also sinking over the oceans – a great paradox for the IPCC, but also for all other Clausius-Clapeyron defenders.
Deforestation and land use change not only lead to CO2 emissions and reduced CO2 absorption, but also to less evaporation and thus to fewer clouds.
Compare the curve of the RH with that of the EEI and you will find that as the RH increases, the warming imbalance decreases towards zero – and vice versa. Good to see in the years 2008-2012.
Thus the discussion revolves around H2O, the water cycles and how they are connected to the global energy balance. None of the so-called water cycle advocates present here deny the GHE of CO2 –
…and how GHE !!! AND !!! evaporation losses have affected the GEB over the past 20 years is still best seen in the following graphic. Short-wavelength albedo losses have a stronger forcing than the long-wavelength forcing by GHE.
Your argument about water losses is fine and understood, of course, MS. I don’t dispute it. The answer to deforestation and other human caused losses of water in the soil then is to halt that deforestation, plant the trees back en masse, leave them alone, and stop and reverse the other causes of human-caused soil water losses (development, whether that’s farming or asphalt and concrete – related to increasing population growth). Address this while cutting our major input of FF and we will be responsibly mitigating.
IOW, restore the eco-systems as they were before us.
It is not, however, to geo-engineer a giant, radically experimental, expensive (and I mean “expensive” in more ways than just money) and temporary (meaning it must be continual), fix (while strangely avoiding the primary cause of FF increase). On this we disagree.
None of the so-called water cycle advocates present here deny the GHE of CO2
They just doubt it.
nigeljsays
Macias Shurly
You talk about deforestation since 1850 causing a strong warming effect due to CO2 released and reduction in evaporative landscapes.
Of course deforestation must be causing some significant warming effect. I’ m just not convinced its huge., and any larger than the IPCC suggest.
Global deforestation goes back well before 1850, with substantial quantities before 1850. Deforestation also peaked around 1950 and has been falling since then.
However over the four centuries up to 1850 temperatures were roughly flat on average, and the most intense warming period has been after the 1950s, when deforestation reduced. This doesn’t do much to support your ideas.
You mention RL falling in recent decades and suggest its loss of evaporative landscapes. Here is an alternative explanation by a climate scientist.
” You mention RH falling in recent decades and suggest its loss of evaporative landscapes. Here is an alternative explanation by a climate scientist. ”
ms: — The loss of evaporative landscapes and man-made CO2 emissions primarily correlate with global population growth, which was 2.5 billion in 1950, but also with technological development.
I tweeted last year with Kate Willet, the author of the paper you linked, on the very subject.
I would classify her answer (an answer after all) as short and stupid.
I don’t think she has understood to this day that falling relative humidity and evaporation losses can be quantified.
@ Ron R. says: – “None of the so-called water cycle advocates present here deny the GHE of CO2 ”
I have already explained 20 times here in the forum that 1000km³/y of efficient irrigation can take up to 7.4Gt/y of CO2 via photosynthesis. This offsets ~20% of annual human emissions.
??? How far are you with your decarbonization strategies ???
BTW – the radiative forcing (RF) from climate gases was ~0.6W/m² between 2000 and 2020.
The warming loss of cloud albedo was ~0.8W/m² over the same period.
I have never denied the GHE.
For both, it ought to be obvious that it ought not to be misconsceived and silly. for which we have a lot of criteria.
Mitigation and adaption must be choisest., and several methods can also be used in combination, like for blending of wines and of spirituosa, but it must all be apellation controlle.
Cheating is not permitted..
Marketing of mitigation and adaption, are under EU/EØS- rules, that must be strictly kept. Sales for Russia without Royal conscession and Papal dispensatione is forbidden in our days .
I just found a furter marketing of the Zeller-Nicolov- model, where we have Roy Spencers method for control at hand
“Tribute to Willis Eschenbach for setting the Zeller-Nicolov- silliness straight!”
On Spencers own website and on the WUWT.
See also Hans Jelbrings “Atmosfäriska effekten” from 2000, and “Dipl.Ing.” Heinz Thiemes further blendings and sales of that, on Thiemes own website, obviously sponsored.
Thime is Technischer Assessor Emeritus from Upstairs at the Railways in old Leipzig,
That must have been Eastern line in old Leipzig
Pleace watch your steps especially in that direction. .
Jelbring, Thieme and Zeller-Nicolov have all set on non- radiative mitigation and adaptive strategies and they all did score very higth as political magicians and stuff- dealers for the denier and surrealists industries on the black market where it could be purchased and furthered from..,
Then you have a lot of material for critical comparision , for easy control of blatant cheating, and for critical proofs of fusel and Metanol- content in the climate dispute. .
Cheating, fusel, metanol and irregular labeling, has been banned and forbidden and to be avoided and warned against on the free market..
As for Donald Trumps interests also,………..- they must now be cleared out by the supreme court first. Avoid them all until that is in order .
If you watch this, you can hardly be wrong.
JCMsays
@Tom
Their condescension is revealing. Superficial consumers of landscape on the weekends; hikers and picture takers. A fine bunch, with deep feelings and a sense of passion. Generally harmless and make a good volunteer corps if you can manage to herd them.
Piotrsays
Tomas Kalisz: “I would like to add that neither macias, nor JCM, nor me proposed to deal with water cycle repair INSTEAD of mitigation of the greenhouse effect, as incorrectly assumed by Piotr”
Too bad for you that your earlier posts are still available – e.g.:
TK on Jun 5:
“ Dear Piotr. I proposed to check if an articifial evaporative cooling on 10 mil km2 of present hot deserts could “neutralize” 2 W/m2 of additional energy flow [which] roughly corresponds to the sum of various “forcings” driving the warming observed in the last two decades.”
If you succeeded in “neutralizing 2 W/m2″, then there would be no need to reduce GHG emissions – meaning you did propose increasing evaporation INSTEAD of mitigation (= reduction of GHG emissions).
That now you claim, with a straight face, the opposite:
“neither macias, nor JCM, nor me proposed to deal with water cycle INSTEAD of mitigation of the greenhouse effect, as incorrectly assumed by Piotr”
tells all one needs to know about your integrity and credibility.
Tomáš Kaliszsays
Dear Piotr,
I merely wrote that the cooling effect of a technically feasible (and, possibly, economically advantageous) mode of solar energy exploitation roughly corresponds to the sum of “forcings” that likely drove the global warming in the last two decades. I assumed that it may be a useful comparison for showing that the effect is not negligible and that it shall be taken into account seriously.
I think that from this comparison, it is also quite obvious that mitigating potential of the active surface cooling is limited and certainly could not compensate further greenhouse effect enhancement if the content of long-living non-condensing greenhouse gases will continue.
I basically do agree with Carbomontanus’ opinion that Earth climate shall be rather seen as “water dampened” than “water cooled” or “water heated”. I just call for investigating the range in which we can exploit the active water cycle management as a further tool for dealing with the climate, with particular focus on precipitation/ drought management on the land.
It is my feeling that this aspect may be even more important for human society and civilization than global average temperature. It is my feeling that if decarbonization bring the expected effect and stops further warming, this stabilization may be insufficient if we will meanwhile desertify further land.
I am afraid that without finding out in which extent the mankind indeed changed the water balance of continents, we may take a risk of hardly reparable damages that could be comparable with the risk of neglecting the changes in the greenhouse effect. In other words, I am not sure that Carbomontanus is right in that the above mentioned climate dampening mechanism still does work undisturbed by human activities and that we do not have to care about it.
Carbomontanus is a pioneering first one to understand and to teach around that Nature and its normally swinging rushing splashing and even sounding and lighting radiating activities is being disturbed by human activities in our days.
I repeat…..
But we cannot have flat earthers, desert walkers, blind believers and any further rabid entrepreneurs and false propets and their logical full support and applaud from the bloody masses to teach and to correct and to guide us us on such elements.
Looki up “Binnenschiffart” and “Flussbegradigung” also in Polen if there is any. Progressive
scientific logical water and river aqvaduct and water management. Thus why have you got such problems with water rather than with people?
Try and wake up and grasp that the facultary chemists and biologuists and meteorologists and electricians are above you in the grades on earths airs waters radiations interactions systemjs and on energies, systems, and climates.
Human political Spraying with holy water is quite misconsceived and perverse in the taverns, on the websites, and on the free market.
Watering and moistening of a landscape by artificial irrigation does hardly cause more rain and percipitation in the same landscape.
I repeat,……….
On the contrary, it can rather delay and inhibit the natural rains that would else have come in larger quantities.
Aspirands have not yet learnt this, and dia- lectic matetrialists will contra- dict it.
But, the overall situation is that Nature has its balances and negative feedbacks- maybe only delayed a bit in time because the processes are slow. and take time.
, and you are at the same time draining and maybe disturbing and violating- destroying the
scarce and critical natural aquifers in the same landscape. .
Further, if you are responsible scientific logical and clever and start spraying available drinkwater riverwarer even rainbarrel water on your tomatoes and potatoes in the spring because of drought, you may rather inhibit their normal natural development of longer and deeper roots during such weathers, and will have to irrigate intensely the whole summer, for which you have no water or cannot pay. . You are producing http/www.addiction to unnatural stimulants that else would not have been needed.
Moral:
Quit political ideological logical qvasi- scientific speculations and phantacies and sales promotion of the same.
Rather ask the agricultural highschool or the University of Biology and environment and landscape, if you have any, for advice on such things.
And if young trees are dying and leaves are falling much too early, and your English “Lawn” in Hollywood shows hardly sustainable,…..maybe let it remain so
I repeat……..
Elsewhere, It maybe grew up as pioneering vegetation after a bushfire or after a too wet year or after pioneering progressive rabid entrepreneurs warfare to the local økosystem……….
………….and is to vanish in any case , to help rather the mushroms, the ants, and the “bugs” and the Humus reservoirs & potencially fossile fuels..
There are many effects of that kind in Nature.
Aint that not so also, Killian?
Piotrsays
Ron: “ The best and brightest [scientists] are humble about what they know, and don’t know”
JCM: “ ja ja. the double standard is noted”
Double standard? Wouldn’t that require you and your friends (T. Kalisz, M. Shurly, Victor, KIA) to be … “scientists”, “best” and “brightest” ? ;-)
Piotrsays
Tomáš Kalisz Jun 18: “I merely wrote that the cooling effect of a technically feasible (and, possibly, economically advantageous) mode of solar energy exploitation roughly corresponds to the sum of “forcings” that likely drove the global warming in the last two decades.
Actually – your post from May30 proves the opposite:
TK. May 30: “ 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.
Ergo the opposite to what you claim now – that you arrived at your 13 000 km3 of evaporation as feasible first, and then only by happy coincidence it turned out to “neutralize” the net 2W/m2 of global warming from GHG emissions.
So much for your intellectual integrity of owning up to your earlier words. To the question
whether you are “useful idiot” of Russia, Saudi Arabia and other fossil fuel beneficiaries
it doesn’t even matter how you arrived at your conclusion, only the conclusion itself:
by claiming that there exists “ technically feasible (and, possibly, economically advantageous” ALTERNATIVE to reduction of the root cause of the climate change – GHG emissions – you do precisely what they need both their paid trolls and the useful idiots like you to accomplish – make the need for decarbonization questionable and/or much less urgent.
We have discussede for a while whether the earth is a water- cooled or a water- warmed planet.
Some, apparently grandchildren of the old revolutionary pioneering ultraleftists and surrealists who are still among us a 100 years later by the Mendels beans effect
( see also the 10 commandments § 2 in original with penal provisions)
are telling us for some pioneering progressive missionary reason that the earth is a water- cooled planet.
To check u0 this , take a look also to the poles, Arktis and Antarktis.
Arktis is an ocean, with dry land around it, and Antarktis is a continent with open sea around it Antarktis is even quite extreemly dry.
Which of the poles on earth is then the coldest and the warmest?,…. and why?.
Then, for comparishion and reference look also too the moon and to Mars. They are lacking earthly atmosphere but they are also lacking liquid water, sea oceans. And what that means first of all for the temperature swings and extreemes.
I would say the earth is neither a water cooled nor a water heated planet but obviously a water- damped planet.
If our surrealists and younger political pioneers could rather get that in mind, they might improove.
and rather stop hiding the decine and smash blindly around them with a defect cycle and a bro0ken hockeystick, . on request from Big Coal and Big Oil, on the free market.
Which includes Matthias Schürle, Thomas Kalisz , and JCM & al at least.
I have very good news for you all.
Even I….. (your pupil , aspirand and class enemy from the alians who never would understand logics….) ……suddenly came to think of my own ideal and royal thoughts, about climate history and paleo- climatology.
Very important and due lectures for me and for you all, is the world situation if the temperature suddenly becomes 5- 8 deg higher,
And there we have a fameous recent example,………
………that I believe also has been conscidered inicially in the climate dispute, namely the Pliocene period formerly called “Tertiær”.
It follows after the cretacious pliocen catastrophic K-T- event. 66 million years ago. The biosphaere seems to have recovered by new species after that fameous Asteroide impact and extinction of the dinosaurs.
But then about 55 millionn years ago, the mid atlantic atlantic ocean broke up, and there was a sudden very fast temperature jump during maybe for one million years.
Why?
It can have been volcanic CO2 connected to it, but I more believe enormeous oil and gasfield leaks and fires when all the continental shelf broke up by all that midatlantic volcanic activity..
What followed then is the worlds very fameous brown coal lignite sediment formations on high latitudes.
There must have been quite enormeous growth of trees and “weeds” in that weather. The Watery damp moist photosynthesis carbon sink took over.
And next evidence of the same is fameous kaolin sediments also worldwide at high latitudes.
Kao- lin, I repeat….
Kaolin formation takes 10 million years of piss- raining on it at rather tropical temperatures.. Chinaware and Delft, even Meissner Porcellain from Sachsen prooves it..
Lignit and Kaolin together entails tropical rainforest climate.. In China , In Böhmen & Sachsen, even Höganäs southern Sweden and…….. mighty early pliocene coal sediments in the high arctic on Svalbard and Bjørnøya.
I have tried that special, rather recent, early pliocene coal. It is heavy and tight enough and it smells of fashionable chimney upstairs in London / The smell of socialism in East Berlin. It ignites easily, it bakes, and burns with very sooty flame. Then gives a quite good coke….that can be blasted up further into white hot.
The German Nazi drove cars and enven tanks on the distillates, and called it Benzin and Benzol after Carl & Berta Benz.
Never forget Mecedes Benz.
Kalisz may know it.
I have seen purchased a special coal from Slovakia that was announced as “neither coal nor lignite but something in between” It stands out with low sulphur and quite bitumenous. It contains Clay minerals bul low salt.
All together a quite progressive and fashionable coal.
The russians are digging it in their Barentsburg on Spitzbergen and call it very splendid coal. Not the best for ironwork but the best for domestic heating and chemical industries. On its best, it is typical early pliocene coal from the sub- and high arctic. .
There we have it, a warm rainforest situation on high latitudes worldwide , and then. with-……. Megafauna…. that came up and ate all that weed down again. All the large horses, Rhinos, and Mastodonts. .and the apes grew larger and larger also.
All until the CO2 was settled down again from the atmosphere and glaciers and ice- ages came back and we have holocene with Milancovic- cycles. .
In this, Ye water vapourers and broken cyclers will have a better and more enlighted realistic, political argument.
The fameous pliocene history and situation is rather my vision of what CO2-AGW is bringing back over the earth and seas. Namely away with the glaciers and rather a new rainforest situation in Canada and northern Eurasia and away with the Antarctic glaciation. With higher sealevels also of course, but who does not rather like sea- bathing when the temperatures get high enough?
Can we adapt to that? Will we like it? Should we better look forward to and appreciate that global warming and climate change instead?
Or should we try and stop it?
Will we be able to live with it?
I think ye flat earthers blind believers and desert walkers have totally lost your orientation due to wrong beliefs in False prophets, along with your grand old Party Congregational catechisms and memerships / ownerships under your elderlies and sins of their grandparents in recent time..
You lost orientation because you never had one due to the sins of your bacground grandparents ,, In all your thriving for holy water, in your slamming around you with a broken hockeystick hoping for a restored cycle. hoping and running after Fata Morgana in your flat, dusty, earthly horizons.
Do not leave it to Puttler alone to resolve and decide over this.
Max pliocene with all its characteristics is what we are facing now if not Puttler goes nuclear. .
Rajendra Pachauri, a typical rather Indian He- man and Maharayah from Uphill, has been set free again by the supreme indian colonial court. (King Charles still have them under his control).
We hope for the d/o US supremje court, that King Donald Grosny will better be chained for lifetime. and that Puttler will go to Den Haag following Milosevic.
Pachauri:
“No one shall have to reduce their living standard. We must only learn to chose other values”
SANN!
Aint that not so Killian?
Even Drunken sailors along with the King and the Queen and all the People were adressed to by Rajendra Pachauri. in Oslo City at the Nobel price festival to high applaud..
Aint he not an autentic Maharayah from Uphill India? whereas the flat earthers desert walkers and blind believers down there…….
Killiansays
You and Pauchauri can’t do simple math, let alone complex math.
But he’s right for the wrong reason: We don’t need to reduce standard of living: 1. Clean ecosystem. 2. Stable ecosystem. 3. Community. 4. Economic equality, 5. One person, one vote, for real. 6. Gender equality. 7. Individual autonomy. 8. Equal access to resources. 9. Living by First Principles thinking.
Etc.
Shush. You’re rambling like a drunk on a bender, as usual.
( Believe it or not, I managed to wake up the drunken sailor again.)
Who earlier published about him / herselfr that he/ she is immune and dyslectic to numbers..
Now he/ she is suddenly above me and Pachauri in complex maths.
Pachauri is said to have graduated on Diesel for the Victorian imperial Indian Railways, .that were coal- heated.
Even I have had to learn diesel at last, Volvo Penta md 7A and Yanmar 2 GM 20.
But it show to be simply what I learnt in public school after all.. Simply red/ox awith adiabatic ignition.
I was expert on sparkplug gasoline 2 and 4 stroke from before, There aint no VW 1200 or Renault 4L or 1 cyl lawnmoover or Motorsaw so wrong that it does not explode under my hands.
Simply reallize that air,spark and Gas is explosive. And If it does not explode, it is because you lack air Gaqs or spark or more of them. And if you wake up in the hospital fully bandaged it is still because of the same; Air, Spark and Gas is explosive!
.At low temperature start rather try butane- gas. Eter startgas dissolves water frost that may may shortcut the plug.
Diesel breathes in and is fueled independently without any kind of choke, and ignites rather by rapid adiabatic high compression.
on 6, Gender equality:
,
Pachauri showed right also there, as a very typical indian Maharajah from Uphill able to reallize a certain human di-morphy. that he was – able to respect on its natural premises. along with Killians §9, – first principles thinking.
So for what is wrong with Pachauri Dr. D. Sailor?. . Only that he is from India Uphill?
He was here, I give him my best notes
§1, India on its very best the way I have learnt to know them namely
§2, polite,
§3, matter-of-fact- and
§4, strict!
§5, Really worthy of the Nobel peace price
Al Gore is much more dubious
First of all, I do not like his sloppy mannersl.
But here in Oslo he showed able to wrap himself together and become Pachauris obedient poodle.
Killiansays
“No one shall have to reduce their living standard. We must only learn to chose other values”
This is utter nonsense. If that needs to be explained to you, your knowledge is extremely limited. You cannot reduce per capita energy significantly without reducing work (in the thermodynamic sense) and consumption. The resources do not exist to maintain energy levels that we have with FFs. Period. The overall production would have to be much larger than with FFs because of the MUCH lower density.
These are simple things, drunken one.
Tomáš Kaliszsays
Dear Carbomontanus,
Thank you for pointing to the paleoclimate in the central Europe 50 milion years ago. Actually, what do we know about the climate in lower latitudes at the same time? Was it still rainy e.g. in tropical Africa, or, perhaps, an opposite?
I have still zero knowledge about it, I must admit. Should you have some references or a short summary, please do not hesitate to share.
Quite good. Look there first, and they have further references better than I can give you.
I rather study peoples motivs for not knowing, and for fighting such things that you will need also for an open set of practical purposes different from climate dispute.
When denialists and surrealists deny and fight what entals todays common, including my kind of knowledge and opinions in the climate dispute,…. they fight and are at war also against that large and wide and open set of methods and knowledge that comes from other sources and horizons of research and experience , All that entails and that controls what we ought to know about climate and geophysics.
They are at war against our learning civilization in their way and by their snobbish or even mad manners.
They are at civil war against my, and a lot of other peoples cultural and vital professional identity. And I really do not like that.
For Holocene there are also other horizons to dig into for checking up.
1, The worlds large loess- sediment landscapes documenting extreeme drought and frequent enormeous “dust- bowls” are found rather on high latitudes north and south, next up to the polar glaciers and tundras. Verifying Clausius Clappeyrons law plus a next principle: Draught is a relation between percipitation and temperature. It rains less in the green sub- arctics with moscus and reindeers than in Sahara and in Utah & Arizonas. and in Uzbekistan.
2, the worlds large arid desert areas have rather dried up since max holocene 8-6000 years ago when they were green savannas and steppe. Dried up, on negative natural milancovic transcient, again sustaining the importance of dew point curve of water……..
……….And the reserves of water in the world that can evaporate seems rather to be the oceans and the greatest lakes., and brought to land by the worlds major wind systems, not by local “evapotranspiration” with local turboconvection and “latent” & cooling fluxes.
Alternative model- theories are to be disqualified and thought to be adjusted rather to basic principles of geophysics that rules globally and universally in the planetary atmospheres and eventual hydrospheres.
3, there I am not sure. But I saw once a TV- program from the Congo river and basin of stone- age findings of human settlements shown by broken pottery in the river- sands where there is thick jungle today They told that the Congo basin at stoneage was a more savanna- like landscape with human settlements and grazing animals.
Then examine Amazonas also of early human settlements and stoneage agriculture. The tropics may have been less rainy for some reason, . as Sahara and central asia and the middle east was more rainy at Max holocene. .
And here I try and show you some more sceptical elements and methods at least, for better looking your authorities and teachers of physical geography and geophysics into their chards and scriptures. So that you can better control them and perhaps make up your own mind instead.
JCMsays
the obstinate attachment to archaic prejudice is to be ridiculed.
the elders in my family were referred to as Bestefar and Bestemor, with ancestry traced to surname Almquist. Engineers imported to north america from Oslo and region contracted for setting up the mills / pulp & paper processing high up the ottawa River and of hiring staff labor. The shield bedrock landscape resembling that of their homeland. This was after the height of the fur-trade and so the ecology had already commenced its profound change.
For this I concede they probably lacked awareness and consideration of soil genesis and erosion, and any speculations of the geography of the indian subcontinent would have been mere uneducated guesswork. However I suspect they would not have engaged on such matters. For me, I have perused an entirely different type of work in a different geography.
The soil genesis having initiated in earnest in the order of millions of years BP in accumulation. Plotted against time a slow and steady accumulation of organics until very recently, and so very likely a linear graph resembling an upside down hockey stick or scythe in shape. The flood irrigation in Uttar Pradesh and Bihar is absolutely erosive, and so the hydrological and temperature extremes should be expected to intensify. I have witnessed farmers praying at Mahabodhi temple on such matters.
Ron R.says
JCM: it is not a diversion nor a threat at all to CO2 mitigation programs.
Fine, then we agree that it’s carbon and that we need to reduce our input of it. So let’s do so, finally, and stop strangely avoiding this primary cause of GHE. Responsible mitigation measures are fine, if still necessary, after we have addressed the primary cause.
Q:
Are you so in a hurry with your salt and brackish warer into the desertifications, Gavarish ?
JCMsays
there is a lack of comprehension happening here, purposeful ignorance. A defense mechanism of some sort, from accumulated emotional baggage on the issue of climate or something else. anyway, it’s weird. what is happening here? is everyone ok?
Do not aspire as a psychoanalyst after having boldly demonstrated that you hardly understand your own thoughts, your own and other peoples motives and words. .,
Your comprehension, your very percipiitation of the climate may be alian to molecular matter, to heat and to light and to waters, to silicates and to aluminates, and to photosynthesis, the green values. due to private political racial snobbish progressive alternative religious baggage where such conscepts were forbidden, ignored, ridiculed, and racially rinsed out..
Question
are you sure that you are perceiving normally, gommon physical and geographical matter different fom dia- lectic matter there where you are living?
@JCM says: – ” what is happening here? is everyone ok? ”
ms: — I suppose some older, conservatively paralyzed minds here have suffered some serious roof damage from the release of the IPCC chart (irrigation and albedo have a cooling global radiative forcing).
If you now tell these walking sleeping pills that the increasing EEI and the warming that has taken place in the last 20 years are mainly caused by albedo losses, they lose track completely or flee into their subconscious and remain silent.
referring to your doubts that the latent heat fluxes (about 80 W/m2 as reported in various modifications of the global energy balance and the respective Trenberth’s diagrams) are “neat” fluxes and to your opinion that their values should be in fact divided by factor 3, I would like to ask two questions:
1) I do not see a reason why the authors of these schemes should make an exception and, while reporting other energy flows as “neat” values, choose an uncorrected, “raw” format just for the latent heat flow. Do you have an explanation?
2) Should your opinion be right, the fit of the mean global annual precipitation (990 mm water column) with the reported value of the latent heat flow about 80 W/m2 would have been purely accidental. Do you think so?
Dear Ron,
You object that in the available scientific literature hardly anybody claims that human-caused changes in water regime of continents might have been a parallel cause (“forcing”) of the global climate change, along with rising greenhouse effect.
In this respect, however, please note that there are hardly any reliable data about past* global water regime and/or about past water regime on most of the land that could enable a such claim. There are only indirect hints that (likely) may be quite difficult to quantify. Such uneasy subjects are not particularly suitable for a successful grant project on usual relatively short-term basis, I assume. That might be a rather simple explanation for absence of the respective studies.
TK: You object that in the available scientific literature hardly anybody claims that human-caused changes in water regime of continents might have been a parallel cause (“forcing”) of the global climate change, along with rising greenhouse effect.
In this respect, however, please note that there are hardly any reliable data about past* global water regime and/or about past water regime on most of the land that could enable a such claim.
BPL: Uncertainty does not automatically work in your favor. It could just as easily work against it. If nobody knows, then the effect you want could have worked in the opposite direction as easily as in the expected direction.
Piotrsays
Tomas Kalisz: “ 1) I do not see a reason why the authors [Trenberth?], make an exception and, while reporting other energy flows as “neat” values, choose an uncorrected, “raw” format just for the latent heat flow.”
The “exception” is only in your head – my ~ 1/3 value has come from dividing the outgoing radiation from the atmosphere (the only way the heat absorbed by the atmosphere can escape into space) = 199 W/m2 – by the TOTAL OF ALL energy sources heating the atmosphere: “531(= 78+80+17+356) W/m².
Hence no exception – the other fluxes obtained THE SAME treatment as your latent heat, if anything, undeservingly so – for instance SW absorbed by ozone in stratosphere has MUCH HIGHER probability to escape into space than your latent heat from troposphere.
TK “ 2) Should your opinion be right, the fit of the mean global annual precipitation (990 mm water column) with the reported value of the latent heat flow about 80 W/m2 would have been purely accidental. Do you think so??”
Apples to oranges – the fact that you put 80W/m2 of latent heat into troposphere DOES NOT mean that anywhere close to those 80W/m2 was emitted into space. After several weeks of various people explaining it to you one would think that something has landed. Apparently not.
And if you, and your little friend (Shurly) can’t wrap your heads around such a basic thing- then it does not bode well for anything else you say – if your foundation is crap, anything you build on it – would crumble. Garbage in, garbage out.
Tomáš Kaliszsays
Dear Piotr,
Many thanks for your reply, I think that I have now a better understanding to your position.
Nevertheless, I still doubt that your interpretation of the GEB diagrams is correct.
I think that the 62.5 % of the energy input absorbed by the atmosphere which, as assumed by you, are physically “returned” to the Earth surface, are in fact not retained therein.
I think that wherever we consider mean annual global balances, the entire huge downwelling radiation is effectively a virtual quantity, because it is practically cancelled by comparably huge upwelling radiation. What in my opinion really does play a role may be the difference between both radiation flows.
the mean annual global value of this difference is (356 – 333) W/m2 = 23 W/ m2
If we consider only this neat energy flow between the surface and the atmosphere, then the sum of all energy flows absorbed in the atmosphere (199 W/m2) is also completely emitted therefrom to the space.
I have to apologize for my incorrect assertion that all energy flows in the discussed diagram are “neat” flows in terms of an annual “budget” – I think that just all the depicted “internal” infrared radiation flows are rather virtual quantities and may become confusing, if taken the way you have applied.
Greetings
Tom
Piotrsays
Tomáš Kalisz: I still doubt that your interpretation of the GEB diagrams is correct.
… based on you inability to understand how a (energy) budget works.
TK:” [the 324 W/m2 of back-radiation] assumed by you to be physically “returned” to the Earth surface, is in fact not retained therein [and therefore is] a virtual quantity, because is cancelled by comparably huge upwelling radiation
That’s like saying that in a (balanced) federal budget – government revenues are zero (i.e. “not real”, in your vernacular = “virtual“), because revenue is “not retained” in the treasury, but “practically cancelled” by government spending of equal size… Convinced by Nobel Prize winning economist T. Kalisz, the governments, in a hugely popular move, abandoned ALL TAXES, since they are not real, because they would be “cancelled” by the spending anyway. Tell us, Tomas, what happened next …
If 324 W/m2 of the back-radiation WERE “retained” by the Earth – the temps would have RAPIDLY increased – imagine the rate of global warming if it was driven by the imbalance of 324W/m2 instead of 2W/m2.
For a climate CHANGE- only matters the imbalance between radiation in and out at the top of the atmosphere. Of the heat put INTO the atmosphere: 531(= 78+80+17+356) W/m², only 195W/m2, or slightly above 1/3, escapes from atmosphere into space.
So AT BEST- only 1/3 of your 80 W/m2 of latent heat escapes – thus providing cooling. This is more than offset by GH effect of water vapour and clouds minus cloud albedo. That’s why, based on Gavin’s paper brought unwittingly by your friend Shurly, I have shown that the the net effect of water cycle is to WARM Earth:
Net GH of H2O cycle = +120 – 47 (cloud albedo) – (1/3)*80/m² = +46 W/m²
If you still can’t wrap your head around it, hit the books, or take some intro course. Functioning of this group is predicated on having a minimum understanding of the basics of climate, and willingness to learn from the answers by people who may know more than you.
So far you have shown neither.
patrick o twentysevensays
re Piotr – see my https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2023/06/unforced-variations-jun-2023/#comment-812708 – Starting with dry convection only, and setting aside radiative effects of changes in the surface and atmosphere optical properties (clouds, H2O), when LH flux is initially allowed, there is net cooling at the surface and net heating of some portion of the troposphere; the OLR doesn’t change immediately, nor do any LW fluxes within the atmosphere. This results in the temperature changes over time, as the disequilibrium decays. In the new equilibrium, the addition of the LH flux is completely balanced by changes in net upward LW flux and net upward SH flux; ie, 0% escapes to space **in this sense**. But the new equilibrium has a new convective lapse rate, a cooler surface and lowermost troposphere and warmer upper troposphere; net LW radiant cooling is redistributed but the column total (sfc+atm) is the same (=OLR). Now add in the H2O+clouds albedo and greenhouse effects…
patrick o twentysevensays
(0% of the change escapes to space when equilibrium is restored, as there is no change left.)
Here I may help you again on things and practical principles that seem hardly learnt among the climate denialists- surrealists namely classical chemistery.. The matgerial and microchosmic sciences. different from militant political dialectic materialism and propagandism.
Traditional forms of thought old folkloric supersticion you see, that may be leaking out and shining through.
“… global balances, the entire huge downwelling radiation is effectively a virtual quantity, because it is practically cancelled by comparably huge upwelling radiation. What in my opinion really does play a role may be the difference between both radiation flows.”
This only shows your special and maybe abnormal political conscepts of words.
That huge downwelling radiation is not virtual. It is real and physical.
The one radio beam or light beam in one direction does not virtuallize or anihilate and push back the other beam in the opposite direction That would deny the very axiom of permanence of energy.
It superposes of course and without physical interference to each other.
It is not like solid state military broad showel bulldozers on larvae feet meeting each other and the strongest will push back and anihilate the weaker, or armies lined up in fronts shoulder by shoulder against each other in the field under strong command.
That is not the nature of light and electromagnetic waves and radiation, It is a fameous false model conscept of the same..
Immagine rather an ant- road with traffic both ways between a main and a satelite red- ant hill in the polish forests if you still have any. Only at war, they stop each others traffic and anihilate, – virtuallize each other on the road.
Immagine rather a main anthill and an oak tree. They sleep at home in the night and go out in the morning and up the tree for sugar and home in several turns both ways all the day, and then home again for evening. There is hardly any pushing and collisions and anihilations and virtualization denying the 1.st law on that road.
It is the main universal sitgualion in the air and in the chemical glasses and on the car windows when things dissolve or evaporate and then re- condense and cristallize again.
It goes both ways all the time, not only out in the morning and back again in closed order in the evening to avoid collisions.
Both ways all the time but at varying speed and currents both ways depending on temperature and field conductivity. And that is for particles, molecular matter, the nonradiative currents and material reserves and potencials interests affinities.
I did not learn this in highschool, but got it inicially as a first principle of chemistery at the University that is to be understood and kept with you all the way, , the law of mass action. Or the universal law of the 2 polish anthills and the lousy oak tree.
You see even obvious brownian moovement on that hill at daylight.
That is not “virtual” in any detail. Microcosmos is not virtual either.
The Voice of America in Munic transmitting in Polish did rattle fully in the jamming contra- transmitting antennas in the east, even into their strong transmjitter red hot high watt transmitter tubes in the east. Gomulkas electronics was shivering and tranmitting the same that they took in on the frequencies of Voice of America in Munich. .
You can easily show it optically by incadescent lamps and reflectors.
The strong lamps shine up and shine even stronger out, by reflected own light back on them. Wherefore that diffuse reflection back radiation necessarily also will heat up the ground even a bit further.,
Roy Spencer has corrected the contrarians on this.
Contrarians have propagated that it is against the 2nd law. But it is easily shown real. Nothing real can be against the 2nd law
Denying it however, is denial of the 1.st law.
And if this was not so, barometric pressure hydrauloic pressure and osmotic pressure would not be equal in all drections.
This is basics to be known first, of electromagnetism and of moleculkar matter and of energy. To be known for sceptical control and correctures of ones speculations and phantacies, and control of ones teachers`s. . .
“You object that in the available scientific literature hardly anybody claims that human-caused changes in water regime of continents might have been a parallel cause (“forcing”) of the global climate change, along with rising greenhouse effect.”
Hmm, I don’t. remember saying that. Do you have a link? I do remember saying repeatedly that our addition of Co2 is the “main cause” of GW.
I think you are right that our changes in the water cycle have had negative effects on the atmosphere, obviously. Changing the course of rivers, for example. The addition of dams for another. Deforestation as another. But again, the main reason temps are going up is from our addition of FFs! It’s a long proven fact! As Harvard says regarding geoengineering, “the best way to slow climate change is to reduce greenhouse emissions”. The other ways are mostly after-the-fact and their (disguised) purpose is often to allow us to continue our addiction to FF! Cutting emissions (and switching energy sources – solar mostly) deals directly with the problem, head-on, addresses the main cause. It’s front-ended while the others are back-ended. Do you see what I mean?
We can mess around with the water cycle, add lakes in deserts, I guess. Whatever. Or something even more radical. I suppose we can put all of our nukes on one side of the planet in a remote location, set them off and try to knock the planet into a more favorable orbit for climate, or a more favorable tilt (obviously not a serious proposal). There are all kinds of mitigation schemes out there. Should we take them all seriously? No, of course not. Continually irrigating the deserts with vast amounts of seawater is one of them, IMO. But what do I know?
So yes, let’s work on fixing our broken water cycle, (responsibly). But first and foremost lets reduce our dependency on FF, something we should have and would have done long ago (but for all the FF industry’s shenanigans) and let’s stop deforestation. FF emissions have already been shown in excruciating detail to be the main reason why the planet is heating up.
Ron: “the main reason temps are going up is from our addition of FFs! It’s a long proven fact! ”
macias shurly : @1 JUN — “That’s just not true” and gives the link to slide presentation by Loeb that does not addresses the causes of global warming, but only mechanisms through which it is realized (i.e. feedbacks). That’s like saying Oswald didn’t kill JFK, because it was the bullet, not Oswald directly, that did the damage to JFK’s body.
To make it better – your own source identifies “increases in water vapor/i>” as one of the main culprits for … the planetary heat uptake. And you brought it up in support of your colleague T. Kalisz’s plan to …. massively increase the concentration of water vapour precisely over the very place that currently has …. the lowest relative humidity and, therefore, the most room to accommodate the additional water vapour – Sahara.
And that’s coming on the heels of Shurly’s previous attempt in this thread to gain “credibility by association” with a NASA source – when he used Gavin’s paper to claim that it proves that
“The earth is a water-cooled planet – whether you like it or not ”
-only to achieve … the opposite of the intended – after the correction for his error in assumption that ENTIRE latent heat flux is lost to space ( i.e. using instead a more realistic number of 1/3 based on the Trenberth’s energy budget – proportion of the energy emitted to space over energy absorbed by the atmosphere)
– the water cycle causing the Earth to be slightly cooler (Shurty = -13 W/m²), after the correction became: +44 W/m².
One has to hand it to Mr. Shurly – he certainly knows how to shoot himself, and his friends, in the foot.
This adds to his other admirable quality – knowing how to admit his errors in style:
MS to his opponents: “[the mentioned above 1/3 is ] the idiot-piotr factor”,”The full-of-himself idiot is you”, “only sheep & idiots can’t understand that. Who do you actually belong to ?”. “you dumbhead”, “you pathetic idiot”, “you’re complete idiots”
RR: the main reason temps are going up is from our addition of FFs! It’s a long proven fact! ”
ms: — That’s just not true.
BPL: That is true. The correlation between airborne CO2 and temperature over the past 170 years accounts for 85% of the variance. That means all other influences, known and unknown, can only have accounted for 15%.
1) As emphasized (I guess, by nigelj) some time ago, we all are human beings with various strengths and weaknesses. Fortunately, it is unlikely to kill an opponent in a remote discussion. I hope, however, that none of us would do so even if it were easily possible.
suspects me of working for a climate denialist agency, and ascribes my style to a schooling in public relations techniques.
I would like to offer an alternative explanation. Please consider that the suspect writing might have arisen also as a creeping side effect of my full-time job as a patent engineer during the last 13 years of my professional career
I would like to add that repeating questions may look like trolling but it can be also a way how to reveal that seemingly simple and clear issues are in fact complex and may need a thorough analysis.
had a fierce argument around macias’ opinion that we can repair the weakened small water cycle on the land by restricting drainage and retaining more water for transpiration and evapotranspiration.
I would like to say that, on one hand, I fully agree with macias that the water cycle is a substantial element of the Earth climate. On the other hand, I fully agree also to nigelj who points to the fact that money have to be taken as a scarce limited source and shall be spent wisely.
I think that we have to be aware that silver bullets resolving a problem in all its aspects without any side effect are extremely rare. Even the seemingly straightforward assumption that if an increased land drainage in combination with deforestation, soil degradation etc. initiated continent drying, stopping these processes should reverse the drying and finally restore the original “unperturbed” state, may not be fulfilled universally.
suggests that the famous “tipping points” might exist also in hydrology, and that if a continent or a region once switches from a “wet” into a “dry” regime, reforestation, irrigation and/or increased water retention may not be helpful anymore. In this aspect, we have to take very seriously all contributions to the present discussion that emphasized deteriorating effects of unsuccessful attempts to plant trees into arid areas or expand irrigation from limited water sources available therein.
5) I think that a similar caution should apply also to another, even more generally accepted assumption that restoring low atmospheric content of non-condensing greenhouse gases will automatically restore previous “unperturbed” climate. This assumption may become particularly risky if the observed global climate change has in fact more than just this generally assumed single cause.
6) In this respect, I am sceptical about fighting with the radiative greenhouse effect as the highest human priority, simply because I do not believe that anyone can honestly promise that it indeed brings the asserted effect.
If we suspect that a criminal has an accomplice, it may be good to deal with both of them. Although there may be perhaps different interpretations of the evidence brought by macias (Loeb et al, etc, suggesting that contributions of the radiative greenhouse effect and of continent drying to the observed warming may be comparable), I would see putting this evidence aside (and dealing primarily with the assumed “main suspect” only) as an approach with a potentially higher failure risk in comparison with the proposed alternative – paying an comparable attention to both.
7) Returning to the “cost effectiveness”, or “risk analysis”, I am not sure that it is a prominent feature of the vast majority of publicly discussed climate policies.
In this respect, I think that my proposal of “urban heat island experiments” that should practically test various strategies on a relatively small scale, assuming step-by-step scale-up of those that will look cost-effective and give promising results, may not sound as a totally crazy alternative.
Basically, I assume that these urban experiments might perhaps indeed become a way towards a broad implementation of the strategy proposed by macias, provided that the experiment proves the expected advantages.
8) I tried to actualize the track of the present discussion on my public orgpage
If you would like to see the links between different threads of this discussion, you are invited to use this link.
Greetings
Tom
nigeljsays
Thomas Kalisz
“5) I think that a similar caution should apply also to another, even more generally accepted assumption that restoring low atmospheric content of non-condensing greenhouse gases will automatically restore previous “unperturbed” climate. This assumption may become particularly risky if the observed global climate change has in fact more than just this generally assumed single cause.”
Can you please provide some EVIDENCE that getting back to preindustrial levels of atmospheric CO2 is a “generally accepted assumption” because I’m not aware that it is. Killian is the only person on these pages I’ve read suggesting we try to do that.
To say we shouldn’t attempt to get back to those pre-industrial CO2 levels because it wont perfectly restore some pre-existing condition seems a weak argument. The goal has its plusses and minuses. It might help stop long term melting of the ice. But some research suggests the increase of atmospheric CO2 over the last 100 years has already annulled or greatly diminished a future ice age a reason to leave CO2 levels about as they are.
However the generally accepted priority is stopping warming getting above 2 degrees by getting to net zero emissions by 2050. If we achieve this THEN we can consider if getting back to preindustrial levels of atmospheric CO2 makes sense and is achievable. Right now its not worth a detailed evaluation.
“6) In this respect, I am sceptical about fighting with the radiative greenhouse effect as the highest human priority, simply because I do not believe that anyone can honestly promise that it indeed brings the asserted effect.”
Now I’m confused. Because fighting the greenhouse effect – meaning stopping or reducing CO2 and methane emissions (mostly) – is not the same as sequestering carbon to get back to preindustrial levels of CO2. So what do you mean?
I have a simple question. Do you think humanity should aim to keep warming under 2 degrees? Please give a simple yes or no answer, and an explanation if your answer is no.
Do you think that we should stop or greatly reduce (by about 90%) burning fossil fuels? Please give a simple yes or no answer and explanation if its no. It is essential we have clarity on what you think on this.
Do you think we should plant trees as a carbon store? Because this also helps promote some evaporative cooling. It helps solve both the emissions issue and altered water cycle.
Macias Shurlys and your schemes intuitively sound to me like they wouldn’t achieve very much and could have unintended and problematic side effects and very high costs . But they could be trialed at small scale. Nobody should object to that.
patrick o twentysevensays
“as the highest human priority, ”
I think the highest priority is to be good. From that follows love. From that follows wisdom. To appreciate and know the beauty and truth of the universe, including within each other and ourselves. Kindness; I believe all other moral values flow from these. For effectiveness, knowledge. Approach the unknown with open-minded skepticism, as opposed to willful ignorance.
So I would be reluctant to say any one such goal is the highest priority. In my mind, there is a secular version of the 10 Commandments – number 1 can be restated as keep your priorities strait, and don’t lose sight of the big picture while dealing with the details. There are evil and ignorance. Hunger and poverty. Pathogens and other diseases/conditions (including long-covid and MSUD). Climate change and other environmental problems. Etc.
patrick o twentysevensays
… that being said, I believe the highest priority specific to climate change is decarbonization of economic activity – mainly, getting off fossil fuels, also limiting deforestation, and maybe reformulating cement production, and, … attaining net below 0 emissions.
(… As I lean towards thinking IPCC review of attribution is good quality work. Are there uncertainties left? Sure. We can keep studying the issue, and ecosystem protection from other factors is a good idea anyway, but … I haven’t gone through the whole thing thoroughly, but macias shurly’s reference https://ceres.larc.nasa.gov/documents/STM/2022-10/Loeb_contributed_presentation.pdf ( https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2023/06/unforced-variations-jun-2023/#comment-812591 ), while noting some difference between climate models and observations, does not attribute these differences to other human impacts on ecosystems. Could it be a deficit of the models? Note that the IPCC does account for the CO2 effect on stomata (AR6 WGI Ch7) as part of the effective forcing.)
Above, https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2023/06/unforced-variations-jun-2023/#comment-812559 , JCM expresses dismay at the idea that net 0 must come first. I would agree with JCM in so far as in the temporal sense. I am resigned to the likely case that will will overshoot reasonable targets, and per Ron R.’s analogy, there is something to be said for keeping the patient alive until the cure has been designed, ordered, sent through the mail, inspected for quality, injected or taken orally/etc., and given time to work. I doubt Ron R. was suggesting we wait until net 0 before planting trees, restoring wetlands, or encouraging green roofs, etc.
So I imagine… ballpark est.: 10 Gt C per year * 20 yr overshoot = 200 Gt C overshoot. rock with 10% wt CaO … ~ 12/56-ish? (from memory) * 10% … we’ll need ~ 50*200 Gt basalt = 10,000 Gt ~= 3,000 km^3 of basalt (or gabbro) to grind up for chemical weathering… Now MgO can also work but it has to be ‘forced’… whereas basalt (or gabbro) dust might also be good fertilizer?? You can get more CO2 sequestration for less using anorthosite (based on Ca content) but it’s not like the Earth makes more of that rock every day :) (as opposed to basalt – most of the ocean is underlain by MORB – not that I’m suggesting we source it from the oceanic crust.)
And biochar … and ocean fertilization because seafood might make people smarter and that might help??
Space-based solar geoengineering is expensive, and SLR is a delayed response (and a potentially quasi-irreversable tipping point), so I’m thinking maybe after net-0, when the economy can handle it (not being an opportunity cost), some structures might be placed into orbit specifically to shade Greenland and Anarctica and neighboring ocean water. How to design this, I’m not sure. Satellites orbiting too close to the Earth would block OLR as much as they shade solar radiation (generally more, actually, at high latitudes), unless they have certain spectral properties. Structures farther out could rotate in some synchronization to their orbital periods and shifts over the year… etc. (or they could have blinds that open and shut) But this may all be pi in the sky (pun intended; the sky is ~= 2*pi sr (less in valleys, more at high altitudes))
And yes there are tipping points.
Geoff Miellsays
nigelj: – “Can you please provide some EVIDENCE that getting back to preindustrial levels of atmospheric CO2 is a “generally accepted assumption” because I’m not aware that it is. Killian is the only person on these pages I’ve read suggesting we try to do that.”
It seems you missed me:
The greater and more urgent risk I see is that human civilisation collapses well before 2100, unless we/humanity:
1. stop burning carbon ASAP;
2. remove some GHGs to cool the Earth System sufficiently;
3. prevent the Arctic sea ice completely disappearing during summer.
You may wish to read the article headlined Three climate interventions: Reduce, remove, repair, published at Climate Code Red on Jun 21, beginning with:
In September 2022, Stockholm University’s David Armstrong McKay and his colleagues concluded that even global warming of 1-degree Celsius risks triggering some tipping points, just one data point in an alarming mountain of research on tipping points presented in the last year and a half. Clearly, even the current level of warming of around 1.2°C is unacceptably dangerous.
Can you please provide some EVIDENCE that getting back to preindustrial levels of atmospheric CO2 is a “generally accepted assumption” because I’m not aware that it is. Killian is the only person on these pages I’ve read suggesting we try to do that.
I have never said that. Ever. Another Straw Man. Or is it lie? Can it still be considered an honest mistake after 7 years?
Killiansays
Crap. I did it again. You said I was the only one who suggested getting back to preindustrial. I read it as the other part he said about restoring to the same ecosystem. THAT I have never said. However, you are in error in saying I am the only person to suggest we need to do that, and you know I am not the only one. The others who have said it simply don’t post here anymore because of all the attacking by the rest of you.
Ron R.says
Checking in. Hmm.
Nuance MS. I didn’t say that Co2 was the largest gas by quantity in the atmosphere, if that’s what you’re implying, it’s actually a small one. I said that it’s the most important gas as far as pushing us into our current hothouse condition is concerned. It’s rapidly knocking it out of balance. It’s unnecessary – one that we can and should do something about. For someone who claims to be concerned about our world I’d think you’d be emphasizing this as well as only after-the-fact mitigation strategies. Also, I never said that deforestation wasn’t involved in the increase in temperatures. Of course it is. Plant’s absorb C02. Cut down the Amazon (and other areas around the world) and the Co2 goes up.
Yet another thing to keep in mind is that our acidification of the oceans by adding Co2 is offing the phytoplankton which absorb a large percentage of it. Kind of like cutting down another Amazon rain forest. So gotta address the Co2.
But if you want to keep sweating in that gorilla suit of yours (just an analogy), feel free. But some of us would like to take it off, especially when it starts to get really hot out.
“I doubt Ron R. was suggesting we wait until net 0 before planting trees, restoring wetlands, or encouraging green roofs, etc.
Right. I wasn’t. I meant that we need to prescribe priority to the cutting of our greenhouse gas emissions – stop doing it! Obviously we need to do the rest as well.
Due to the lack of freshwatter and rain in too hot places, simply pour seawater into Sahara and let it evaporate there instead.
Just think of largescale political and industrial bringing and spraying of seawater against desertification.
in critically hot and arid landscapes.
Mammamia!
And some of theese deputees are further discussing our understandings.
I am getting more and more sure of who in H… (name and full adress,) is behind that.folklore.
So I warn him.
Ron R.says
JCM: “Their condescension is revealing. Superficial consumers of landscape on the weekends; hikers and picture takers. A fine bunch, with deep feelings and a sense of passion. Generally harmless and make a good volunteer corps if you can manage to herd them.”
This patronizing lack of humility is kind of, well – wow!. Don’t know what to say to that…
But you know what they say about haughty spirits.
nigeljsays
Ron R. Agreed. The water cycle people cant prove their case properly, so some of them resort to insults the refuge of the desperate. Also agree with your summation of the issues replying to Tom above 20 June 2.47.
Ron R.says
Sorry Nigel, this is a waste of time. We’re not getting anywhere. Going to move on. Nice chatting with you.
Ron R.says
Another one:
“it is a widely held taboo among practical conservation specialists to resort to this ideology. It is in the realm of environmental spiritualists, hippies, and Shamans. Their “harmony” and vibrations. Such personnel are to be avoided.
However, the holists are welcome into the lay volunteer conservation corps. It is good for fresh air and for a renewed sense of purpose. Staff will guide them towards quite specific and actionable items in addressing the circumstances at hand.”
I’ve known a lot of scientists in my life. The best and brightest are humble about what they know, and don’t know..
JCMsays
ja ja. the double standard is noted.
Piotrsays
Ron: “ The best and brightest [scientists] are humble about what they know, and don’t know”
JCM: “ ja ja. the double standard is noted”
Double standard? Wouldn’t that require you and your friends (T. Kalisz, M. Shurly, Victor, KIA) to be … “scientists”, “best” and “brightest” ? ;-)
JCMsays
ja the general theme here of categorizing, othering, and marginalization here is frickin weird. a sociocultural behavioral phenomenon.
Piotrsays
Ron: “ The best and brightest [scientists] are humble about what they know, and don’t know”
JCM – “ ja the general theme here of categorizing, othering, and marginalization here is frickin weird”
The fallacy of the claims by you and your denialists has been proven, with falsifiable arguments in this and many earlier threads. Unable to defend your claims against these arguments – you resort to portraying yourselves as victims of oppression – of “categorizing, othering, and marginalization“.
Everybody can have an opinion, but nobody has the right to have their opinion unchallenged, Particularly, when these opinions IMPLY that the climate scientists are either morons (if they were not able to notice glaring problems with their data an ignoramus without any scientific background could) or are a part of the global conspiracy of scientist trying to suppress the truth that, in the descending order:
1. there is no climate change
2. there is climate change, but it is natural so humans cannot change climate
3. yes, humans are causing climate change but perhaps it won’t be that bad, i.e. uncertainty will be our friend and things would be better than expected
4. yes, humans are causing climate change, but it can be “neutralized” WITHOUT decarbonization, not only feasibly, but actually providing benefits to agriculture (this thread)
5. or the industrial emissions of Co2 are … beneficial – see the categorized, othered, and marginalized, who defended the interests of Russia, Saudi Arabia and multinational fossil fuel lobby by implying that Co2 emissions are good – because plants cannot grow without CO2 … ;-)
Of course, the categorized, othered, and marginalized do not have to agree on which of the 5 points they believe. Put 3 deniers into a room, and they will have 5 contradictory reasons why the … climate science is wrong.
But using falsifiable argument to call spade a spade is … “categorization, othering, and marginalizing“. What a … snowflake. ;-)
P.S. And what is with your “ ja ja” when replying to Ron and me? Are you a German?
nigeljsays
JCM
You do plenty of categorising, othering and marginilisation yourself, for example responding to Carbo. above ” Superficial consumers of landscape on the weekends; hikers and picture takers.” This is also not an accurate description, because its fairly clear Carbo was talking about making scientific observations of nature.
You also complain of their ‘condescension’ while being condescending yourself for example: ” Generally harmless and make a good volunteer corps if you can manage to herd them.” Wow talk about double standard!
No doubt you have plenty of skills and knowledge but the problem is all you water cycle people imply CO2 from fossil fuels is not the main underlying cause of recent climate change, and so you annoy people here. So you get labelled denialists.
Categorising people is a common human activity and its not always weird or wrong to have such categories: Men, women, liberals, conservative for example. If you don’t like being put in the denialist category, or the stubborn crank category, or the big ego category, the solution is up to you.
Radge Haverssays
Dear Carbon Deprecators and Geo-engineering enthusiasts,
Aaaaaand…there it is. Grab up your bag of alt-Galileo gambits and dart into a nearby house of rhetorical mirrors!
Science works, but apparently all the decades and decades of physics and chemistry, rigor and vetting, all the endorsements and expertise represented by hundreds of different scientific institutions and organizations mean nothing unless you can cherry pick some of their research.
Gotta love the irony-challenged appropriation of liberal language, by the way. Very T****ian.
Well, fine. You can waste your time here. RealClimate is a fairly low profile site: relatively few people will be hearing what you say, and the distractions you hone here won’t gain much traction elsewhere either– not these days.
Or publish start publishing your work in top tier, peer reviewed journals. If you’ve really got the goods, just do it for pity’s sake.
Thank you for defending our lifestyle and interests against the political Beach police!
On St.Hans (23 Juni) we took out and anchered up and took land in Sandspollen, the sands- pool.
In the harbour allready there were 2 big swanes with grey chicken under the pier. I said “STEP BACK-WITH-DRAW they are hot headed!” . And Papa swane said ” HZZZZZZ!”
People have only seen doped wild animals on video film,
I learnt it from the university veterinarian. The first he does is to give them an injection of Metadone, and you can inspect any Rottweiler behind his wisdom- teeth and easily tap 1/2 liter blood also. That watchful dog will not be good for work in the next 48 hours. and it is routine in the popular wilderbeast moovies.
“Animals are so kind…. just keep them in your arms and kiss them, , smile smile…!”
They get doped fror unnatural even ridiculous performance.
On wild animals, step back, and tey wilol like you.
Then we saw 2 canada- geese in flight. Seabirds have flown off the nest now and are swimming around with chicken. Most of them are re- cycled, eaten. We also have sea- eagles above it all. They eat too stupid, quite large fishes. But the golden eagle on land may eat reindeer calves. But the ravens are quicker and more clever and tease the large eagles from behind away from their dinners.
I saw for the first time 2 tiny really old enough ` teenage boobs that I have waited and looking for so long and in vain., Naked and boldly bathing.
It would have been very unpolite and unconvemnient of me to have a camera.
Then I would hardly have been given any chanse to se it IN VIVO. Simply behave and stay polite and you will see what you ought to see in norder to understand it also, with your own naked eyes.
Then we could discuss the weathers also and the climate. The hot evapotranspiration due to the high summer sun at blue sky, and the somewhat maybe too small cumulus, but the solar breeze came at last at 6 PM “What did I say?”
And now the weather forecasts say black clouds with heavy rains and maybe thunder and flash for this midnight. Rain next weel.
We hate the alternatives, don`t we?
We do not like those weird, sociocultural behavioral phaenomemna. I have been carefully looking for weatherfronts and scirrus to see whether there is amny chanse for summer rain at all, and the alternatives have been discussing political spraying of freshwater, even saltwater in Sahara to cool the weathers down from the wrong side.
A-propos picture. takers,…
I grew up with silver bromide develpoer and fix and optics, and was lucky to learn a lot also from the professional photographers son who could instruct and show in the darkroom.
” use the camera, allways keep the camera ready, Look through the finder,… and half of the work is further done in the darkroom!” he said.
I shall never forget it.
I never felt the urgent need, and had too much else to do and then came COLOUR DIAS where you do not see the result the same evening and can corect next day. But then I got NIKON Colour CCD for birtday.
I like 50 mm lens on 35 mm film, but nicon has 25 mm lense. But I have an instrumental workshop and could make an adapter for any kind of lense, and tried a 150 mm acromatic binocular lense. That is Phaenomenal with NICON colour CCD, really Paparacci even at lamplight and candle light. You get silent close portaits of known faces, that everyone likes.
And even an old acromatic 1830 model 30 x300 millimeter Fraunhofer land teloescope lense, getting mooncraters handheld. The moon shines like a common grey stone in bright sunshine through one atmosphere, you see and at any time. aperture 10 and 1/30 sec exposure or less.
But I rather mount drawings poems and wise words about it in my photo- album, that is more documentary. .
========0000
About JCM & al:
When people shoot really disc- boom on your personality, then take it for what it is, namely a psychologicalo projection, A most honest self- confessment,
Then use it also for what it is..
Namely:
“Dear Sir/ Miss
Thanks fror your tax return. That will be taken to our conscideration and to our calulation of your correct equation and taxation!” Datum sign stamp.
That formula scratches.
Hope he reads it.
Now it is published about him at least.
JCM seems to be Swedish, of swedish “Rallare” origin to Ontario 3rd generation for the paper pulp industries via Norway.
I hav conscidered telli9ng that story and see how he reacts.
They were 5th generation de- classed swedish noblesse from the mines/ factories imprisonments set free, chased westwards and paid for by King Oscar 2 the good and benevolent and put to work in his private garden.
They had their advanced blood identity feeling still in order, as the largest and redest flag in the 1.st of may parade on behald of tre railway workers They often became local organizing pioneers of the industrial labour. moovement.
Not liked by everyone because of snuff burst whore and gamble. They committed not only great worki but also vandalism or vice versa.
Some may have become frustrated also in Norway due to our cold shoulder to such manners, and lacks of understaqnding and submission, and migrated furter to over there in the stated, preferrably Canada for those noble swedes who better understood french from before..
Scandinavians especially Swedes and Norwegians in Dakota & Minesota (Cfr. the Bakken oilfield,) were known as “The squareheads!” over there.
JCMs grandmother”Bestemor” was probably Norwegian but hardly of Peasant or Burgeois origine , since he has not inherited the Linnaeus and Uppsala school of typical Dutch and Swedish nature and gardening wisdom and state religion. See, no binominal mentioning of flora and fauna in latin at all, from JCM. That entails demonstrative lack of higher frormjation from facultary side.
Carolinerna after King Carl VII… were conquered at Fredriksten in Norway at last, , and there his grand grand grand gandfather may have been put to work rather on the Factory Floor within bars and fences where the earth is flat enough for them. .
But most “Rallare” were well assimilated after all. But their class identification may still be quite strong.
There has been a fierce debate here about the presumably broken water cycle and propaganda for mending of the global warming situation with largely incrteased artificial irrigation even with rainbarrels.
As the only one it seems, I have fallen into thoughs about “Salzbittererde” and found the subject at last at Wikipedia labeled
Soil salinity Viki
and
Environmental effects of irrigation Wiki
Where everyone interested and responsible can read about it for him / herself.
It is especially dangerous there where it has been propagated and suggested here, in Sahara, maybe Spania, ( the rain in spain etc etcetc..) and in the wild west.
Large areas of fertile lands have been poisoned forever by progressive politically popular irrigation.
This is common knowledge , so I wonder more and more what kind of progressive types from which grand old party and from which peoples republic in which large union of peoples republics are actually with us here. , and who also seem more and more to make up the dialectic materialism denialist and climate surrealist group.
And whether they are quite common.
Race religion political opinion and gender, pleace. And ownership., mission and mandate. Think it over.
In all responsible taverns – pubs with open doorsw to tthe free world there are 3 doors or categories
1, Ladies
2, Gentlemen
3 Men only
Is it the Men only- gender, the fameously privileged Party Members?
Or maybe just aspiring for such mandates and privileges?
Solar Jimsays
This post thread is contaminated, and ridiculously long. Why did the good hosting scientists suggest (in the recent past) limiting comments to two or three, and then apply no regulation? This seems to mirror decades of “we need to reduce emissions” with no enforcement, and consequent historically excessive emissions.
Solar Jim, There’s no enforcement on limiting ideas. Take the good with the bad. I will occasionally mention my take on forced variation of natural ocean cycles, as here https://geoenergymath.com/2023/06/17/canonical-cross-validation/
This is just begging for an independent machine language discovery — it won’t do as good but will promote some excitement. Did you see how high the north Atlantic sea surface temperatures are?
Solar Jimsays
RE: “There’s no enforcement on limiting ideas.”
1. You should try reading some human history. 2. Your assertions, including the fear mongering from using “machine language discovery” reframes what I indicated, namely, limiting individual comments to two or three per post. This would eliminate interminable “he said she said” rhetoric. 3. In allowing this banter to continue RealClimate is degrading its own site (in my humble opinion).
“Your assertions, including the fear mongering from using “machine language discovery” reframes what I indicated, namely, limiting individual comments to two or three per post
Not sure that mentioning the potential of machine language is “fear mongering”. Is the fear that of a machine or AI making a discovery before a human does? The space of nonlinear solutions is essentially infinite in comparison to linear solutions, and that’s where ML excels. Sorry if I’ve mentioned that before.
Piotrsays
Paul Pukite: “Solar Jim, There’s no enforcement on limiting ideas. Take the good with the bad.
You are misrepresenting Solar J. argument – he didn’t propose limiting ideas, he proposed curtailing the incessant rambling, with dozens and dozens of long posts about an idea that has been shown, already at the very beginning, to NOT WORK, and its proponents refusing to acknowledge it.
In fact, if anything, it is the lack of enforcing of this blog’s rules that limits the new ideas from being heard – by swamping them with the incessant denialist drivel, and thus discouraged potential readers from the site.
Disagree. I’ve been science blogging since 2004, There’s never been that keen an interest in developing models in a group or forum setting in the context of earth sciences. That differs from mathematics as an example — you can find quite a few popular forums on solving problems or proving theorems. This lack of open science forums is best illustrated by John Carlos Baez closing down (and deleting!) the Azimuth Project forum last month. That contained over 10 years worth of effort in trying to “solve El Nino”, which was deemed as the initial collaborative effort among forum participants. It started out with some enthusiasm but it got to the point that it was down to just a few of us. Baez explained that he was going to concentrate on pure math, which is no surprise.
A better question is to ask why that is — why certain scientific disciplines are more open to collaboration using social media.
Piotrsays
Paul Pukite: “Disagree. I’ve been science blogging since 2004, There’s never been that keen an interest in developing models in a group or forum setting in the context of earth scienyces”
And you see the denialist production by Shurly, Kalisz, JCM, Victor, KnowitAll who can’t understand a simple energy budget, much less develop a model, as a … step in this direction?
Ned Kellysays
I’m with solar jim though have no expectations of rational adjustments.
While I do have one humble request – no actually I beg you to please send all Carbomontanus comments to the Bore Hole or simply ban him.
I cannot fathom I need to provide any specific reasons as they should be abundantly obvious long long ago. I would have thought all ‘scientists’ associated with this forum would be ashamed of the content being published here by this verbose fool.
But I have long been left dumbfounded by the choices people make. All I can do is to beseech, implore and beg for a little respite from the agony!
So you feel qualified for administering the Borhole and furter etnical rinsing.
Am I so efficient?
Putin also feels the same. And what to chose and employ- install as his “big guns” his imperial high court of experts Teachers, Bishops, and Warlords. together with Useful Idiots.
i have had the same at the climate surrealist tavern meeting.. A somewhat snobbish person was teaching fameous supersticions at the table., I took the word and punctured some of vital, liturgic word formulas.
It showed to be their union chairmjan from “Gokk” and I did not know.
So he took me alone afterwards and spoke that I am disturbing the “conversations” at the tables and do not discuss climate, so I should not be here.
They shall have class monopoly on the dictionary, on “Def: Conversation…” on how to administer “The debate” also you see.
I happen to have learnt the same liturgy from the organized LENINmafia scientific classroom for the young pioneers..
That special Craft or Class expect it from the experts that they are aquainted to in their own liturgic dialect and scriptures. and blame mainstream science and facultary order as such for being “Perhaps a religion, smile smile?”
Which is routine DDR-GDR liturgy formula for “banned and excommunicated”.
Where have you learnt Dia- lectics and systematics from? In the Party with P, the fameous Grand old one?
LENIN probably studied and learnt his “Party- work” organizational worki, and “Scientific socialism” on tour abroad, from politically aspiring european Mafia of his time. Methods and works that have been re- cycled and updated. for use in any Grand Old Party with P.
I applied a ChatGPT rewrite to the above passage written by Carbo :
“Do you believe you are qualified to administer the Borhole and further ethical rinsing? Is my efficiency comparable to Putin’s? He also relies on a team of experts, including teachers, bishops, warlords, and useful idiots. I had a similar experience at a climate surrealist tavern meeting, where a snobbish person was teaching famous superstitions. I challenged some of their liturgical word formulas, only to later discover that the person was the union chairman from “Gokk.” He pulled me aside and told me that I was disrupting the conversations and should not be there. They want to maintain a monopoly on the dictionary and how to administer “the debate.” I learned the same liturgy from the organized LENINmafia scientific classroom for young pioneers. This special class expects experts to be familiar with their own liturgical dialect and scriptures, while blaming mainstream science and faculty order for being “perhaps a religion.” This is a routine DDR-GDR liturgy formula for “banned and excommunicated.” Where did you learn dialectics and systematics? Did you study in the Party with P, the famous Grand Old One? LENIN probably learned his organizational and scientific socialism skills from politically aspiring European Mafia during his tour abroad. These methods have been recycled and updated for use in any Grand Old Party with P.”
Is this less verbose, or any better? At some point could place a ChatGPT plugin to do auto-translation ;)
Really interesting If that is what a machine can do. The less aquainted readers should really try it in addition, if it is not cheated from your side.
But you loose a lot of information about autenticity, that may be quite important sometimes.
And it can obviously be misused for camouflage and smooth uniformation by crooky interests such as , Mafia, Racketeers, Burglarshops, Troll factories in Ljeningrad and so on.
I am aquainted to signalizing also through obvious grammatic and orthographic errors.
The crook and the cheater on the other hand is dependent of minutely cleaning out such fo0otprints, birhmarks and fingerprints by whichy he can be identified and kept responsible.
I give an example:
“Pressure is energy, therefore Vacuum is also energy. Thus the fameous Vacuum energy , smile smile……!”
Smooth and in order, convincing to the broad masses of readers, and plain wrong. In the first 3 words allready.
Pressure is force per area, whereas energy is force times length.
That statement was by an obviously unqualified engineer in editorial national immune and highly trusted , keye position.
And I have some 3even professional training on industrialized dilettantism in social and media keye- positions, such as SENSOR behind the iron curtain, who is known to be mad and drunk and lacking higher formation. Vaclav Havel and Umberto Eco published on it. Further, the fameous Andre Bjerke of Norway and Piet Hein from Deenmark. On how to trap him and skin him, tan his fur and selol his fur against hard cash on the free market.
Even I have had to do that sometimes.
I intensionally make it difficult for that bloodgroup / Class. The blodgroup P, the especially Pure one. Who is quite often performing through intensionally stupidifying litterature, like old Adolph and the frameous grand old Party with P.
They have had their Diploma on the Partry quote by industrialized exam cheating and documjent cheating.
My digging also into the state- religious roots of climate and virus denialism and surrealism converges down into that root origin. 3-4 generations ago.
Say, are you really using virtual intelligenhce the freshly inaugurated way Hr. o twentyseven?
As you can clearly see, I do not,
Quite on the contrary, I do demonstrate quite consciously that I perform and work against uniformation and industrialization mechanization, datafication of mind and manners.
You see, if you can buy yourself a personality and immune set of manners and performance, then SATAN in Hell can also do that and soon sit on the throne and have you all with him in your closed society and quite hot peoples republic.
Automatic routine æsoteric reading hearing and seeing and judging and cleaning and recognitional programs in virtual reality is an old problem and even characteristic primary symptom of militarism, dictatorship, and thyranny.
Our major defence against virtual intelligence, its automatic & unwarranted and unofficial rules and regulations of procedure with keyewords and secret vocabulary,……….
……… is given in the UN declaration of Humanh Rights articles 19, 26, and 27.
That is signed to and aspired under by all autentic, responsible world leaders.
No science without it. No understanding without it. No united nations, not even sustainable United strates without it Hardly even any climate without it.
About broken hockeystics and water cycles and evapotransirational coolers, tubers, and plumbers of the same:
Also on turbo-convection and progressive latent heat flux, presumably cycling and cooling Thermodynamics::
Your handicap then is that you only learnt scientific socialism and dia-lectic materialism then, in class, due to that closed society system.
Whereas I, above all that the grades, also had to grasp about water and Vodka and nitric acid scientific distillation, how and why, ,…… and of Claussius Clappeyron in the open situations also, at rather 1 bar atmospheric equal pressure all the way.
………and in addition to that, also of the doubble action tripple expansion steam engine with heater, boiler condensator feedback pump and centrifugal speed regulator, water level indicator, manometer and thermometer and about the qualified engineer with engine protocol who had to to understand all this. .
The tripple expansion doubble action engine is quasi 12 cyl as compared to 4 stroke inner combustion, by only 3 cylinders and works allmost as efficiently. if fully supplied and cunningly regulated.
Explain us how. Else you must graduate first for climate dispute with me.
It worked on the great western railways even with 24 cyl as there were 2 independent tripple expansion engines, on each side of the large locomotive, , that was , overwhelmingly strong. But without condenser so they had to re- fill purest scarce drinkwater all the way and not in Salt Lake city. .And with very low chimney, they used steam injector blast, And thus Thus the Chattanoga Chuh Chuh…sound that also could cost them scarce freshwater.
But it is Thermodynamics per definition and as such.
At the same time at sea, they were consequently short of freshwater for refill. But they had access to seawater cooling in a heat- exchanger, , a so called engine- condenser, so they did re- cycle the freshwater in a sea- water cooled condenser and pumped it back to the boiler in liquid form by a feed- water pump., that made the even better cool side of the thermodynamic engine. , That is just as important as the hot side for efficiency. .
Then with choisest and cheapest “fuel” they could go allmost smokeless over the atlantic, given a qualified engineer under a d/o captain and merchant, and not just a politically learnt, progressive denialist and surrealist flat earther landcrab from the Party with P on any of theese decisive posts.
The system was improoved further by steam Turbo during WW1 allready. with the very engine room under air turbo pressure for blasting the oil furnace flames and for driving the exhaust convections the desired way. .
Such were the pioneering big and fast battleships of WW1 allready..
A pitiful replica of this showed up quite recently, namely the bold Russian navy flagship Admiral Kuznetzov aircraft carrier , from Murmansk to Syria and back again, ……..with huge black smoke over the chimney all the way. . .
Which is due to mis- understood and mis- treated red / ox-proportions and turbulent convections in the burners….. that is easily healed or repaired by just giving it some more air, They had not even understood a kerosene lamp on how to make it more efficientb and smokeless.
Instead, they rather gave it a damn all the way. .
So they went on pure hydrogen , to the extent that they went at all, …. and resigned on all that fossile carbon that was simply blown out to the atmosphere in aerosol- form. . .
That wessel has burnt frequently and turbulently for them ever since, under and over deck, even in dock back in Murmansk for repair.. And all due to the Party with P in all keye- positions
The Party with P, exlains it all the time, you see., that Grand Old one that aint dead yet, not even in Russia.
So I hope even Thomas Kalisz from Polen can understand all this of elementary combustion heat turbo convection and thermodynamics, and take a better example. From Carol Vojtyla for instance and from Lech Valenza and Maria Sklodovska,, who could deliver more clean and efficient, understood results, the way we know Polish workers better.
“The text discusses various topics related to thermodynamics, including the triple expansion double action steam engine, water cycles, and the use of seawater for cooling. The author compares the efficiency of the triple expansion engine to that of a four-stroke internal combustion engine, explaining that the former is almost as efficient despite having only three cylinders. The author also mentions the use of seawater for cooling in a heat exchanger, which helps to recycle freshwater and improve the efficiency of the engine. The text also touches on the importance of a qualified engineer who understands these concepts and can operate the engine efficiently. The author criticizes the Russian navy flagship Admiral Kuznetzov aircraft carrier for its inefficient use of fuel and high levels of pollution, which are attributed to the Party with P in key positions. The author suggests that Poland could learn from better examples such as Carol Vojtyla, Lech Valenza, and Maria Sklodovska.”
Is this any better? IMO, less frustrating to parse.
There were 2 Polacs with a mini excavator and showler out from my garden today, and typically clear minded. the best workers. They will come back in 2 weeks for another job and offered to dig and clean up the ditch for 3000 spenn = 300 dalers.
Tomas Kalisz could take a good example there also . I have been very kind enough not to confuse him with the grand old Party with P, and offered him my best service.
You see, when people dont have pure flour in the bag, they join, and ride on that grand old Party with P, and I do not have to mention which grand old party. Only with P,, only that it is grand and old and with P.
Ned Kellysays
Paul Pukite (@whut) says
…. no better. It is garbage, endless garbage by Carbomontanus.
It’s useless, irrelevant, off topic, nonsense and gibberish of a drunken / dementia ridden fool.
This crap and Carbomontanus should be banned from the forum.
ChatGPT is not a solution.
Silence is!
Then again RC is nothing like it used to be, so perhaps Carbomontanus is exactly what it deserves now.
Piotrsays
Carbomontanus: “So I hope even Tomáš Kalisz from Polen”
Hasn’t Poland suffered enough??? Getting at Poland by association with Tomáš? Talk about hitting under the belt. No Pole would spell his name: “Tomáš”. South of the border from Poland- that’s another story: he might just be the elusive Tomáš z Bažin ! :
“Řádí tam to strašidlo,
vystupuje z bažin (hence his interest in intensifying the hydrological cycle)
žere hlavně Gaviny,
jmenuje se Tomáš. ”
I am Kolberg, Carbomontanus, not Kolobrezg but a common name in Norway and Sweden.
Hr. von Kolberg zu Sansoussi.
Tomáš Kaliszsays
Dear Piotr,
Thank you for reminding me of the music of my youth with your remake of the original Czech text. You are right, I was born in Moravian city Zlín, quite near from Vizovice mentioned in the song. However, Carbomontanus is also right in some extent, because mother language of my grandfather was indeed Polish.
I highly appreciate the discussion with you. My understanding of the greenhouse effect and kf the role of non-radiative heat fluxes in Earth surface temperature regulation is based on the textbook Physical Climatology (Dennis Hartman, second edition, 2016).
I will be happy if you review my previous post
in which I strived to clarify the discrepancy between our interpretations of global energy budget and of the relationship between radiative and non-radiative heat transfer.
My article, “Pressure doesn’t make Venus hot: A computer exercise” has been accepted by the peer-reviewed journal, Physics Education. This will be my second article in PE.
I was at the oslo Climate- surrealist “Klimapizza” and asked Professor Emeritus of theoretical astrophysics Jan Erik Solheim: ” The groundtemperatures on Venus” I simply said. Just to check him up, knowing that this 8is an especially hot potatoe, namely James Hansens Royalo Thought.
“Oh yes, there is so high pressure there, smile smile…” he replied
Then I knew that he has a hole in his head., simply by knowing how to ask, you see.
I would be extreemly interested to have your article in PE on the subject
from Puma and Cook abstract (emphasis mine): “ Both ensembles are forced with transient climate forcings and observed sea surface temperatures from 1902 to 2000; one ensemble includes irrigation specified by a time-varying data set of irrigation water withdrawals. Early in the century, irrigation is primarily localized over southern and eastern Asia, leading to significant cooling in boreal summer (June–August) over these regions. This cooling spreads and intensifies by century’s end, following the rapid expansion of irrigation over North America, Europe, and Asia. Irrigation also leads to boreal winter (December–February) warming over parts of North America and Asia in the latter part of the century, due to enhanced downward longwave fluxes from increased near-surface humidity. Precipitation increases occur primarily downwind of the major irrigation areas, although precipitation in parts of India decreases due to a weaker summer monsoon. Irrigation begins to significantly reduce temperatures and temperature trends during boreal summer over the Northern Hemisphere midlatitudes and tropics beginning around 1950; significant increases in precipitation occur in these same latitude bands. These trends reveal the varying importance of irrigation-climate interactions and suggest that future climate studies should account for irrigation, especially in regions with unsustainable irrigation resources.” Table 1 lists global land area averaged increases in precipitation for this and another study (with 2 others marked n/a).
https://phys.org/news/2017-04-cooling-effect-agricultural-irrigation.html :
“We find that irrigation has a large impact on temperature extremes, with a particularly strong cooling effect during the hottest day of the year (−0.78 Kelvin averaged over irrigated land, see figure).”
[…]
“There are two reasons why irrigation exerts a stronger influence on extremes than on mean climate. To start, farmers irrigate mostly when it is hot and dry, so obviously the effects during these periods will be larger. The second reason is more subtle: the regions in the world where humans irrigate are typically those where temperature fluctuations are very sensitive to the amount of water in the soil. These regions are neither dry nor wet, but somewhere in between (so called “transitional” regions). Systematically adding water to the soil through irrigation renders these regions less prone to the vagaries of climate.”
https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar6/wg1/chapter/chapter-7/#7.3.2.1 :
“The ΔFfsst includes any effects represented within the ESMs on tropospheric adjustments due to changes in evapotranspiration or leaf area (mainly affecting surface and boundary-layer temperature, low-cloud amount, and albedo) from the CO2 -physiological effects (Doutriaux-Boucher et al., 2009; Cao et al., 2010; T.B. Richardson et al., 2018). ”
https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar6/wg1/chapter/chapter-7/#7.3.4.1 : (emphasis mine)
“Land-use change also affects the amount of water transpired by vegetation (Devaraju et al., 2015). Irrigation of land directly affects evaporation (Sherwood et al., 2018), causing a global increase of 32,500 m3s−1due to human activity. Changes in evaporation and transpiration affect the latent heat budget, but do not directly affect the top-of-atmosphere (TOA) radiative fluxes. The lifetime of water vapour is so short that the effect of changes in evaporation on the greenhouse contribution of water vapour are negligible (Sherwood et al., 2018). However, evaporation can affect the ERF through adjustments, particularly through changes in low-cloud amounts. Land management affects the emissions or removal of GHGs from the atmosphere (such as CO2, CH4, N2O). These emissions changes have the greatest effect on climate (Ward et al., 2014), however they are already included in GHG inventories. ”
It would be great if RC did a post explaining the concept of ERF (and how direct effects of CO2 on plant stomata/etc. work in that framework). I’m more accustomed to instantaneous and SARF forcings, with forcing efficacies. IMO, it’s more direct to simply note that the different forcings have different ‘shapes’ (vertical, horizontal, diurnal-seasonal-weather-dependent) I think I read recently that CO2 in particular?? has an effect on marine subtropical stratocumulus…??
patrick o twentysevensays
Also from section 7.3.4.1 (land use forcing): (emphasis mine)
“Using the definition of ERF from (Section 7.1, the adjustment in land-surface temperature is excluded from the definition of ERF, but changes in vegetation and snow cover (resulting from land-use change) are included (Boisier et al., 2013). Land-use change in the mid-latitudes induces a substantial amplifying adjustment in snow cover. Few climate model studies have attempted to quantify the ERF of land-use change. T. Andrews et al. (2017) calculated a very large surface albedo ERF (–0.47 W m–2) from 1860 to 2005 in the HadGEM2-ES model, although they did not separate out the surface albedo change from snow cover change. HadGEM2-ES is known to overestimate the amount of boreal trees and shrubs in the unperturbed state (Collins et al., 2011) so will tend to overestimate the ERF associated with land-use change. The increases in dust in HadGEM2-ES contributed an extra –0.25 W m–2, whereas cloud cover changes added a small positive adjustment (0.15 W m–2) consistent with a reduction in transpiration. A multi-model quantification of land-use forcing in CMIP6 models (excluding one outlier) (Smith et al., 2020b) found an IRF of –0.15 ± 0.12 W m–2(1850–2014), and an ERF (correcting for land-surface temperature change) of –0.11 ± 0.09 W m–2. This shows a small positive adjustment term (mainly from a reduction in cloud cover). CMIP5 models show an IRF of –0.11 [–0.16 to –0.04] W m–2(1850–2000) after excluding unrealistic models (Lejeune et al., 2020).”
The evidence seems to indicate/suggest that:
1.
JCM, (and to a lesser extent? macias shurly, and Tomáš Kalisz) – unless I misunderstood what they’re saying (I came into this conversation in the middle) – are not completely wrong:
land use/cover changes (excluding irrigation, I presume) may have had a warming effect via reduced transpiration via effect on cloud cover, and a comparable cooling effect (w/ significant contribution from cloud cover) from irrigation.
2.
The IPCC is aware of these things.
3.
the usual suspects – CO2, other GHGs, aerosols – are the dominant drivers of (large-scale?/global average) anthropogenic climate change ( https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar6/wg1/figures/chapter-7/figure-7-6 ) – although this figure only lists land use under albedo, so are evapotranspirative effects on clouds included in that? – and this is for global average effect. (It would be interesting to compare magnitudes of changes in precip, pressure and wind, etc. – ie./eg. if a regional cooling caused a change in wind of similar amplitude as CO2 et. al, (or just CO2) then this would impact the circulation and precipitation etc. I’m not saying I expect this is the case, but I’m curious.)
Piotrsays
patrick “[The RC water cycle geoengineering proponents ] – are not completely wrong: are cooling effect (w/ significant contribution from cloud cover) from irrigation.”
Except that’s not what they claim – both Mr. Kalisz and Shurly talk not about cloud cover, but about latent heat – their calculations do not include any cloud change, ONLY the increase in latent heat AND the their assumption that 100% of latent heat escapes into space (Shurly adding 100% of latent heat to the model results of the effect of various factors on the radiation out at TOA).
What it does to JCM claims, I am not sure and, frankly, I don’t care – based on our previous encounters, the ratio of garbage to falsifiable claims in his posts does not warrant closer inspection of his posts: garbage in, ideologically motivated garbage out.
That said, since one climate change denier by default supports every other climate change denier – I’d assume he supports Kalisz and Shurly, particularly that he declared himself and his fellow proponents on concentrating on water cycle INSTEAD of reducing FF emissions – victims of “categorizing, othering, and marginalization“
Manabe and Strickler 1964: https://climate-dynamics.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/06/manabe64a.pdf
I previously refered to fig. 4 (p. 370, see text right column of p.369) I noticed also fig. 6a (p.371, for which (est. from graph) CO2 only pure radiative equilibrium sfc temp is ~276 K. fig. 8a shows sfc temp with 6.5 K/km convective adjustment, H2O, CO2, O3, and cloud effects, sfc temp = 286.9 K (text p.374 upper left column; **I read through this quickly so hopefully I didn’t mess up**) Now, O3 doesn’t seem to have much effect on sfc T when H2O is in the baseline, but I wonder about what it would do absent H2O … assuming it would not cause warming greater than the cooling of the sfc with dry convective adjustment, the total effect of allowing a LH flux on the surface would be a warming of ~>= 10.9 K. (So Piotr is ~? correct). Of course, the dry convective lapse rate for a global troposphere could be < 9.81 K/km, because the overturning associated with baroclinic eddies in particular allows stabilization to local convection. Caveats – this is only H2O, CO2, O3, and clouds, using a 1-D model.
patrick o twentysevensays
… Of course, that is holding surface optical properties fixed. To actually get rid of the water cycle, there would be no vegetation, snow, oceans…
patrick o twentysevensays
Of course, does it really make sense to leave surface optical properties unchanged while having H2O presence in the atmosphere depend on the rate of cycling? To answer the question of whether the surface is water cooled or warmed in total (note – by temperature or by heat index**), one should consider all the effects. Otherwise, all I’ve shown here is that the combination of H2O and clouds in the atmosphere and the LH flux may be a net warming, whatever meaning this may have. As both Tomáš Kalisz and I (and others, in the context of response to global warming) have noted, the two (amount and cycling rate) are not simply linearly proportional to each other (and note spatial-temporal distribution of forced surface wetness could be a factor); however, changing one while holding the other fixed is a balancing act, and re https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2023/06/unforced-variations-jun-2023/#comment-812801 – that the amount in the air is much smaller than the amount cycled in a year really doesn’t say much about this – consider comparing it to the amount cycled in a day.
Patrick’s IPCC source: “ Irrigation causing a global increase of 32,500 m3/s due to human activity.
This translates to 1,000 km3 per year. For a comparison, Mr. Kalisz’s proposal demands evaporation of 13,000 km3. And that’s assuming 100% escape of latent heat into space.
If in great approximation we assume based on Trenberth radiative budget that including direct and indirect effects – about 1/3 of all the energy put into atmosphere escapes into space, if this applied to latent heat – then the 13,000km3 would need to become ~40,000 km3.
So Mr Kalisz’s modest proposal requires mere 40-FOLD increase in the evaporation comparing to that from the current global irrigation. And increase further , since after one of the symptoms of CC, global warming, is “taken care of” – there is no longer the urgency to reduce the increases in atm. GHGs
Of course this applies also to all other geo-engineering schemes that do not reduce GHGs – they discourage from mitigation too, And conversely – the other problems of geo-engineering projects – apply also to Mr. Kalisz’s scheme:
– any geoengineering scheme would have to be maintained forever, since the moment you stop – all the pent-up heating from GHGs would kick in. One one can easily how it could stop – geoengineering requires a massive international effort, agreement on who will bear the costs – and what if there are winner and losers – evaporation of ~40,000 km3 of water say over Sahara – not only would require the agreement from Saharan countries, but would cause destructive floods in many places (all these 40,000 km3 would have to rain back to the surface somewhere) – and by messing up with the atmospheric circulation – might actually cause droughts in others. And if your country is affected by either – you withdraw you support, the scheme collapses, and the ecosystems (and probably agriculture) collapse since they can’t adapt to the ABRUPT climate change.
And of course – as with all schemes addressing temperature only, it does nothing about the other side of CO2 emissions – acidification of the ocean. Which if anything – probably accelerates
since there is less urgency to reduce atm. CO2.
So the road to Climate Hell is paved with good geoengineering intentions.
patrick o twentysevensays
I tend to agree about geoengineering – in particular that (as I like to put it) the shape of the solution doesn’t match the shape of the problem (hence, side effects) (except for ideas that actually sequester CO2). And you raised some other good points about dependency and international disputes, etc. Although I think we may end up doing both because we’ll probably overshoot reasonable targets – while geoengineering may be used as an excuse to keep emitting for longer, it doesn’t entirely make sense to say we shouldn’t do B because then we won’t do A, because we could commit to A regardless, at least in theory. I’m not against studying it (not that you said otherwise) because of the above and also, some country/group could take it upon themselves… etc.
However, I do disagree that clouds are the only contributor to surface cooling response; first consider the case with no H2O/cloud or surface albedo/emissivity changes. Forced surface wetting (or other measures to enhance evaporation ie. surface area) could increase specific humidity, thus lowering the cloud base, so that the convective lapse rate changes overall. Initially, before temperatures change, the change in LH flux is not countered, and there is a surface cooling and warming at some higher levels in the troposphere. When equilibrium is restored, the change in LH flux is completely countered by some combination of radiant and SH flux changes, At that point, there is ‘no escape to Space of the change’ in that sense, but rather there is a redistribution of where net LW radiant cooling occurs, the column total still adds up to the same OLR; the changes in temperature remain. It’s then a question of whether the greenhouse effect of increased H2O or cloud changes win out over the enhanced albedo due to any cloud changes (and also, surface properties), and then of course, there will then be H2O+cloud+lapse rate feedback, either way.
Yes, that’s what I was trying to say when I mentioned that the “best and brightest” scientists I’ve known were also “humble” people. They were just nice people. Didn’t think too much of themselves. Allowed room for (reasonable) disagreement. And if it was unreasonable they were still kind. Apparently, though, some people think that one demonstrates one’s “scientific-ness” by being horrible to others.
I find it jaw dropping that two of the most insulting people here (well one of them at least) are accusing the others of “categorizing, othering, and marginalization”. Huh??? But I guess in their universe ^ is down and black is white.
Anyway, I don’t want to be unkind as well. These are just my observations.
This is halfway supersticious. Many of them were not those humble easy and pieceful ones who were misunderstood by society and politicians and church in their time.
Half of them at least are exeptions, quite problematic characters..
Giordano Bruno violated his very order and submission and eternal promises. So severe that he went up to Calvin in Schweiz , a declared anti- papist and swiss lawyer, for meditation. He was burnt at the stake at last after having been given all reasonable chanses. Today they would have given Haloperidol and saved tar and firewood, and bad church reputation
Arcimedes was not quite humble either, he violated Martial Law from the Emperor and spoke “NULLE TANGERE CIRCVLVM NOSTRVM!” to the Imperial police. And had to feel the consequenses of civil misbehaviours..
Tyho Brahe had his nose cut off and had to perform further wityh a silver nose protese, and had to flee the royal court and aspire rather at the Emperor, who he also gave very bad notes “The Emperor has got a darkened mind,…”
Gallilei, ” Eppur si mouve…” against the most brilliant dominican procedure and logics after having lost his case in court. He was sent to home- arrest fror the rest of his life
Ludwig Bolzman, look him up on Wikipedia. Probably Manic depressive, quite ingenious,….. and then deep dark depressdions, would also have been medicated. today. He comitted suicide.
Einstein, need I say more “I am no perfect husband..”. He was here in Norway chasing Christine Bonnevie our first female professor. . A pipe- smoking Jewish Fiddler from Prater in Wien , with skirt flap out an trousers leg open, his hair in wild disorder,… against Edgar Hoover vand the US atomic bomb.
we can exel in such impossible and threatening peronalities from science history.
.
Newton is a most fameous of them with very bad characters from Stephen Hawkin , who himself was quite impossible also in many ways.
James Hansen, How many times has he got arrested and brought in by the Sherriff for civil disorder?
Ron R.says
Thanks Carbo. I realize there are those in history exasperated by offensive governments and the order of the day that spoke out and we punished by that order. But the last one you mention, for example, James Hansen, he’s been arrested I think 4 times. But that’s not what I’m saying. It’s the arrestors, the governments, that were wrong in many of those cases..
When Thoreau wrote about “civil disobedience”. He was referring to a reaction to official policy AFAIK. It’s not him out then who is/was at fault but his oppressors. He shouldn’t take the blame.
What I’m talking about is about common courtesy between civilized people. Calling people names is schoolyard stuff. I know you are right that there have been exceptions in history. But you’re also right that lots of famous influential people have behaved privately badly.
The best and brightest that I have known were also just kind people.
Anyway.
Ron R.says
Sorry for all the typos. Auto-wrong strikes again.
IF Water vapor is a greenhouse gas.
AND Pumping water out of the ground creates more water vapor.
THEN The energy imbalance that we observe TOA is the result of increasing water vapor, not CO2.
The correlation is clear… we have data that atmospheric water vapor is increasing, and temperature, which is a proxy for system energy, is increasing as well.
So we can go on burning fossil fuels all we want just by adjusting the water cycle!
Let’s do some experiments where we reduce the water on the surface by pumping it into the depleted aquifers… I’m sure it is worth a try, because, you know, I say so….
Tomáš Kaliszsays
Dear zebra,
As correctly emphasized several times by macias, average water vapour concentration in the atmosphere and water cycle intensity are basically decoupled from each other. It is apparent from the fact that recent estimate of global annual precipitation is 990 mm and corresponding water volume is about 500 000 km3, whereas the total water amount in the atmosphere is about 13 000 km3 only.
As an important consequence of this fact, it is possible that (at a constant global average surface temperature), global annual precipitation changes in a broad range without any change in the average air humidity.
For this reason, I see your objection as unsubstantiated.
Yes, irrigation may well cause a global average cooling. Other land use effects may have caused a similar warming via there effect on evapotranspiration (via cloud cover). Other land use effects have caused other warming/cooling effects (less forest – snow has potentially greater albedo impact; more dust in the air… etc.)
No, this is not a good solution for anthropogenic global warming it total, or CO2 emissions (has broader effects). It may be of some help (particularly for warming caused by stomatal changes caused by CO2?). But it doesn’t solve ocean acidification, would have to continually increase if we keep adding more CO2 to the air, and doesn’t have the same ‘shape’ of forcing, so it can’t address the whole of climate change caused by CO2 et al.
Climate Science Refutes alarmist scientists and click-bait media’s claims that rising CO2 is melting Antarctica and raising sea levels.
Graphs below from published science illustrate the expected infrared radiation (pointed to by red arrows) escaping to space from a body at the given temperature based on undisputed laws of physics. Jagged black lines show what satellites observe. The difference is the greenhouse effect.
The greenhouse effect at 60F is highlighted by blue triangles for water vapors’ infrared wavelength absorption and red triangles for CO2’s absorption which prevent all the expected heat from escaping via those wavelengths.
But in Antarctica where it is extremely cold and dry there is virtually no water vapor greenhouse effect and CO2 actually helps more heat escape COOLING the continent. A negative greenhouse effect.
If you never heard of the Negative Greenhouse Effect it should alert you to how the media has been horribly misleading you!
Yes, maybe better to have them ( the progressive denialists and surrealists) declared and online.
Piotrsays
Re: Jim Steele Jun 27: “Beware Dishonest Antarctic Climate Fear Mongering!!!”
Thank you, Jim Steele, for honestly warning the reader about the nature of your post. If only other climate change deniers could be as upfront…
To the moderators – if it is too much time-consuming to do do effective moderating (I know you are busy people) – perhaps you could try AI to identify the candidates worthy of the Borehole?
Even with cursory look at John Steele’s short contribution I can spot already several red-flags:
1. Key phrases that portray the author as a fiercely independent mind, fighting the combined forces of scientists and media: “Climate Fear Mongering”, “alarmist scientists and click-bait media”
2. John Steele’s original contribution to Earth’s thermodynamics: “ CO2 helps more heat escape“,
3. Instead of links to peer-review sources, a link to the …author’s own web page.
4. The graphs are, of course “ from published science“, Fahrenheits in them suggest how recent/international is this research.
5. Having a “skeptic” in the blog address is a nice touch. The real skeptic, first and foremost is skeptical toward themselves – one’s ignorance, wishful thinking, and blind spots. Obviously, not the case here. ;-)
6. An inordinate fondness for capital letters and exclamation marks (“Beware Dishonest Antarctic Climate Fear Mongering!!!” “the media has been horribly misleading you!” , “There is No Climate Crisis!“)
7. Never doubting one-self- what is a probability that no trained scientist noticed it, that I will be the first person who invents a wheel…
And if I can get all that from one short post, imagine what an AI trained on a few months of position RC, could do.
Ron R.says
An inordinate fondness for capital letters
:) Is that like Darwin’s “inordinate fondness for beetles”?
Ron R.says
“An inordinate fondness for beetles”
Oops, that was J.B.S. Haldane who said that.
Piotrsays
Ron: Is that like [Haldane’s] “inordinate fondness for beetles”?
Yes ;-)
Ray Ladburysays
Well, except for the fact that nobody is claiming that it is backradiation from the atmosphere that is melting the glaciers, but rather elevated temperatures in the southern seas melting the sea ice that holds back the glaciers. Why not at least learn the real science rather than attack a straw man? Oh, yeah, the real science doesn’t support your imbecilic talking points.
There is a climate crisis. There has been a climate crisis for 30 years, and we’ve doe fuck all to address it.
patrick o twentysevensays
The feature you refer to depends on a sufficient temperature inversion. Temperature inversions in the troposphere can happen because (mainly, I believe) solar heating of the surface+troposphere is unevenly distributed horizontally and in time; the former is associated with large-scale overturning; that and heat capacity extend the troposphere to places (I believe) and times where it would not otherwise be.
Globally, time-averaged, there is solar heating concentrated at/within/under the surface (from memory, about 2/3 of solar heating is in surface material, 1/3 in the atmosphere (most of that in the troposphere).
This must be balanced by a net upward fluxes of ~LW (terrestrial) radiation and convection; convection being mainly in the troposphere and limited to below TOA (top of atmosphere); OLR (outgoing LW) radiant flux is the only significant means by which Earth sheds heat to Space.
… The general tendency is for temperature to decrease going up from the surface, through the atmosphere, to Space (which can be treated as a perfect blackbody object close to 0 K for this purpose).
So in the global time average, the greenhouse gases and agents (clouds), ie., the LW optical thickness or depth of the atmosphere (measure of opaqueness) maintains a higher surface temperature than the effective temperature of the OLR flux density, and in particular, an increase in CO2 tends to reduce the net upward LW flux, leading to an imbalance, resulting in an accumulation of enthalpy (colloquially known as heat), which eventually raises the temperature to a new equilibrium wherein the fluxes are balanced again; feedbacks such as an increase in H2O vapor shift the amount of warming required to achieve equilibrium.
… well, I should have said that such a phenomenon can occur with a sufficient inversion and/or combination of that or small lapse rate and sufficiently low surface LW emissivity:
Inter-Comparison of Field- and Laboratory-Derived Surface Emissivities of Natural and Manmade Materials in Support of Land Surface Temperature (LST) Remote Sensing https://www.mdpi.com/2072-4292/12/24/4127
I’ve only just browsed a few figures but I get the sense the surface emissivity isn’t much of an issue for ice/snow or water surfaces, at least. Generally for introductory purposes it is still a useful approximation to think of the surface as a perfect blackbody in LW, AFAIK.
The effect of surface LW emissivity fades with increasing greenhouse effect strength, esp. with H2O or low level clouds, being (typically concentrated in the case of H2O vapor) close to the surface and tending to have similar temperatures; the effectively-reflective fraction of the surface area (thinking in terms of cross sections) will reflect or scatter the downward radiance back up, and from higher levels the surface becomes more hidden anyway.
(Inversions may also occur with downdrafts spreading out from showers/thunderstorms etc. (eg. gust fronts), even with horizontally, time constant solar heating. I haven’t specifically studied these but I’m guessing they are very weak compared to winter polar inversions.)
(eg. Putting a cloud near the top of an inversion would tend to increase OLR (if there is not already sufficient cloud above that) but it would also tend to increase the downward flux underneath. CO2 doubling has a band-widening effect such that the downward flux to the surface can increase in total even with decreasing spectral flux near the band center, depending on how much CO2 there is to begin with… and H2O and cloud distributions, etc.)
Heat is redistributed horizontally in air and in the oceans. Etc.
EarthClimate.tv is a climate video platform, with the goal to offer all the climate videos in a single place. Sign-up is free, there are also tiers for disabling advertisements, to support the project. All users can submit videos and or posts, comment or create playlists. This is probably the first video platform dedicated to climate videos.
Visit https://earthclimate.tv
A simple and convenient way to grow audience. For existing YT channels EarthClimate offers the chance to reach more people, simply by creating an account and adding their existing YT content.
Thank you!
UAH has reported for May with a global TLT anomaly of +0.37ºC, a big jump up on April’s +0.18ºC and the chilly January of -0.04ºC. May 2023’s is the highest anomaly since 2020. It is the 4th warmest May in the UAH TLT record, behind 1998 (+0.52ºC), 2020 and 2016 (both +0.42ºC) and above 2017, 2010, 2019, 2020 & 2015 (+0.15ºC).
The start-of-year in UAH has leap up from a lowly 12th for Jan-Apr to sit 7th Jan-May.
…….. Jan-May Ave … Annual Ave ..Annual ranking
2016 .. +0.56ºC … … … +0.39ºC … … … 1st
1998 .. +0.46ºC … … … +0.35ºC … … … 3rd
2020 .. +0.41ºC … … … +0.36ºC … … … 2nd
2010 .. +0.31ºC … … … +0.19ºC … … … 6th
2017 .. +0.25ºC … … … +0.26ºC … … … 5th
2019 .. +0.24ºC … … … +0.30ºC … … … 4th
2023 .. +0.16ºC
2022 .. +0.12ºC … … … +0.17ºC … … … 7th
2002 .. +0.12ºC … … … +0.08ºC … … … 11th
2018 .. +0.10ºC … … … +0.09ºC … … … 10th
2007 .. +0.10ºC … … … +0.02ºC … … … 15th
The SAT CFRS reanalysis shows no big leap suggesting the warmed-up May is perhaps a TLT thing.
Replying to Piotr
https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2023/05/unforced-variations-may-2023/comment-page-2/#comment-811956
zebra
https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2023/05/unforced-variations-may-2023/comment-page-2/#comment-811950
carbomontanus
https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2023/05/unforced-variations-may-2023/comment-page-2/#comment-811960
and a correction to myself
https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2023/05/unforced-variations-may-2023/comment-page-2/#comment-811974
Dear Sirs,
A. First of all, a correction of an unpleasant mistake:
The sentence “controlled by the greenhouse effect of the upper atmosphere layers beneath the troposphere.” shall read “controlled by the greenhouse effect of the upper atmosphere layers ABOVE the troposphere.”
I apologize for my confusing error.
B. Regarding the dispute whether or not it may be possible to increase water cycle intensity without increasing absolute humidity (which would have enhanced the infrared radiation absorption and thus worsened the greenhouse effect that we originally intended to mitigate)
Piotr says: ..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 –
I am not sure it is true in case that we manage to intensify the water cycle dynamically, so that we just intensify the water vapor FLOW from the surface upwards. Then I can imagine that both the overall evaportion rate as well as the overll condensation rate increase commensurately, and the average temperature may stay constant even thoufgh the energy input (irrespective whether from increased infrared absorption, decreased cloud cover, decreased aerosol content, or increased surface albedo) rises.
zebra asks ..“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”..
I imagine latent heat flux in Earth atmosphere working the same way as latent heat flux in so called peat pipes designed for intensive cooling of mechanical or electrical elements evolving high heat output in a small volume, like computer processors. As long as you are able to cool the othe end of teh pipe efficiently enough, you can increase the heat input on the “hot” end significamntly without substantially changing the temperature.
I do not know yet whether or not there is a substantial difference preventing water in the Earth atmosphere from working the same way – I am just trying to find out.
A fundamental problem could be, of course, lack of the necessary cooling on the “cool” side. Should Ray Ladbury
https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2023/05/unforced-variations-may-2023/comment-page-2/#comment-811924
be right with his objection that Earth atmosphere ABOVE Earth tropopause is still completely opaque for infrared radiation, the “heat pipe” mechanism could certainly not work. Let us therefore wait for Ray’s reply to my doubts regarding plausibility of his assertion.
C. Regarding practical issues in the “active evaporation management”
Piotr says ..”find inexpensive source of freshwater large enough INCREASE annual evaporation by 1250 mm from 10 mln km2″
I think (and wrote it in my post) that the sole way how the deserts like Sahara could be supplied with 13 000 km3 water that would have been necessary for securing the intended exemplary global EEI mitigation about
2 W.m-2 would have been pumping the sea water thereto. I am aware that it sounds as an academic exercise, but I repeat that if Nature can publish seriously meant articler about DAC, this alternative should be perhaps considered equally seriously.
D. Water cycle management and decarbonization
The above described exercise with looking on possible effects of artificial intensification of the water cycle by securing the supply of water available for evaporation was not meant as a proposal that we have to forget decarbonization. Nevertheless, should the people who planted into my head the concern that the water cycle deteriorated by human activities during holocene (partly already well before the start of the industrial era) may be in fact a comparably important component of the Earth climate as the greenhouse effect be right, it could happen that decarbonization without fixing the water cycle may fail.
That is why I am asking questions about global precipitation, its partition between land and sea, and possible role of terrestrial plant cover in this partition.
I do not think that asking questions about the role of water cycle in Earth climate is an activity supporting dictator regimes and/or undermining decarbonization efforts. Oppositely, I hope that the final outcome of such debates will show that this role deserves equally serious research as the greenhouse effect.
Should the water cycle indeed play that important role as some people think, present technology offers the humanity an additional option how to intervene actively withthe AGW. As this option may be COMPLEMENTARY to decarbonization and perhaps could even act synergistically therewith, I think it may deserve a really serious attention and a really thorough scrutiny, rather than an arbitrary rejection as a complete nonsense.
Greetings
Tom
P.S:
Track of the previous discussion (which is now splitted into several threads here on the RealClimate website and thus relatively difficult to follow) as well as a schematical explanation of technical ideas behind my original posts are accessible through the link
https://orgpad.com/s/6jf-rtG8wUP
that allows you to add your own comments directly in this public orgpage as well.
@ T. Kalisz
I have maybe a primary point there to your discussion of the water cycle.
Look at the difference between dry lapserate and moist lapserate, that is . roughly 10 deg / km and 6 deg/ km.
If we assume the tropopause temperature to be constant, wherefore it is also termed the iso- term layer,…. then a moist lapserate will obviously cool the ground. But it cannot be that way namely grey
and rainy weather until it has evaporated enough.
In the tempered zone that I am able to judge, grey weather in summer means cooler temperatures, and grey in the winter means warmer temperatures.
We must not forget day and night either; do not hide the decline, namely all the sunsets and the winters.
. Cloudy weather warms the nights and cools the days where there is sunshine enough.
Alltogether, I believe that this is Richard Lindzens Iris- argument in one of its versions, against the CO2-AGW- theory. By which he was not very successful.
If we see it in the light of Le Chateliers principle, that termostating- negative feedback and cooling effect of water will not be able to bring the ground and sea temperatures back to the land and sea temperatures that caused the higher evaporation.
It will only damp the effect and probably up to a certain catastrophic dis- co0ntinous level where something else will begin to happen. And this is the fameous tipping- points of such stable, le Chatelier eqvilibria with negative feedbacks. There will be limits to the material causes of such smooth continuous linear negative feedbacks where the very complex eqvilibrium will cease to be stable.
This rules for very many, quite common physical and technical and biological systems.
James Hansen has used this as an alarming argument. Venus, he told, has gone through such a major tippingpoint and climate cathastrophy and lost all its damping and thermostaing water.
Thus do not be landcrabs anymore. Most evapotranspiration takes place at sea of course. Dusty deserts are just an exeptional, inland, continental, geographically provincial phaenomenon.
Because, this is not the planet earth, it is the planet sea of course, , first discovered by Thor Heyerdahl and then by NASA , and labeled “the blue marble” in recent time.
Can`t you all see that?
There you have the evapotranspiration and what causes it.
Dear carbomontanus,
It is well possible that you are right when you say:
“If we see it in the light of Le Chateliers principle, that termostating- negative feedback and cooling effect of water will not be able to bring the ground and sea temperatures back to the land and sea temperatures that caused the higher evaporation. ”
It is also well possible that JCM may be correct when he suggests that the surface cooling effect of higher evaporation may be – possibly under specific circumstances only – augmented by higher cloud formation and cooling effect of increased albedo corresponding to stronger cloud cover.
I do not know. I would appreciate if climate modellers told us that they studied these relationships and clarified them. It is my feeling that so far, they rather keep parametrizing their models so that they more less fit with the current water cycle intensity that might be (there are hardly any data about water cycle intensity in the past) extensively weakened during millenia of land deforestation, drainage and soil errosion caused by human activities. Setting water supply from the land as a parameter that could be actively controlled by human activity is still not considered as worth of the effort, I am afraid.
I repeat:
I would like to learn whether somebody can say with certainty what is the global precipitation partition between the land and sea, how it developed during holocene and particularly during the indstrial era, what is its current trend (drying or wetting the land?), and in which extent we could influence it by the active evaporation management by providing sufficient water supply for an additional evaporation, especially in hot dry areas. I think it may be important.
Greetings
Tom
TK,
78% of precipitation occurs over the oceans, compared to 22% over land. Since oceans cover 70.8% of the planet and land 29.2%, ocean precipitation is 46% more intense than over land.
https://science.nasa.gov/earth-science/oceanography/ocean-earth-system/ocean-water-cycle#:~:text=The%20ocean%20holds%2097%25%20of,of%2086%25%20of%20global%20evaporation.
The Clausius-Clapeyron Equation
For every extra degree Celsius of warming, air can hold 7% more water.
This relationship only works fully over the oceans, where there’s an unlimited supply of water. Over land, if there isn’t 7% extra moisture available in the soil, the air above won’t take up and hold that amount of water.
For many of the really heavy rain phenomena, there needs to be an air mass coming from over the ocean – long and narrow columns of water vapor called atmospheric rivers.
Rainfall from thunderstorms and tropical cyclones can often exceed the Clausius–Clapeyron relationship
When a storm becomes stronger, it means that its circulation is also becoming stronger, which means it can evaporate more water vapor into the center of the storm and release more latent heat, which means it can produce more rainfall.
A paper published in 2022 – study on how rainfall from the strongest North Atlantic hurricanes in 2020 was made more intense by global warming – found that extreme rates of rainfall, measured in 3-hour increments, increased by 11%.
The convective effect. Storms, with more rainfall than anticipated, are known as super-Clausius–Clapeyron events.
The apparent simplicity of the Clausius–Clapeyron equation could lead to some misleading predictions that underestimate the likely increases in rainfall as the temperature increases further. https://climatestate.com/2023/06/04/how-a-changing-climate-can-enhance-rainstorms-according-to-a-190-year-old-equation/
The global rise in temperature is more like 1.2 degrees, so there’s probably something like 8% more moisture in atmospheric rivers now than there would have been without climate change
Dear Barton Paul,
Thanks a lot for this reference value!
Do you perhaps know also a source that brings a historical reconstruction how the global precipitation and its partition between land and ocean developed during the industrial era, or at least during the last few decades?
Greetings
Tom
@ chris says: –
” The apparent simplicity of the Clausius–Clapeyron equation could lead to some misleading predictions…”
ms: — The CC equation is only valid in closed energy systems. However, the atmosphere is an open system into which a great deal of energy and matter flows in and out. Therefore, on an earth that is 1°C warmer, one cannot conclude that there is exactly 7% more water vapor in the atmosphere. It could also be that too little water vapor in the atmosphere caused the temperature increase of 1°C (clear sky effect). One can generally only infer faster evaporation as long as there is water at the surface – without water, the soil and air temperature rise sharply and the RH falls dramatically.
For many decades we have been observing a global decline in relative humidity of currently ~ 0.22% per decade – including over the oceans:
https://climateprotectionhardware.files.wordpress.com/2022/09/a2.png
A difference of 1% RH corresponds to ~ 6000km³ of missing evaporation(cooling the surface) and condensation(heating the troposphere).
Long-term relative decline in evapotranspiration with increasing runoff on fractional land surfaces:
https://hess.copernicus.org/articles/25/3805/2021/#&gid=1&pid=1
ms: It could also be that too little water vapor in the atmosphere caused the temperature increase of 1°C
BPL: Will you PLEASE crack a book on atmosphere physics? You’re making a fool of yourself in public.
@bpl says: – ” fool of yourself in public. ”
ms: — As always, I think that you are a particularly clever sheep who dreams and imagines that you are standing in a green meadow – just because you are wearing a yellow blindfold with 3 black dots.
In reality, however, you are standing in the spreading desert, where, as always, there is far too little water vapor in the atmosphere and far too few clouds passing by and heating up the sheep powerfully.
I’m a public fool because I want to lead stubborn sheep out of the desert to a green pasture, without a sheepdog. But I don’t mind if I have to bite your stubborn calves myself every now and then.
ms: — As always, I think that you are a particularly clever sheep who dreams and imagines that you are standing in a green meadow – just because you are wearing a yellow blindfold with 3 black dots.
In reality, however, you are standing in the spreading desert, where, as always, there is far too little water vapor in the atmosphere and far too few clouds passing by and heating up the sheep powerfully.
I’m a public fool because I want to lead stubborn sheep out of the desert to a green pasture, without a sheepdog. But I don’t mind if I have to bite your stubborn calves myself every now and then.
BPL: No, ms, you’re a public fool because you post things like less water vapor in the atmosphere causing a temperature increase. You shove your ignorance in everybody’s faces and then insult and bluster rather than admit you made a gross, incompetent mistake. That’s what makes you a public fool.
To all and everyone
About Matthias Schürle:
“MS:- The CC equation is only valid in closed energy systems. However the atmosphere is an open system…”
Here we have it again, Matthias Schürle teaching his alternative physical science to everyone for some peculiar political background reason..
The CC principle rules for any physical chemical transition from A to B or from B to A where change of entrophy is involved such as evaporation and condensation heat or reaction heat quite in general, in joules pr mol.
Due to permanence of energy then and further Le Chateliers principle, , change of temperature up or down will cause change of the reaction eqvilibrium. .
Such as: warm up the situation and the dew will evaporate. cool it down and dew will come back. ,
That rules universally in open air even on Pluto,
Not just in silly specialists test- tubes and chemical flasks in their closed lab situations and societies.
It rules even on Matthias Schüles dewing lenses and car- windows.
. And why does the solubility and re- cristallization of sugar, salt, salpeter, and soda, react and change differently on heating and cooling dissolving water? Because those materials have different cristallization heats or entropies.
The Schürlers, who studied only Dia- lectic materialism for carriere- purposes, were not told of the physics and the techniques of German Salines, traditional salt refineries for centuries by the Hansa, by heating and cooling the solution and fractional cristallization of the natural rock salt mixtures , And how to produce also KNO3 and NaCL in water from NaNO3 and KCl. By dissolving heating and cooling and evaporating and re- cristallizing.
Compulsary Material sciences from westerly civilizede Mittlere Reife , einfach. That was given a damn to and eradicated in their postrevolutionary situation.
Not even why the pressure in beer and champagne bottles sink when they are cooled, and , why open systems like lakes rivers and creeks rather must be cool enough for native wild German fishes not to simply drown in the summer warmth Why wild forelolers rather preferre the cool mountain lakes.
Politically trained teachers and KADRE students can simply give a damn to what universal laws of Nature and as told from Science,… is practically about and how it is to be understood and applied. And what are the further natural and practical examples?
Sagt der liebe Lehrer Lämpel “Dies ist wieder ein Exempel!”.
“No, damned, that rules only in closed systems whereas in the open atmosphere……… smile smile….”
. That misery follows them ever after in their lives and tell us how and where they were brought up, in what closed and privileged class and in which closed peoples republic..
It betrays typical Cernobyl style where the Party Secretarys Hon. . Deputee got planted in the seat by the occupational forces as their Chief Engineer above them in the scientific grades to teach them more progressive materialism on behalf of the people, Im Nahmen des Volkes.
@ tomas Kalisz
Your next argument is more difficult.
” I would appreciate if climate modellers told us that they studied theese relationships and clarified them,…”
Much is said among the denialists and surrealists of how the “climate modellers ” work and about their interests and leading motives,…. and that it ought to be different for scientific and moral reasons in order better so serve the interests of the “sceptics” the climate deniers and the surrealists, ( = the flat earthers desert walkers blind believers, and party- members..)
Personally, I cannot follow that kind of arguments for many reasons.
I have been doing a lot of scientific research myself, and I do not recognize in myself those insinuations about the climate researchers motivs. They hardly go after money and salaries, it is not in their main focus of interest. Their main focus is to proove their own ingeniousity, according to the fameous Thomas Kuhn also.
Another rather strong and conscious motive of mine is also to be able to see and hear and to check up for myself what is really on, what is it and how is it really? so that I can orientate and say yes and no for myself without having to rely on the websites and the experts, that can cheat me and stupidify me.
That motive is not quite uncommon either.
And next, they have some learnings methods and traditions in common, and judge quite a lot what is do- able in order to get thinjgs done at all,…. and what is “fruitful” and meaninngful and efficient. Speculating in the fogs and the foggy dews is very traditional and very human,… but experience shows that it is often less fruitful.
Nephelai in greek, is a commedy by Aristophanes.
Today we were at sea and I saw some very fine sccirrus very high up and we speculated a bit on how that can possibly form, how can we read and explain those typical scirrus forms?
. Then, if you deliver an essay on that, other researchers should be able to repeat it so that they also can proove their ingenousity. But not to the Party with P, that is rather to be badgered from the side of research, to better proove by our ingeniousity..
The lapserate and the isoterm layer is a fruitful conscept by whilch you can speculate more efficiently to proove your ingeniousity.
Or your stupidity like Hans Jelbring & al has done it and got fameous for it, ,and had many worshipful followers. in swedish “Atmosfäriska effekten!”
Especially if you hide the decline systematically all the time, such as hide all the sunsets and the autumns, then your thoughts will be stupidifying also to 0thers.
Dear carbomontanus,
In your reply to JCM
https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2023/06/unforced-variations-jun-2023/#comment-812046
as well as in your reply to me, you object us for “hiding the decline” and “hiding the sunsets and autumns”:
“Why allways hide the decline and how often must I repeat that? Why hide the sunsets and the autumjns?”
It appears that doing so, you refer to an older post (or to a multiplicity of older postst) made by you. I am, however, not present on the Real Climate website for long.
Could you specify for me in more detail what I do not address properly, so that I could rethink and reply?
Thank you in advance and greetings
T
@ Thomas Kalisz
It is a joke from my side, which alludes to the very fameous denialist slogan “Hide the decine” that followed the E-mail hacking scandal at CRU East Anglian University as an insinuation against Michael Mann.
I thought everyone could remember that. .
Especially, I find the discussion of water and of clouds here ignoring or unaware of both cooling and heating functions of water and clouds depending on day or night, summer or winter, High or low, Poles or Eqvator.
Where o0bvious and fameous “declines” are all the sunsets and all the autumns. Functions of water and clouds may simply be opposite depending on day or night, summer or winter High or low, and Poles or Eqvator.
Arguing for only half of it is ignoring or hiding the whole truth of it.
It seems to follow because more universal and fundamental scientifric model conscepts are not absolved and practically trained.
I have the impression from my point 0f wiew that climate science on its official and best is rather backing up the understandeing that I could make of it on the basis of complex physical chemistery, musical instrument engineering, (on complex pnevmatic oscillators for artistic purposes = Organology) elementary and basic meteorology, and physical geography.
And that denialism & surrealism is rather badgering and fighting such civilized diciplines.
They are fighting what we have to fall back on, of civilized learnings and methods in order to tackle the future and our earthly environment. And that is a quite ugly situation, a worst and most accute pollution problem.
They are lacking knowledge and respect of Nature and of our most vital traditions of learning.
TK,
I don’t know of such a reference offhand, but you could try here:
https://scholar.google.com/
@ all and everyone
I must add here that I may have been told Le Chateliersprinciple wrong.
I checked up Wikipedia, , and hardly learnt it especially as “Le chateliers law” on phase equilibria before, That seems to be the original version.
But it is given quite in general in my pensa many times as::
“If, in a system of complex , stable eqvilibrium determined by many parameters, one of the parameters is mooved to bring it out of eqvilibrium, the other determining variable will react and moove in a direction such as to re- store the stable eqvilibrium!”
This fameous principle seems quite universal and appliciable to any stable and dynamic systems, at stable equilibrium, wherefore it is so practical and useful, and wherefrore I have found it mentioned and used in the litterature arguments and in the laboratory on so many different places.
For instance on complex wave mechanical -morphological systems in musical wind instruments (organology) where stability soundcolour and intonnation- pitch must be kept and tuned together for fine artistic musical purposes. One finds le Chateliers principle all the way in the complex and consonant, integrated orchestra
I could write on behalf of science that : “Roses of timeless wisdom does not ask the faculty of fine arts where to grow!” which was appreciated.
Then further in complex machinery with viscous, mechanical, and thermodynamic systems and eqvilibria, and in the chemical glasses. .
In meteorology and climatology of course, you will find yourself better equipped having Le Chateliers principle in mind, that will protect your thoughts and your soul, and helps you from thinking and performing mono- causal surrealistic like a blind flat earther and believer and desert walker all the time, who is chasing Fata Morgana in the horizons. . Maybe even against drunken sailors who are advocating bushfires in our days for better pissing and to save the earth..
One could surely derive Newtons and Kepplers laws from it also.
Le Chateliers principle seems to have been known worldwide by wise men and women, at any time everywhere.
..Thus it is timeless wisdom that you should secure for your engineering and philosophical toolbox. It disqualifies the alternative and false beliefs and speculations.. .
Also in politics, provided that complex stable and dynamic eqvilibria should be acheived or can be found even there.
Tomas, you didn’t answer the question.
I asked you to explain what would be different from what is happening now.
Water is evaporating now.
Water vapor is increasing.
How then would increasing evaporation cause water vapor to decrease??? That should sound ridiculous even to you.
And please, give a real answer, not “gosh, I don’t know, but maybe it’s possible”.
Dear zebra,
Many thanks for this question.
The main difference against current situation would have consisted in conversion of current arid areas (with a negligible latent heat flux) into areas significantly contributing to surface cooling.
Another important difference, against the past, is that the mankind currently HAS technical means to arrange the necessary water supply for this artificially enhanced evaporative surface cooling, at affordable costs – at least in comparison with other means proposed against the AGW, like DAC.
Greetings
Tom
Tomas,
You are still not answering my question:
How does increasing evaporation reduce water vapor in the atmosphere?
You just keep repeating things unrelated to the question. As I pointed out earlier, endlessly avoiding the question is the sign of someone not interested in actual understanding, but just spreading propaganda.
Dear zebra,
I am sorry that you are not satisfied with my effort to answer your question “what would be different from what is happening now” written in bold letters, I really tried to do my best.
I must, however, admit that I have not addressed your further question.
OK, How does increasing evaporation reduce water vapor in the atmosphere?
To be frank, I have not focused on this question so much yet, for the following reasons:
First of all, I assumed that if we will once have the surface temperature controlled by latent heat flux instead of the radiation flux, we will not need to care about radiation so much.
Second, as I recently wrote in my answer to questions asked by Piotr
https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2023/06/unforced-variations-jun-2023/#comment-812035 ,
I am still not sure that increased water cycle intensity must be accompanied by increased average absolute humidity and thus by enhanced greenhouse effect caused by water vapour.
Third, even if my idea (that latent heat flow intensity can be perhaps increased just by increasing the intensity of the vapour flow from the surface, without increasing the mean humidity) proves as unrealistic, I do not think that the strengthening of the greenhouse effect in lower layers of the atmosphere under cloud base, as supposed by you, must necessarily disqualify the artificially enhanced evaporation as a potentially useful tool for Earth surface temperature regulation.
One of the reasons can be the circumstance that if a significant part of the energy flux from the surface will be in form of the latent heat flux, the enhanced water vapour concentration below cloud base could in fact act as a shield protecting the surface AGAINST the back radiation evolved in the upper atmosphere layers by condensation of the supplied water vapour.
I am afraid that you will be dissatisfied by finding out that I do not have a perfect theory supported by a waterproof modelling experiment, but you can admit that if we once start considering the artificially enhanced water cycle as a technically viable option, there might arise new, not yet studied scenarios deserving a serious analysis.
Greetings
Tom
Zebra,
Kalisz has not claimed that increasing evaporation reduces water vapour in the atmosphere.
Kalisz is essentially claiming that the cooling effects of increased evaporation might be larger than the warming effects of the evaporation. I doubt that they are, but the only way to settle the issue is some calculations – and nobody has provided a link tor done the calculations.
Tomas,
You want to speculate and engage in, as I said earlier, Argument From Ignorance and Argument From Incredulity. This is not science.
What is science is what we can observe. The experiment you suggest… irrigating a desert… has already been performed. It is called California (and other US Western States.)
Water has been transported from reservoirs and aquifers, and applied to crops in very inefficient ways like spraying and flooding, which promotes evaporation. The crops, like nut trees, engage in transpiration.
In addition, all over the world, irrigation reliant on previously sequestered sources has increased dramatically in the last couple of centuries.
So when I ask “what would be different?”, your answer is a non-answer. You are just suggesting an incremental “more of the same”.
And as this…
https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1029/2022JD036728?campaign=woletoc
…clearly shows, consistent with the predictions of existing Climate Theory, water vapor is indeed increasing, and we observe that the Greenhouse Effect continues to increase the energy in the climate system.
This is settled science. And your speculations are inconsistent with basic physics and basic reasoning.
If water vapor is increasing with evaporation from existing irrigation, why would your new irrigation have a different effect?
And why would the water vapor from your new irrigation project have a different Greenhouse Effect from that already existing water vapor?
If you can’t answer those questions based on actual physics, not speculation, then you are wasting your time and the bandwidth here.
TK: the enhanced water vapour concentration below cloud base could in fact act as a shield protecting the surface AGAINST the back radiation evolved in the upper atmosphere layers by condensation of the supplied water vapour.
BPL: I don’t think that makes sense. The water vapor would simply absorb the back-radiation, heat up, and radiate its own radiation. More water vapor in the air makes the ground warmer, not cooler.
zebra says: – ” How does increasing evaporation reduce water vapor in the atmosphere? ”
ms: — The more and faster water vapor evaporates into the atmosphere, the faster it is removed again by precipitation. The difference in temperature rise between oceans (+0.88 °C) and land areas (+1.59 °C) can be explained, among other things, by the fact that the evaporation rates over the sea are significantly higher and the sea surfaces can therefore cool much better.
Water has a dissipative character and transports large amounts of energy across the oceans and atmosphere, both vertically towards space and horizontally towards the poles. As a low cumulus cloud over tropical oceans but also in higher and summer latitudes, it achieves the highest cooling potential for the earth’s climate.
nigelj says: – ” Kalisz is essentially claiming that the cooling effects of increased evaporation might be larger than the warming effects of the evaporation. ”
ms: — Our GranMaster Dr. Gavin Schmidt says: The warming potential of water vapor is ~50%, for clouds ~25%, // for CO2 19% and for all other greenhouse gases ~6% of the total GHE (~160W/m²) * 75% = ~120W/m².
https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/2010JD014287
In contrast, the cooling effect at the surface of evapotranspiration is ~ -86W/m² and that of clouds ~ -47W/m². The water cycle thus has a net cooling effect of ~ -13W/m².
By this net balance, the earth is a water-cooled planet – whether you like it or not.
If you could then also note that in the years since 2000 @ TOA there has been an albedo loss of ~1.4W/m² mainly due to decreasing clouds, snow & ice albedo and aerosols and that OLR @ TOA at the same time has increased by~0.57W/m². The main driver of climate change since 2000 is higher SW absorbed by surface (~2/3) and GHE only 1/3.
https://ceres.larc.nasa.gov/documents/STM/2022-10/Loeb_State_of_CERES-Fall_2022.pdf
https://climateprotectionhardware.files.wordpress.com/2023/03/geb_2000-2020finish.png?w=1024
The GHE has tended to weaken since 2000 due to fewer clouds and their long wave effect. The loss of snow, ice and aerosols also has a similar effect: the underlying ocean and land surfaces dissipate their radiant heat much better without the insulating/reflective layers.
ms: The more and faster water vapor evaporates into the atmosphere, the faster it is removed again by precipitation.
BPL: Can you cite a source for that statement, or at least explain the principle behind it? BTW, if true, that removes all support for your climate-control plan.
@BPL says: – ” … or at least explain the principle ”
ms: – I don’t know if sheep understand the difference of water cycle between a rainforest (“more & faster”) and a desert (“less & slower”). Hopefully you know the temperature difference between the maximum values of rainforest and desert at the same latitude.
The best way to find out about the greenhouse effect of irrigation is from the source:
https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar6/wg1/downloads/report/IPCC_AR6_WGI_Chapter07.pdf
– 7.3.4.1 Land use
The lifetime of water vapor is so short that the
effect of changes in evaporation on the greenhouse contribution of water vapor are negligible (Sherwood et al., 2018).
https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/aae018
” These results indicate that even large increases in anthropogenic water vapor emissions would have negligible warming effects on climate, but that possible negative RF may deserve more attention. “
P: each time you evaporate water – you increase the water vapour concentration in atm and therefore its greenhouse warming effect
TK: “I am not sure it is true in case that we manage to intensify the water cycle dynamically, so that we just intensify the water vapor FLOW from the surface upwards ”
Where did you think the increase in the water vapour concentration in atm. would take place ? from the Earth’s surface downwards???
Over Sahara, where typical rel. humidity is 25% – you can increase water vap. conc. 4-fold,
(and increase the greenhouse effect of water vapour dramatically), BEFORE you even reach RH 100%, a condition to start forming any clouds.
TK: “ the deserts like Sahara 9 mln km2, could be supplied with 13 000 km3 seawater”
Are you proposing to cancel the GLOBAL (i.e. over 510 mln km2) warming of ~ 1C, by evaporative cooling over merely 9 mln km2 of Sahara? If yes, wouldn’t that require cooling of the Sahara’s surface by …. 1C x (510/9) = 57C? Actually, much more given that the majority of the latent heat would be reradiated back toward Earth.
And how many additional GHG emissions are you planning for pumping … 13 000 km3 of seawater
over many 100s?/1000s of km ?
And as with any non-carbon sequestration geoengineering scheme – it would not slow, but accelerate the ocean acidification, since by taking warming off the table, the political urgency to reduce CO2 would have be gone. And your scheme would need to be maintained forever, with any interruption rapidly increasing global temp. to its high-CO2 equilibrium value, too rapid for species and ecosystems to adapt.
And as zebra said – the onus of proving that your scheme has any merit is on you. Rather difficult, if you keep rejecting/ignoring information that questions the validity of your scheme.
Piotr says: –
” Where did you think the increase in the water vapour concentration in atm. would take place ? ”
ms: — Millions of farmers would be happy if they had sufficient water and irrigation technology available in spring and summer to prevent crop failures. Many politicians and amateur climatologists like you still don’t realize that deserts and regions with water shortages are spreading rapidly. In my home region of Europe this means – every year we are getting 27km closer to the Sahara and the number of cloudless hours of sunshine is increasing by a trend of 2.7 hours/y.
Thousands of mayors have already converted their cities into sponge cities to retain rain and also use this water for irrigation & evaporation during dry periods and prevent summer UHI.
These are all people you can ask about when and where evaporation & water vapor should be increased.
Or just water wherever the soil temperature rises above 30°C to prevent it from catapulting to a bone-dry 60°C.
Apparently you didn’t understand the difference in the energy balance on the land surface between e.g. 30°C & 60°C.
Just as little as you have understood that the large and small water cycles bind an amount of energy that does not increase in temperature, which corresponds to 25% of the total incoming solar energy. The more intensive the water cycles, the cooler the climate.
No, professor Schürle, it aint necessarily so!
“The more intensive the water cycles, the cooler the climate..”
A wet towel in the sunshine is cooler that its dry environment. Spraying people with water when it is too hot, is quite popular. but further deadly if the wet bulb temperature comes above 35 celsius. So it has its limits. .
I spoke with Ali from Mali. “What about 4 deg hotter than now, in Mali?
“Oh no, heat is something that we are aquainted to. The problem is that people are so stingy.. If people are so stingy, the whole world will become a desert!”
I tend to believe that they withdraw to cooler places at midday, and rather work in the early mornings and late evenings. They make a long Siesta during day. Like also washproof moslems. It is Desert and oasis- culture. With Shadowy rock caves and trees. Night chill can be arranged and stored in thick, stony walls. They further adore astronomy. Desert animals do the same.
Only the Schürlers are having problems with theese elementary things.
The water- cycles will definitely become stronger at higher temperatures due to Aristoteles and Claussius Clapperon. but again, where does it rain? in Spain? In the plain?…
But in Hartfrord Herefrord and Hampshire hurricanes hardely happen.
Along with James Lovelock, and Al Gores inconvenient truth, that will not be so true anymore. .
Max holocenen in Sahara shows human petroglyphs of a rather savanna- like situation, and
rock & earth erosion marks shows rare,… but strong! rainshowers.
Central Asia with the Gobi and Taklamakhan deserts show evidence of higher percipitation with human settlements from the same period, that gave up living there, entered the horseback and migrated westwards to the greener Europe about 2000 years ago. As large hordes of organized maraunding nomades. The large system of chineese walls is a defence system in the east against the same as the global climate did cool down. And central Asia with a high population from Max Holocene, dried up. under a more cool climate.
See Aristoteles and Cløausius Clappeyron.
But, along with the promised global warming now, Deng Xiaoping is looking forward to returning to where they really came from.
The Sahara- population did probably migrate to the Nile walley hoping for a new and better life there. as the Mongol Khans invaded China.
So you seem to confuse cause and consequense, chicken and eg like so many dia- lectic materialists and inaugurated national socialists before you. , they are trained to become pioneering contrarians, Junge Pioniere, in all further situations and taverns,
They hardly learnt anything better.. .
Quite in general, Genosse Schürle,…..
If global warming causes a more intense water cycle that cools the situation by counter- acting that global warming,…..
….then the intensified water cycle, that is caused by global warming, will not cool the mean global temperature down to under what it was before that global warming caused the intensified water cycle..
Schürlers hardly learnt about theese things that are elementary in the discussion of multidimensional and multicausal, stable eqvilibria and balances in the environmental and other systems.
But the argument is a major and fameous one in order to deny the role of CO2 in earth climate. .
Macias Shurly Millions of farmers would be happy if they had sufficient water and irrigation technology
Would you care to explain how spending $ trillions(?) to pump and spread over the land “13 000 km3” of SEAWATER a year (Mr. Kalisz’s proposal you are valiantly defending) – would make millions of farmers … happy? “Clueless ignorant jerks” on RC would like to know!
@Plotr says: – ” Mr. Kalisz’s proposal you are valiantly defending ”
ms: — My own suggestions (see my website) have something in common with Mr. Kalisz in that we both assume that the surface of the earth and our sweaty feet are water-cooled. Through globally higher evaporation rates and intensified water cycles, we expect global cooling through improved energy transport (thermal conductivity) from the surface to the troposphere and to the poles & a higher cloud albedo. It’s just a matter of dimension of irrigation volume.
My own suggestions have nothing to do with spraying 13,000 km³ of salt water on electrical systems and PV modules.
My only suggestion is rain and water retention (reducing freshwater runoff) to increase evaporation rates from vegetation and photosynthesis.
10% of the volume per year suggested by Mr. Kalisz is quite enough to halt the trend for warming over land.
Piotr: “Would you care to explain how spending $ trillions(?) to pump and spread over the land “13 000 km3” of SEAWATER a year – Mr. Kalisz’s proposal you are valiantly defending against “ clueless ignorant jerks” – would make millions of farmers … happy? “Clueless ignorant jerks” would like to know!”
Macias Shurly: “My own suggestions have nothing to do with spraying 13,000 km³ of salt water”
You often join discussions to offer … suggestions that “, have nothing to do with [the topic of said discussion] ?
Dear Piotr,
Many thanks for your questions.
Here are my answers:
1) Where did you think the increase in the water vapour concentration in atm. would take place ? from the Earth’s surface downwards???
I still do not see a reason why the intensified evaporation could not result in an intensified condensation, thus keeping the water vapour content in the atmosphere basically constant.
It appears that you assume that vapour condensation to form clouds requires vapour saturation to 100 % relative humidity already at the surface, but I doubt that this assumption is necessary.
I think that with 100 % saturation at the surface, we basically do not need any cooling of the rising wet air – a fog can form already at the surface. Less saturated air needs a stronger cooling, very dry air over Sahara perhaps does not manage at all to cooll enough to allow that the comprised water vapour condenses to clouds. Should this picture be in any aspect distorted, I will appreciate your correction.
2) Are you proposing to cancel the GLOBAL (i.e. over 510 mln km2) warming of ~ 1C, by evaporative cooling over merely 9 mln km2 of Sahara?
Yes, I am – of course, as a thinking experiment, with the aim to test if something like that could be indeed, at least theoretically, possible.
I simply assumed that a certain part of the overall energy input on the surface can be converted into latent heat, irrespective whether it is shortwave sunlight or the downwelling infrared radiation from the sky. And another assumption was that under unlimited water supply, this part (and the temperature co-defining the steady state that will establish) depend basically on the maximum achievable rate by which the forming water vapour is transported away from the surface.
3) If yes, wouldn’t that require cooling of the Sahara’s surface by …. 1C x (510/9) = 57C?
Very good point, I think. I proposed to check if an articifial evaporative cooling on 10 mil km2 of present hot deserts could “neutralize” 2 W/m2 of additional energy flow to the entire Earth surface – which seems to roughly correspond to the sum of various “forcings” driving the warming observed in the last two decades.
You are right that if we focus this energy flow on the area 10 mil square kilometers, it rises to 102 W/m2.
Let us assume that the average annual temperature in Aswan, Egypt (26.6 °C according to https://en.climate-data.org/africa/egypt/aswan-governorate/aswan-6344/) corresponds to average emission temperature 300 K. Then the average upwelling radiation flow corresponding to this temperature calculated according to Stefan-Boltzmann law is 459.3 W/m2. Subtracting 102 W/m2 that we artificially converted into latent heat flow, we get the annual average radiation flow 357.3 W/m2, which corresponds to the new annual average radiation temperature 281.7 K (8.6 °C).
18 K cooling is less than your estimate but still looks very impressive, and we can and should of course ask where this cooling effort would have stopped if applied in practice. My guess is that this artificial “temperature inversion” could act as a “continental oasis effect” and might have caused significant changes in global air flows and, possibly, even in sea streams.
4) And how many additional GHG emissions are you planning for pumping … 13 000 km3 of seawater
over many 100s?/1000s of km ?
Actually, an article issued in a renowned journal
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-020-20437-0
seriously proposed, as a high emergency, starting direct air capture of CO2, using energy produced by additional fossil fuel burning.
I would rather desist from such emergency measures. My original idea was testing the plausibility of currently available climate models by a practical experiment in urban heat islands mimicking the deserts.
There are predictions
https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/2020GL090789
that massive solar energy exploitation in deserts should bring more precipitation thereto, by strengthening the sea breeze due to more intense sensible heat produced from the dark solar cells decreasing the average albedo of the desert.
I therefore proposed that some urban centers deploy massively “classical” solar panels, whereas other cities will install solar panels designed for dissipation of their waste heat in form of latent heat due to evaporative cooling. Comparison of the observed outcomes with model predictions could perhaps bring a useful insight into reliability of the models, and provide a hint towards the outcome of corresponding geoengineering experiments on a larger scale.
Turning back to your question, should the proposed urban experiment give a clear hint that artificial evaporative cooling may be indeed beneficial, pumping salt water necessary for the evaportive cooling of large arid areas should be powered by solar energy produced by the evaporatively cooled solar cells, and / or by wind energy produced by resulting air streams.
5) To your concern about potential harm caused by my questions.
Each human activity includes certain risks, any unexplored activity an unknown risk.
I think that if the water cycle may be indeed a such powerful climate regulating factor as the above brought example suggests, we should not take the risk potentially included in neglecting it.
Greetings
Tom
P.S.
More in the orgpage
https://orgpad.com/s/6jf-rtG8wUP
TK: I think that with 100 % saturation at the surface, we basically do not need any cooling of the rising wet air
Here is
the global map of Earth’s humidity kindly point to the locations with 100 % saturation at the surface.
Especially on 9 mln km^2 of Sahara – the location of your modest proposal.
Ah right – you did – you are argue that we … cool down the … 9 mln km^2 of Sahara by so many degrees that it produces 100% saturation at the surface! Great – first you suggest pumping 1300 km3 of seawater over many 100s or over 1000s km (to spread it over 9mln km2 of Sahara, now you also want to cool the said 9mln km2 of SAHARA by many degrees. One cannot accuse you of thinking small,
But wait a minute – wouldn’t your cooling of Sahara scheme cause condensation at its surface – thus having the OPPOSITE effect to that of … your plan – which was ALL above taking the latent heat away from the Earth’s surface and releasing it (via condensation) many km above the Earth surface???
Piotr: 4) And how many additional GHG emissions are you planning for pumping … 13 000 km3 of seawater over many 100s?/1000s of km ?
T. Kalisz: Actually, an article issued in a renowned journal
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-020-20437-0
seriously proposed, as a high emergency, starting direct air capture of CO2, using energy produced by additional fossil fuel burning.
That’s like an arms dealer trying to sell a farmer a self-propelled howitzer, because the farmer expressed a frustration at a pesky coyote killing his hens.
P.S. And still you have to multiply ALL your numbers … many-fold – to account for the fact that most of the heat in the troposphere is not radiated toward space, but back to Earth.
Dear Piotr,
Sorry for the delay with my answer, it takes some time to transfer the contributions made by various participants in various threads to my tracking orgpage
https://orgpad.com/s/7zfynb_y5o7
so that I do not lose an overview.
You ask:
“But wait a minute – wouldn’t your cooling of Sahara scheme cause condensation at its surface – thus having the OPPOSITE effect to that of … your plan – which was ALL above taking the latent heat away from the Earth’s surface and releasing it (via condensation) many km above the Earth surface???”
Although it may appear that decreasing the average annual temperature in Aswan as low as to ca 8 °C must necessary cause that the evaporated water condenses just on the surface (or, in other words, it does not evaporate anymore, because the air becomes saturated), please try to look on the provided example from another perspective.
Imagine a standard sunny summer day in Aswan, when the surface temperature rapidly grows after the sunrise and, depending on the properties of the surface, reaches the values as high as 50-60 °C; maybe even higher. Nevertheless, with a sufficiently intensive surface cooling by water vapour transpiration, you can keep the surface temperature during the entire daytime significantly lower, depending on how intensively the created water vapour rises. Air saturation with water vapour may not occur at all.
You can stop pumping water after the sunset, because the energy input drops, and the intensity of evaporation will decrease automatically as well.
I suppose that this way, you can keep basically constant surface temperature, with a small difference between the day and night – because at night, the combination of the greenhouse effect of the water vapour with back-radiation from the continuing condensation of the vapour transported in the height previously may keep the surface warm all the night.
I cannot say how intensive cooling may be practically achievable this way. The value I computed is of course a theoretical limit. Nevertheless, even if the real cooling was only a third of the calculated 18 K as you assume, decreasing the anual average temperature from 26 to 20 °C over 10 milion km2 land would have been still very significant and likely still had very significant influence on the global climate.
That is why I think JCM and macias shurly are right when they point to the importance of the water cycle in the global climate and to the continuing demand for studying its role as thoroughly as the role of the greenhouse effect caused by carbon dioxide and other non-condensing greenhouse gases.
Contrary to JCM and MS, Carbomontanus acknowledges the importance of the water cycle but supposes that its intensity depends on oceans only and basically cannot be changed by human activity,
I am afraid that he can be wrong in this regard, because ocean-land exchange may strongly depend on the water regime on continents. Human activities and their influence on the “small” water cycle on the land thus may in fact play an important role in regulation of the entire “big” water cycle. I think we should know these relationships, to be able to predict the future climate and influences of various forcings thereon reliably.
Greetings
Tom
P.S.
The link for commenting in the above mentioned tracking orgpage is
https://orgpad.com/s/6jf-rtG8wUP
Tomas Kalisz: I cannot say how intensive cooling may be practically achievable this way
That’s the least of your problems – you can’t even prove that for all these gazillions of dollars you want to spend on pumping “ 13 000 km3 of seawater over,/i> ” many 100s?/1000s of km and spreading it over 9mln km2 – you would achieve ANY significant global cooling. As explained to you:
1. when you put extra evaporation into the air before ANY cooling by latent heat transport – you would first cause warming by increasing water vapour over the entire volume of air where humidity before your experiment was below 100% (over Sahara humidity is 25% so there is a lot of room to add water vapour).
2. even if you could transfer some latent heat a few 100m/a few km above Earth surface – does not mean that you cooled the Earth surface by this amount – MOST of the extra heat returns to the Earth surface by IR downward radiation.
You chose to … not believing it, instead you put your faith into two RC’s resident Very Stable Geniuses:
T. Kalisz: That is why I think JCM and macias shurly are right
Equally well you could take the advice on heart surgery techniques from a plumber, bitter that the heart surgeons do not take his calls.
Tomáš Kalisz says: – ” …rather than an arbitrary rejection as a complete nonsense.,…”
hello tom – the best and most valid argument against the clueless ignorance of your discussion opponents like Zebra, Piotr, Ray Ladbury & Crap-O-mountain is still the graph of the IPCC from 2021:
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/a/a0/Physical_Drivers_of_climate_change.svg/450px-Physical_Drivers_of_climate_change.svg.png
The IPCC supports our claim that irrigation, and hence evaporation, is a cooling forcing on the climate.
Now all the above jerks need to explain to you why the IPCC graph is still inconsistent – by answering the following simple questions:
– What should be the difference in the cooling effect between artificial irrigation and natural precipitation?
– If irrigation has a cooling effect – can we then conclude that drainage, soil sealing, etc. have a warming effect?
Why does the IPCC deny the climate-warming loss of evaporative landscapes – and are thus as implausible as others who deny warming caused by greenhouse gases?
—
There are still a few unanswered questions about my analysis of the global energy balance, which unfortunately I was only able to answer very late:
https://climateprotectionhardware.files.wordpress.com/2023/03/geb_2000-2020finish.png?w=1024
Whether you can trust the 2000-2020 CERES data it contains depends on how much trust you have in NASA, Norman Loeb and satellite-based measurements.
From my point of view, what is particularly convincing is the consistency of the balance sheet and the observed extent of deserts, water shortages and drought events in the observed, real past since 2000.
We had already discussed the topic of CERES-data here in Sept. 2022:
https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2022/09/a-ceres-of-fortunate-events/#ITEM-24133-1
The CERES data I used in my analysis is based on:
https://www.mdpi.com/2073-4433/12/10/1297
You can also find similar CERES values 2000-2022 on the NASA website in a presentation by Norman G. Loeb:
https://ceres.larc.nasa.gov/documents/STM/2022-10/Loeb_State_of_CERES-Fall_2022.pdf
The trigger and main cause for the 20-year warming by ~ 0.4-0.5°C is the loss of 0.86W/m² = 5650km³ = (~1%) in evaporation as a 20-year trend, which of course not only increases LW up surface by 0.69W/m², but is also responsible for a lower cloud albedo ~ (- 0.6W/m²).
As a temperature-increasing cause on the surface, it also has an amplifying effect on ice and snow albedo, permafrost and the CO2 cycle. (Photosynthesis absorbs ~3.7 – 7.4Kg CO2/m³ water.)
—
BTW – I think your idea of saltwater-cooled PV modules is a bit crazy – every electrician gets nightmares standing knee-deep in damp salt while servicing the modules.
In deserts, dry air usually flows in from above (Ferrel zone), which makes convective air currents and cloud formation more difficult.
On Matthias Schürle:
“It takes one to know one smile smile…” Putin spoke.
The coolest / coldest landscapes on earth are the least watered and evapotranspirated ones, . Hum Hum…
The really manifesto climate deniers and surrealists hide the decline all the time, as one can see more and more on this website also.
. It is due to their characterisic, progressive state religion, that they trained together with Putin in old Dresden as they grew up.
“The coolest / coldest landscapes on earth are the least watered and evapotranspirated ones”
This is a common gotcha proudly proclaimed because it is counter-intuitive. But it is misconceived.
Globally averaged, deserts are indeed hotter places.
Where annual net radiation is positive, say from say +45 to -45 latitude, or 70% of the Earth’s surface, dry landscapes are associated with less average chill, not more.
Something like that anyway. The cold desert regions are a smaller fraction.
Of additional consequence is to compare the “natural” sandy deserts to those unnaturally desertified regions of clays, silts, and loams which, without human perturbation, would not otherwise have been so dry. The natural sandy landscapes have relatively low heat capacity compared to unnaturally exposed silts and clays. It has all been discussed with you here before.
One may also tend to find desert at high altitude, which may influence perception of temperature relative to other places.
The ongoing desertification is often not literally looking like desert to novice stewards. It could be simply a slightly shorter duration of green growth. A few days here or there extra of wilting, instead of transpiration. A small percentage change in evaporative capacity. Desertification = erosion & drainage. You can feel it with a handful of soil. Not literally having made a new desert of Thar in recent decades. Practically invisible from one generation to the next. Lower evaporative fraction where the IR windows are not yet wide open – an extra powerful influence.
Of primary consequence for climate classification is the wider range of temperature and hydrological extremes associated with desertification, in addition to the proposed slight increase in averaged near-surface temperature, cloud impacts, and to the continental oceanic contrasts and circulation.
Overall, less water availability in time and space is associated with less chill. It is the mechanism acting in addition to unnatural trace gas emission.
The surface cooling is by transmitted radiative flux + latent atmospheric heat transport delivered aloft. it need not be controversial. The sensible flux is ineffective in creating a chill.
It is discussed in theory “Enhanced evapotranspiration over land reduces the near-surface temperatures”:
“https://journals.ametsoc.org/view/journals/clim/12/10/1520-0442_1999_012_3156_agpvad_2.0.co_2.xml”
It also appears to be known to the EU, but the effect is minimized for unknown reason
“It is essential to recognize that desertification is essentially a man-made phenomenon which is
exacerbated by climate change…..The relationship between the two processes does not, however, move in only one direction…….It is also possible that desertification may in turn affect climate change, due to the effects of land degradation reducing surface moisture. Because less water is available for the sun’s energy to evaporate, more energy is left over for warming the ground and, consequently, the
lower atmosphere.”
https://cor.europa.eu/en/engage/studies/Documents/relationship-desertification-climate-change.pdf
They say “it is possible”. But it is widely known except by those with a bizarre refusal to understand it. My sense is that the refusalists must somehow be net damaging to popular comprehension and Earth system conservation initiatives. Such matters appear less and less in print publication, and yet there was never any rebuttal.
This awareness of the landscape and change has nothing to do with Putin or communism or anything like that. The mid-20th century boom of watershed awareness was fostered by democratic conservative leadership in western nations. Today it is displaced by refusalists and reductionist teaching. https://www.farmers.gov/sites/default/files/2021-04/Body-text_HHB1.jpg
JCM
Try not to teach when you are not entitled and qualified.
It is ape manners, those who hurry on the cateter and start to teach when they get scared or feel touched and inferiour.
They hardly learn anything more in class due to their ape- blood and heritage, and betray that race, heritage, and blood, allways further in life..
Water is not a chilling material, not a heat sink by nature and essence.
Ever heard of central ande hot water and steam & vapour heating?…..
………and we do not live in your tribal provincial hotel-camp, and factory where that may be your special, secteric, provincial, tribal, political and mental moral commercial problem.
It is the transport mechanism, the diminishment of which shows in the observation as an unnatural accumulation of the warmth closer to the surface, and chilling aloft relative to what it otherwise might have been.
Your overt and other-times thinly veiled enthocentric superiorist perspective is disturbing. Cognitive remediation and socialization is recommended.
@ JCM
Socialistification and union membership is recommended,…
NO!,
I would not go for that.
You are loosing your pants and betraying your pure racial membership.
It is not of due civilized and facultary order.
Macias Shurle: “ Now all the above jerks need to explain to you why the IPCC graph is still inconsistent
The “ inconsistency ” is only in your brain, Mr. Shurle. The IPCC does NOT support “ best and most valid ” idea of your friend, because on their graph irrigation is a MINOR contributor to the change in radiative balance, merely – 0.15 W/m2 WHEN TOGETHER with the changes in albedo.
Even IF the -0.15 W/m2 were ENTIRELY due to irrigation (it’s not, because if it were, there would be no point adding “and albedo”) – you friend scheme would have required 20fold INCREASE in irrigation to match ~ +3W/m2 of GHGs.
Furthermore, what our 3 Water Geniuses, JCM, Shurly and Kalisz, refuse to accept is that the majority of the latent heat released in the atmosphere DOES NOT escape into space, but is reradiated BACK to the Earth’s surfacei> . So the amount of water evaporated to balance GHG emissions would have to increase proportionally (at least severalfold).
If this was not enough – increased evaporation would have increased average concentration of water in the atmosphere – both in the form of water vapour and in the form of cloud droplets, which would have increased greenhouse warming, thus necessitating FURTHER increases in evaporation to try to compensate for that.
So Mr Kalisz’s “modest proposal” would have required an increase of global irrigation by at least TWO ORDERS OF MAGNITUDE. Tells you something about the length the defenders/beneficiaries of the fossil fuel industrial complex are willing to go just to avoid dealing with the root problem of climate change – emissions of GHGs.
@Piotr says: – ” irrigation is a MINOR contributor ”
ms: — Hello Piotr – whether you are viewing an IPCC graph or replying to my post – please always do it with due attention.
The graph shows the associated temperature change in °C – and NOT radiative forcing in W/m².
According to the IPCC, irrigation and albedo therefore cause a cooling of 0.15°C, since the additional irrigation naturally also produces additional cloud albedo.
A paper by Sacks et al (2009) quantifies global irrigation to a total of 2560km³, of which only ~38% (~1000km³) evaporates (the rest is runoff). He found a global increase in LE over land areas of 0.656W/m² that seems conclusive in this respect.
https://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/docs/2009/2009_Sacks_sa02200i.pdf
Unfortunately, you forgot to answer the questions above that relate to the IPCC graph.
1. – What should be the difference in the cooling effect between artificial irrigation and natural precipitation?
2. – If irrigation has a cooling effect – can we then conclude that drainage, soil sealing, etc. have a warming effect?
3. – Why does the IPCC deny the climate-warming loss of evaporative landscapes – and are thus as implausible as others who deny warming caused by greenhouse gases?
I could ask other uncomfortable questions for you and the IPCC, e.g.:
4. – Irrigation has been practiced by humans for ~4000-8000 years. Why does the IPCC only recognize the cooling effect of irrigation and the resulting cloud albedo in 2021 – 35 years after its establishment.
Maybe at some point you will notice that the climate department responsible for the above IPCC graphic are just as clueless and ignorant jerks as you are – when it comes to water cycles or the role of water in the climate.
Piotr: ”irrigation is a MINOR contributor ”
Macias Shurly: “ The graph shows the associated temperature change in °C – and NOT radiative forcing in W/m²
So what? You are right on the technicality, but still lose the argument:
irrigation is “a MINOR contributor” REGARDLESS whether we express it in deg. C, or W/m2!
(after correcting the units the argument reads:
“with the influence of both irrigation and albedo -0.15C – you friend’s scheme would have required 20-fold INCREASE in irrigation to match ~ +3C of GHGs”). Happy now?
So your presumed “inconsistency” between the “jerks” and the IPCC:
“ Now all the above jerks need to explain to you why the IPCC graph is still inconsistent M.Shurly
– is still only in your brain, Mr Shurly: 0.15C is still “MINOR” compared to 3.0C.
M. Shurly: Unfortunately, you forgot to answer the questions above that relate to the IPCC graph.
I forgot nothing – I used your own IPCC graph to PROVE how MINOR is the irrigation and albedo effect – it cancels only 5% of the warming by the greenhouse gases.
This renders your list of “questions” IRRELEVANT to the discussion at hand: namely, your support for T. Kalisz’s proposal to COUNTER the warming by greenhouse gases with increased irrigation.
Thanks to you – we know that this would require at least 20-FOLD increase in the current level of irrigation. With defenders like you, Mr. Shurly, who needs enemies?
That’s why Mr. Kalisz himself proposed pumping seawater – but this renders your waxing poetic on how:
Millions of farmers would be happy if they had sufficient water and irrigation technology”
ABSURD – since on land on which Mr. Kalisz evaporated his SEAWATER – you can’t grow ANYTHING. So much for your “happiness of the millions of farmers“.
Piotr says
“a MINOR contributor”
” it cancels only 5%”
“would require at least 20-FOLD increase”
it is a clear and clean acceptance of the issue.
ms: Maybe at some point you will notice that the climate department responsible for the above IPCC graphic are just as clueless and ignorant jerks as you are
BPL: Classic Dunning-Kruger.
JCM: “ it is a clear and clean acceptance of the issue ”
1. T. Kalisz proposes using the increased evaporation to cancel the effect of GHS emissions.
2. Macias Shurly claims that critics of T.Kalisz’s scheme are “jerks” and offers an IPCC figure as a proof that irrigation can be used to match the effect GHG emissions, and that “millions of farmers would be happy” so increased evaporation.
3. I use Shurly’s own graph to show that irrigation matches at best = 5% of the GHGs, and is already as its maximum – so there is no room to increase it 20-FOLD.
3. JCM, who have just complained, how it is unfair the climate scientists ignore the hair-brained schemes of the climate ignoramuses like Kalicz, Shurtly and JCM, and declares the calculations that you would need 20-FOLD increase in the GLOBAL irrigation to achieve the proposed effect as a proof of … his victory: it is a clear and clean acceptance of the issue ;-)
Can’t wait for the next dispatches from JCM’s head:
– “Stalingrad – a stunning victory by the German army”,
– “British fleet humbled at Trafalgar”
– “Geocentric system defies its critics”
– “And yet it is flat – Galileo about the Earth”
– COVID vaccines inject people with microchips – confirmed!” ?
Tomas,
Given that TOA is at 80 km and that is where most of the IR radiation that escapes comes from, I do not see where there is reason to doubt that an increase in the hydrological cycle would matter more than a fart in a windstorm..
Or, there is another way to look at it: Even at 20 km–well above the level of all but the highest cloud tops, a 15 micron IR photon would have to make it past on the order of 10^12 CO2 molecules all within a wavelength of the photon. Sorry, but this isn’t even close enough to be plausible.
referring also to my questions asked in
https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2023/05/unforced-variations-may-2023/comment-page-2/#comment-811920
Dear Ray,
Thanks a lot for your reply.
I do not think that your figures alone explain the discrepance between, on one hand, your assertion that the atmosphere is completely opaque for infrared radiation up to altitudes as high as 24 km, and, on the other hand, the circumstance that an infrared telescope can be successfully operated even at a significantly lower altitude about 4 km:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NASA_Infrared_Telescope_Facility
For me, it is still a conundrum.
Could you clarify?
Moreover, I am not sure that the Earth is emitting its infrared radiation from the TOA in the height of 80 km.
I read that in a first approximation, the mean altitude from that the Earth IR output is radiated into space can be taken as the layer of the troposphere, wherein the average temperature corresponds the average Earth emission temperature – 18 °C.
This is the layer in altitudes roughly between 5-6 km, what seems to fit with viability of the infrared astronomy on Many Kea much better than your figures.
Greetings
Tom
@ Tom
Maximum atmospheric radiative emission occurs in the most saturated / cloudiest latitudes.
From Figure 3 https://journals.ametsoc.org/view/journals/clim/10/9/1520-0442_1997_010_2358_emetbt_2.0.co_2.xml
The same chart is annotated here (this is easier to use):
https://ftp.comet.ucar.edu/memory-stick/tropical/textbook_2nd_edition/media/graphics/merid_atmos_energy_budget.jpg
Minimum atmospheric radiative emission occurs in the driest latitudes.
In the chart is the atmospheric net radiation associated with the surface turbulent fluxes. This atmospheric longwave radiative export is the dashed line in the negative. Note the atmospheric transport of the latent flux to distribute more evenly the atmospheric radiative emission poleward.
Peak atmospheric net LW atmospheric radiative emission occurs around the 60 degree latitudes. A relatively large magnitude of atmospheric emission occurs in tropics, too.
At -60 latitude and of the southern hemisphere more generally, a greater magnitude of atmospheric emission is occuring compared to the North. The dashed line is slightly more negative generally in the South.
Over land surfaces and of the Northern hemisphere more generally, a greater proportion of surface transmitted radiative emission is occurring. This behavior is related to the higher surface temperatures associated with dryer places. The surface transmitted flux is not depicted; the chart is depicting only the atmospheric radiative emission associated with the surface energy budget.
In general principle, dry places have higher surface temperature, higher surface radiative transmission, higher surface albedo, lower atmospheric albedo, lower atmospheric emission temperature, and lower atmospheric radiative emission.
In general principle, wet places have have lower surface temperature, lower surface radiative transmission, lower surface albedo, higher atmospheric albedo, higher atmospheric emission temperature, and higher atmospheric radiative emission.
When observing the bulk emission spectra from spaceborne sensor, in addition to the terrestrial radiating surface, the atmospheric radiating surface riding on H20 flux and phase change is superimposed. This H20 signature is at temperatures at about 270K.
In this example the terrestrial surface radiates at 320K and the atmospherical H20 emission riding at 270K, or so.
https://www.acs.org/content/acs/en/climatescience/atmosphericwarming/_jcr_content/articleContent/columnbootstrap_1/column0/image.img.jpg/1374178157948.jpg
Only the C02 band effective radiation is occurring at 220K, or around the tropopause.
When observing the bulk OLR emission spectra, the terrestrial radiating surface and atmospheric radiating surfaces are superimposed. The atmosphere is composed of gas, solid, and liquid phase of matter. The solids and liquids surface emitting full spectra, and the gas in specific bands.
For the purpose of this more generally, consider that while total radiative emission (surface + atmosphere) is rather consistent whether wet or dry, the wet place is relatively cooler at surface and warmer aloft. This is due to water availability, phase transformation and transport.
The effective emitting level (roughly speaking, a centroid of the emission weighting function (EWF) – because what you see is coming from a range of heights), looking down from Space, varies greatly over the spectrum; In the atmospheric window ~ 8-12 microns (or 8-13?) (interupted by the ozone band around … I think it’s 9.6 microns), it can get close to the surface in the absence of clouds (some of the EWF is on the surface); it goes up into the stratosphere within the CO2 band centered around 15 microns (~667 cm-1). Most OLR (LW, ie. ~terrestrial, flux to Space) is emitted from within the troposphere.
See links here as a guide:
https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2023/05/cmip6-not-so-sudden-stratospheric-cooling/#comment-811964
(PS for a flux, effective emitting level is at an optical depth of 2/3 units (it’s 1 unit for radiance in a single direction), based on my Calculus work – hopefully I didn’t mess it up; – this won’t necessarily align the flux with the temp. at that specific height, though.)
Note – I am not disagreeing with Ray Ladbury’s 80 km figure, … entirely. It seems entirely plausable to me, given an optical depth of near 60,000 at the CO2 absorption maximum, that the effective emitting level could be in the upper mesosphere … but only for a small bandwidth, apparently. As I recall, I believe the Modtran calculated spectra have a spectral resolution of 2 cm-1 (based on the raw data output – you can click on that option), and it doesn’t appear the emitting level gets anywhere near that high in the plotted spectra.
PS CO2 being a well-mixed gas (up to ~ 90 km or 100 km), you could expect optical depth to be proportional to atmospheric mass path, which is nearly proportional to pressure, so 60,000 optical depth would imply on the order of mesospheric optical depth ~ a bit under 60** (**given a typical stratopause pressure a bit under 1 mb – but it varies a bit – and that’s a rough value on my part; It might be more like 0.5 or 0.3 mb…????) – but line strength varies with temperature and line broadenning varies both with T and p – p being the stronger influence up to around 30 km, which is ~99% of atmospheric mass… so the strongest parts of the CO2 band may actually be even stronger in the higher levels of atmosphere, but the spaces between the lines will be more transparent and the band as a whole, at least near the tropopause and in the lower stratosphere and upper mesophere/lower thermosphere (because it’s cold), will be narrower. Of course, at some point the LTE approximation will fail – the absorption and emission will be there but they won’t be tied together by Kirchoff’s law anymore – but you don’t really need to know that for your purposes.
What may happen when you irrigate (or flood) some land: Mostly off the top of my head:
1. Change in LW emissivity of the surface, a cooling effect (but limited by the greenhouse effect)
2. decreased SW albedo, warming effect (although if the cropland replaced a darker forest…)
3. increased evapotranspiration – at least a local cooling effect at the surface
4. increased humidity – a warming effect (but low-level humidity doesn’t have a big impact on tropopause-level forcing; it would however keep the nights warmer…), also absorbs solar radiation (would some of that have been reflected if it had reached the surface?); changes convective fluxes
5. reduced evapotranspiration downwind (because now it’s more humid, and maybe cooler)
6. increased low-level clouds (cooling effect, assuming SW albedo exceeds LW effect; will also affect convection) (increasing humidity tends to lower the cloud base)
7. reduced evaporation of precipitation before reaching sfc.
5 and 6 depend on irrigation occuring some distance along trajectories before ascent into deeper convection
7. lowered cloud base means moist adiabat starts lower. But if it starts cooler…? well there could be enhanced warming higher (as with the negative lapse rate feedback to global warming)… which would help cool the surface by … well it’s the lapse rate; warming aloft increases net radiant flux upward at tropopause, etc.
8. But warming aloft – would there be more humidity aloft? less direct impact on surface but bigger warming effect overall… OTOH, if low level clouds cause enough cooling, this could be avoided.
9. Changes in atmospheric circulation and where and when rain happens, etc. Because you’ve changed lapse rates and clouds and humidity, changed net radiant cooling and heating and when/where they occur, and irrigation tends to be uneven so… (you could enhance evaporative cooling over the ocean by whipping up waves and sea spray, but…)
… I wouldn’t be surprised if wetting the Sahara caused droughts in parts of Eurasia; then again, maybe it would provide more rain to Nigeria … or maybe neither of these things would happen?
Studies have been done:
Effects of irrigation on global climate during the 20th century https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1029/2010JD014122
Warming of hot extremes alleviated by expanding irrigation https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-019-14075-4
https://www.downtoearth.org.in/news/climate-change/irrigation-does-more-than-deplete-groundwater-it-changes-climate-too-68858#:~:text=The%20study%20found%20that%20irrigation%20decreases%20regional%20temperatures,and%20alters%20rainfall%20amount%20differently%20in%20different%20regions.
I haven’t gone through all this yet (I only just found the middle one), but it looks like irrigation could/can cause (average) surface cooling, but it’s complicated. Circulation changes caused by irrigation can cause warming in places and times. One study found average (land?) surface warming. And irrigation water can precipitate again after evaporating (well, obviously – I mean in the same general area – that’s the impression I got) – but it can also reduce precipitation (eg. cooling ‘repelling’ the monsoon rain). I was a bit surprised when I first found cooling results when I searched for it but …
@ p. o twentyseven
Your reference to “downtoearth org in news climate…”
is really very interesting. It is the first I ever found about it.
“Sea breeze” , its causes and its consequenses is to be known as the local summer variety of monsune- wind and monsune- rain, Looki up Sea breeze at Wikipedia. Mentioned by Homer allready. And I discuss Cumulonimbus and Fragaria vesca L at St.Hans to betray my race religion political opinion and Gender. Do not betray rather your lack of such things all the time..
(Rajendra Pachauri showed all this and was taken for it. Case recently rather dismissed by Indian supreme court).
The indian downtoearth..org.in seem to have found what is rather to be expected,, an actively working and harmful negative feedback to the monsunrains
if you artificially add and introduce the product and consequence of the monsune namely water on the ground and on the ackers in large scale. They seem to have found the negative consequenses right next by where they could both delay and inhibit the very monsune by artificially watering and cooling its pro0ducts first on large industrial scale.
Well, we may see it again that those denialists and surrealists are less aquainted to thinking in terms of dynamic equilibria reactions and processes that may go both ways and possible positive and negatve feedbacks in such systems.
But it is some of the first that I think of by rouitine having learnt it and trained it in classical chemistery, that is rather universally valid in both open and closed systems, in the chemical glasses and outdoor, in the fjords and at the oceans and at the great lakes.
even in http://www.downtoearth..org.in
It seems to be time for some bodies here to quit their present, unlucky progressive party membership, race, religion, political 0pinion, and gender……………….. and rather go to orderly highscool first.
And quit vulgar snobbish manner behaviours againt those who have done it.
They should step down to about early puberty again and from there aspire up again down under, and seek education as ordered and warranted along with The Uiversal declaration of Human Rights artice 26 1, and especially 26 . 2
“…..to the full development of Human peronality and to the strengthening of respects for human rights and fundamental freedoms…..”
Because, on that point it has gone wrong and off track for them
They lack Baccalaureus 1. That is the main syndrom.
Hello everyone, here we are again.
Apologies for lot of typing errors:
“peat pipes” shall read HEAT pipes, of course.
Conjecture, coincidence, and paradox:
The coincidence:
Observation 1: that the power of latent flux from the surface is approximately equal to the atmospheric reflection of the solar beam. OK
Observation 2: that the power of heat flux from the surface is approximately equal to the so-called LW cloud radiative effect. OK?
On Observation 2: it is not immediately obvious why it may be so. One possibility is a double accounting of the heating flux and LWCRE in energy budgeting schemes.
Or, just coincidence.
The paradox:
It is intuitive to understand that, overall, the relative humidity is positively correlated with the presence of cloud, and that the temperature is negatively correlated with the presence of cloud. OK.
So, with an absence of cloud, the surface partitioning is favoring the moistening flux:
Why? The simultaneously lower relative humidity and higher temperature under clear sky must be favoring a relatively high rate of surface evapotranspiration.
Conversely, in the presence of cloud, the surface partitioning is favoring the heating flux: The simultaneously higher relative humidity and lower temperature in cloudy sky favors the sensible heat.
A curious paradox.
The conjecture:
From a radiative perspective, on longer waves, it is conceivable there is practically no net longwave radiative effect from clouds. The clouds are thus better characterized (radiatively) by the shorter wave effects.
That “heat” observed by radiometer may simply be the excess turbulent H in the boundary layer corresponding (paradoxically) with cloud.
The conceived net-blockage of upward radiative transmittance corresponding with cloud may simply be an artifact imposed by the greater proportion of heating (turbulent) flux H under cloud.
In accounting of longer waves, the overall net upward transmittance through the column is unaffected by cloud. Why not? The condensed matter surfaces of cloud are acting just like any other radiating surfaces of solid and liquid matter.
These emitting surfaces are simultaneously slightly colder, while transmitting through slightly less optical depth. A near perfect swap, with no net impact to LW budgets.
It is a strange paradox, indeed. But fear not, it is only an unqualified conjecture on the nature of things. It poses no threat to the exclusive net-zero-or-bust strategists (radiative reductionists).
Dear JCM,
I am able to comment on the first part of your text only – the second one, comprising your thoughts about clouds, is so dense for me that I was not able to grasp the conjecture.
To the paradox you describe:
I think that an important parameter that may be decisive for the partition between the latent and the sensible heat flux may be the available water supply. In dry deserts, sensible heat flux may prevail even at clear sky, oppositely, a clear day in a wetland with prevailing latent heat flux may change in a storm with a heavy rain soon, due to intense cloud formation. Honestly, I have no idea how the heat flux partition looks like under such circumstances.
Greetings
T
@ Tom
in terms of wetland habitat, recent inventories indicate 3.4 million square km drained since year 1700.
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-022-05572-6
Their showpiece figure is visible here https://assets.bwbx.io/images/users/iqjWHBFdfxIU/iwrpw9nrR7HE/v1/1200x-1.png
This represents about 10% of the sum total lost surface available evaporation during the period, of which the remainder is in-part desertification of the grassland plain. For the uninitiated, a transition from moist biologically active lands to semi-arid dormant lands on billions of hectares.
When you lose large regions of evapotranspiration, the surface must warm. There is no other option. Everywhere is always working at the maximum rate of evapotranspiration. There is nowhere sitting idle waiting and ready to pick up the slack.
For simplicity, ecological complexity can be reduced to a moisture indicator. Dryer-lands v Wetter-lands.
In response to your “a clear day in a wetland with prevailing latent heat flux”, a useful tool could be to study the “Oasis” effect.
This is an interesting case of unlimited water source surrounded by desert. In such a context, the turbulent flux is known to exceed the corresponding surface net radiation. This is riding on massive intensification of LE locally upon emergence of the Oasis, and a modest reduction of sensible H distributed broadly. The Oasis is dissipating heat from well beyond its perimeter, as dry air is drawn in.
This has relevance to your technological interventions. In the process, the surface is cooled in the Oasis and surrounds. The air is moistened simultaneously with a reduction of surface upward IR proportional to T^4. A bit of surface temperature change has a proportionally large impact on surface upward radiative power.
With respect to surface net radiation, latent flux and moistening greenhouse effects are over-compensated by the cooler surface T^4 until a steady state turbulent flux partitioning. All mass and heat flux regimes working at maximum. In this way, the climates and ecologies (moisture machine efficiency) are co-dependent.
Some will resist your inquiries not because it poses a threat to the Earth system, but because it challenges reductionist teachings. The hand-waving protests so far have been unimpressive.
@ JCM
“Conversely, in the presence of clouds, the surface partitioning is favouring the heating flux . The simultaneously higher relative humidity and lower temperature in cloudy sky favours the sensible heat.”
Why allways hide the decline and how often must I repeat that? Why hide the sunsets and the autumjns?
What about nights and winters, that are half of the time and situation, where all this may “seem” rather opposite?.
Then bring your conscepts of heat and temperature in order.
Heat is something that we measure in watts, and temperature is sometyhing that we measure in deg celsius or kelvin. Sensible heat is obscure to me and must be better defined Is it delta T in deg to common skin temperature?
Then I see “quantity of heat” measured in Joule that is watt seconds., earlier in calories. labeled “Q”. Latent heat is Q / Kg or Mol.
On Paradoxes, I may look up W. van Orman Quine for you, who published on it in the Scientific Ameri9can. . Paradoxes are hardly well formed formulas of science. Thus to be avoided or to be resolved.
“Sensible heat is obscure”
My interpretation has been the turbulent fluxes are the transfers of heat energy, if you will, turbulent Q in watts per unit area.
Not to be confused with total heat content or enthalpy of air.
It is as it relates to the entropy delta S = Q/T.
The sensible flux is ineffective, as Denning illustrates, the daytime upward flux is returned in similar magnitude overnight. https://denning.atmos.colostate.edu/ats761/Lectures/04.SurfaceEnergyBudget.pdf
The surface latent flux does not have this problem as it operates under totally different mechanism.
the language is in common use. your language, however, is quite dated.
AR6 WGI chapter 7 discusses the issue of the turbulent fluxes in terms of its importance, the large uncertainties which are preventing determination of decadal changes, and the low confidence in trends of surface latent and sensible heat. The document recommends to improve techniques of monitoring evapotranspiration and terrestrial moisture storage in order to constrain latent flux.
Dear Carbomontanus,
I have a feeling that the term “turbulent fluxes” is a relatively standard term in the literature dealing with climate, and that it includes both thermal convection and latent heat flux, because both these mechanisms are everytime accompanied by flow and mixing in a fluid.
By the way, heat pipes do work just thank to convection “augmented” with latent heat flux.
It is further my understanding that the term “sensible heat” is basically a synonym for “dry convection” – a heat flux enabled purely by thermal convection, without any contribution by latent heat flow.
The word “sensible” is included likely because the dry convection cannot work isothermally.
Contrary to latent heat flux, it must be initiated by heating the surface to a temperature higher than the temperature of the surrounding gas, and in such case you can indeed detect this increased temperature by your senses – either by direct touch, or by infrared radiation receptors in your skin.
I do not think it is necessary to request that JCM or anyone else is more scientific than standard scientific literature he is used to read and/or more precise than standard textbooks teaching this particular field of science.
Greetings
Tom
Well,
Tangens to the angle alpha is also quite “dated”. It is 3000 years old fom UR in Caldea, found tabulated from there in cuneiform letters.
.
Pi is also very old and good as gold, cannot be further improoved.
Successive halving and doubbling known from todays inch- system, but also from musical notastion, roots back in old Egypt, known as “the binary system” in todays computers. And further superiour to anything else for several technical measuring purposes. The silly arabian decimal system is inferiour, meant rather for irrational and cheating commerce only.
You get much better away with it in a binary and a duodecimal system. .
I am very proud of having such quite archaic and better conscepts in my engineering “toolbox”, namely timeless wisdom that has stood for 3000 years at least, and still works wonders and cannot be improoved or falsified.
Whereas novices and dilettants are trained on modern arbitrary stupidifying industrial LEGO, smile smile,….and teach me of that.
Sinus and cosinus and degrees is irrational, clumsy, and stupidifying. Tangens is it on how to discuss pyramides. on earth and in space.
Together with Pi.
All those %- s. in it are further intensionally stupidifying.
I try and consceive it rather in elementary prime numeral proportions, natural harmonic intervals. And then logaritmic exponentially., which is rather how nature and human thought and senses is formed. Things are then much better better understood and remembered. .
ENTIA NON SUNT MVLTIPLICANDEM PRÆTER NECESSITATEM.
Sann!
Stick to proper timeless wisdom and the very climate clears up.
Take it by the elementary, abstract forms of REALIA. .
@Tom
some will firmly reject atmospheric heat transport because of their fascination with the radiative exchange. I think some evidently do not know the purpose of those “extra” arrows in energy cartoons, and so they argue from ignorance. The covariance of air flow with aerodynamic conductance of heat and momentum is described by the turbulent flux. Always working at maximum, i.e. a steady-state non-equilibrium optimal rate of transport. Maximum gradients simultaneously with maximum flow. It is awesome to consider it from this perspective.
Do you not realize that you just did the linguistic equivalent of dropping a Tsar bomb on a rock-paper-scissors argument?
Request for moderators: could you redact the problem?
That was re https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2023/06/unforced-variations-jun-2023/#comment-812085
actually, I looked back a bit farther; starting to think that word was not the only problem…
This is a response to comments by nigelj in the earlier thread, at:
https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2023/05/unforced-variations-may-2023/comment-page-2/#comment-811928
nigelj: – “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 ”
I’d suggest you are still thinking SLR is linear, or near linear.
At the April 2019 General Meeting of the American Philosophical Society, as shown in the YouTube video titled On Sheet Ice Melt in a Warming Climate and What We Should Do About It, duration 0:34:59, glaciologist Professor Eric Rignot confirmed that the whole of the West Antarctic Ice Sheet (WAIS) is now committed to melting, and the Greenland Ice Sheet (GrIS) has passed its “tipping point” (in the Q&A) with the current level of warming. Rignot said from time interval 0:26:33:
“Yes, that’s a very good question. Ah, a lot of us look at, ah, tipping points, right? Ah, the unfortunate reality of climate change is that, ah, we are very good at recognising tipping points once we passed them. Ah, so I think in Greenland we passed them. We, we started to disturb the marine-based glaciers in an irreversible fashion. And I think in West Antarctica, in 2014, we made the announcement that we thought this retreat was irreversible. So the tipping point is, is behind us for some of these systems. But there are a lot of tipping points, right? Ah, the biggest tipping point in my opinion, is if we start destabilising the glaciers in East Antarctica, then if we do commit to that multiple-metre sea level rise, that’s a really bad thing.”
Full loss of the WAIS would yield a global average SLR of as much as 5.08 m (mean estimate 3.16 m).
Full loss of the current GrIS would yield a global average SLR of 7.42 ± 0.05 m.
Both the WAIS & GrIS are now beyond their “viability thresholds” – both will inevitably melt at the current atmospheric GHG level. It’s now a question of how quickly they will melt, and that depends on how much more GHGs continue to be added to the atmosphere. To stop this process progressing further requires cooling the planet, meaning sufficient ‘negative’ GHG emissions are required.
From time interval 0:02:51:
“So right now, sea level is raising, rising about thirty centimetres per century, but we know there’s the possibility that it could do this ten times faster because it did that in the past and, what causes that is the, is the ice sheets.”
From time interval 0:13:07:
“And if you accumulate all these accelerations from the land ice, you see that it’s accelerating at 440 gigatonnes per year per decade, and if you extrapolate that to the end of the century we raise sea level by 80 centimetres. So you could argue that we are already on the trajectory of one metre per century sea level rise if this trend continues. This is clearly faster than any models that are being used so far to make sea level rise projections, and there are a multitude of reasons for that.”
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DnOykSCOf0c
nigelj: – “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.”
I’d suggest SLR is exponential. The interesting question is: What is the doubling time?
A doubling time scenario of a decade could mean SLR of roughly another:
100 mm in the 2020s; plus
200 mm in the 2030s; plus
400 mm in the 2040s; plus
800 mm in the 2050s; etc.
That’s still less than a metre by 2050, but would lead to multi-metre SLR by 2100.
Or is the doubling time longer? 15 years? 20 years?
That’s still potentially multi-metre SLR by 2100, but not as disruptive as the first scenario.
I’d suggest it’s still too early to tell.
But GHG emissions aren’t slowing down…
Per NOAA, the atmosphere in 2022 contained the CO₂-equivalent of 523 ppm, of which 417 is CO₂ alone.
https://gml.noaa.gov/aggi/
The daily mean sea surface temperature (SST) is at a record seasonal high for more than 2 months.
https://climatereanalyzer.org/clim/sst_daily/
nigelj: – “I agree rising temperatures are the bigger problem incoming decades.”
Indeed. As the Earth System exceeds the +1.5 ºC global mean warming threshold, whether that’s as an average occurring as early as within this decade (per Hansen’s estimation) or before 2050 (per the more reticent IPCC’s AR6 WG1 SPM, Table SPM. 1), global food supply chains are likely to become increasingly more disrupted.
Geoff Miell.
“I’d suggest you are still thinking SLR is linear, or near linear.”
No. The graph I posted last month of sea level rise over the last 100 years or so clearly showed a curvilinear, quadratic , accelerating sea level rise trend imposed on the graph. If I thought things were linear, I wouldn’t be posting that, and talking about what happens if you project the curved trend forwards.
https://skepticalscience.com/sea-level-rise.htm
I mentioned that I agreed that 2 metres was possible this century, with warming getting up around 3 degrees. This would clearly require a very non linear sea level rise trend to develop. It would also require multiple glaciers moving faster towards the ocean as described in your links. However I could have been clearer.
“I’d suggest SLR is exponential”
I don’t see that convincingly in the sea level rise graph yet. I think sea level rise could get exponential mid this century, if emissions continue, and warming increases, and spreads right around Antarctica and effects numerous glaciers.
Sebastian Rosier mentions that deglaciation of the Pine Island Glacier can result in large parts of the West-Antarctic Ice Sheet melting away, by affecting nearby glaciers – based on Feldmann, Levermann et al. 2015 – at minute 29:40 his talk begins, at ~1:01:00 min you can see the animation https://earthclimate.tv/video/tipping-points-abrupt-climate-responses-2021/
“A man sees what he wants to see and disregards the rest.” – Simon and Garfunkel
“What a fool believes he sees no wise man has the power to reason away.” – Doobie Bros.
Proving the point:
“I’d suggest SLR is exponential”
I don’t see that convincingly in the sea level rise graph yet…
To be fair, I don’t either, because it’s *faster* than that:
https://www.epa.gov/climate-indicators/climate-change-indicators-sea-level
You didn’t see climate sensitivity being well above 3C, you didn’t see doublings and triplings throughout the system, you didn’t see SLR of up to 3M by 2100, you didn’t see 2C by 2100 – actually, the expectation is now more like 2.7, and France is preparing for 4C, but you don’t see it. Or anything else.
Shush.
1. Geoff Miell: “I’d suggest SLR is exponential”
2. Nigel : “ don’t see that convincingly [that exponential growth] in the SLR graph yet…”
3. Killian, proving how the quote about a fool and people who see what they want to see – applies to Nigel:
“To be fair, I don’t either, because it’s *faster* than that:
https://www.epa.gov/climate-indicators/climate-change-indicators-sea-level”
So let’s check if Killian derision toward Nigel is supported by his own source:
– SLR at 2inches in 1930 – doubles to 4in over 20 years,
– the next doubling takes it from 1950 to …2010 – i.e. 60 years.
Even if we use different starting dates – the pattern is the same: the earlier doublings take much less time than the later ones. Ergo – the SLR so far has been SLOWER than exponential, not “*faster*” as Killian assures, both with his patronizing tone and with the boldface, italics and asterisks all added for the emphasis.
Then, after ridiculing Nigel based on his OWN ignorance , our Killian rips into Nigel again, this time for not seeing exponential growth in the data that … have not been collected yet:
K: “ You didn’t see climate sensitivity being well above 3C, you didn’t see doublings and triplings throughout the system, you didn’t see SLR of up to 3M by 2100″
Well, if this was written after SLR had been “up by 3M”, it would have been so much more biting… ;-)
But wait, it gets better! Killian’s lectures Nigel for NOT recognizing the rapid changes that are may happen in the future – after the said Killian … stopped his
quoting precisely at the place where Nigel was saying about … the possibility of that rapid change in the future, i.e.:
– K. did quote Nigel’s: I don’t see that convincingly in the sea level rise graph yet ”
– but he didn’t quote … the very next sentence by Nigel: “I think sea level rise could get exponential mid this century, if emissions continue, and warming increases, and spreads right around Antarctica and effects numerous glaciers.”
In other words, Killian derides Nigel’s for not recognizing the possibility of the rapidly worsening climatic conditions later in the century AFTER the said Killian have just cut out the words of Nigel “I think sea level rise could get exponential mid this century” as a result of … rapidly worsening of climatic conditions.
And that were still not enough – all these attacks on Nigel are Killian’s way of “proving the point” of his favourite sayings:
“ – “A man sees what he wants to see and disregards the rest.” – Simon and Garfunkel
– “What a fool believes he sees no wise man has the power to reason away.” – Doobie Bros.
You certainly proved the point of these quotes, Killian, ;-)
So cute you stop the SLR calculation at 2010… 13 years ago.
Liars gonna lie: https://www.climate.gov/maps-data/dataset/global-mean-sea-level-graph
Shush. These are serious times for serious people. You are not one.
Killian
“So cute you (Piotr) stop the SLR calculation at 2010… 13 years ago.”
Wrong. Piotr used the graph YOU posted above which stopped at 2013 as follows: “To be fair, I don’t either, because it’s *faster* than that:”
https://www.epa.gov/climate-indicators/climate-change-indicators-sea-level
And if you use the graph you have now posted from 1992 – 2020 it is still not an exponential graph. The black trend line through it is a straight line, a linear trend:
https://www.climate.gov/maps-data/dataset/global-mean-sea-level-graph
You might be looking at the sub trend from 2012 – 2020 (approx) , which is steeper than the trend of the preceding 8 years and roughly doubles the sea level in that previous trend, but it is off a low point after sea level rise fell from 2010 – 2012 due to natural variation, so it most likely contains some natural variation itself. Please look at earlier periods like 1992 – 2004 which have the same pattern! And they did not turn into an exponential trend longer term. You do claim to be an expert in pattern analysis, right? Therefore you cannnot reliably use the year 2012 as the starting point to elucidate a new trend let alone an exponential trend.
The only sign a genuinely new trend might be forming is from 2017 – 2020 where the SLR creeps above the linear trend line significantly. It could be partly natural variation . It could be a continuation of the long term quadratic SLR trend, it could be a new linear trend, it could even be the start of an exponential trend. We just dont know, because its only a few years so its too short to have much significance.
“Youre incompetent;”
Nope. I have been correct.
———————————
My view is sea level rise this century and longer term is likely to be towards the upper range of IPCC projections and could become exponential later this century as previously stated. Right now there has not been enough ice melting from Thwaites glacier to create an exponential SLR trend yet, but if multiple glaciers start acting like Thwaites glacier a exponential trend could possibly develop (IMO).
The important thing is sea level rise could be up around 1 – 2 metres this century just with a quadratic trend and that is more than enough to worry about. I really hope like crazy that global SLR doesn’t turn exponential. There is one workable solution to all these problems: Stop emissions with urgency.
Killian Jun 10.: “ So cute [Piotr] stops the SLR calculation at 2010… 13 years ago.
Liars gonna lie ”
Huh? To question YOUR claim, I have used YOUR graph from YOUR source:
For growth to be exponential – the doubling time has to be the same OVER ANY interval.. For simplicity, I “cutely” chose round SLR numbers: 2inches, 4 in and 8in:
1. doubling from 2in to 4in took 20 years (1930-1950)
2. doubling from 4in to 8in took 60 years (1950-2010)
But since you have accused me of a LIE:
“Liars gonna lie” Killian, Jun10,
let’s us try YOUR NEW data that you use to “prove” your accusations:
the increase in SL from 2010 to 2022 was ~3.5cm= 1.45in, which means that doubling ending in 2022, started when SLR was 4.7in, i.e., looking at YOUR original graph – somewhere between 1960-1970. Which means:
– the 1930-50 doubling (2in to 4in) took 20 years
– the most recent doubling (4.72-9.45in) took between 52 and 62 years (1960/70- 2022)
For the growth to be EXPONENTIAL – the doubling time has to be THE SAME in ANY two periods; for the growth is “ *faster*” than [exponential]”, the LATER doubling times have to shorter.
52 or 62 years is not shorter. than 20 years, Killian.
So – how do you look NOW with your contemptuous:
“ So cute [Piotr] stops the SLR calculation at 2010… 13 years ago. Liars gonna lie
Killian, Jun 10.
The only question now is whether Killian has the balls to admit basing his accusations, and his contempt, toward others on his own ignorance.
But I won’t hold my breath. Killians gonna be Killians…
Nigel, just looked back, and you are correct. I looked too quickly. The graph does not stop at 2013, it proves you wrong, and him, wrong. Check the satellite record data on that graph.
Killian
“Nigel, just looked back, and you are correct. I looked too quickly. The graph does not stop at 2013, it proves you wrong, and him, wrong. Check the satellite record data on that graph.”
Agree that the graph does not stop at 2013. I had thought the satellite trend was a future projection. I also looked at it too quickly. But your your comment proves nothing, and changes nothing as follows:
Your original statement was that sea level rise had become FASTER than than exponential. (6 june. 10.09) based on that graph.
SLR is neither exponential or faster than exponential.
You may not have read all the comments already posted as follows:
Piotr has shown you by using the widest data available 1900 – 2020 that SLR is not exponential, by using maths. There is no doubling of total SLR within equal time periods. His maths is correct. You have not rebutted his maths. It doesn’t matter whether you use tide gauge data or satellite data the outcome is the same. (refer Piotr @ 13 June 7.18)
I showed you that the trend from about 2012 – 2020 while it is steeper than previous 8 years it is not exponential. It does not double the total SLR over the previous 8 years (because it comes after a fall in SLR from about 2011 – 2012). I pointed out that the fall is likely natural variation and so is much of the recovery in the SLR after 2012. I pointed out the only real evidence of an acceleration is after about 2017 and we don’t have enough years to discern what form this acceleration might be. I mentioned some possibilities. (Nigelj @ 11 June 9.34)
In conclusion, SLR over 1900 – 2020 is neither exponential or faster than exponential and there is no good evidence its becoming exponential. This is just a simple fact. Why you would argue with it mystifies me. You come across like Victor where he tries to deny what maths analysis shows
Also look at related evidence. Although there is evidence a couple of ice sheets are melting faster recently their contribution to total SLR to date is quite small. Look at the data Geoff Miel has recently posted on them for recent decades: 1) its not exponential 2) The quantities are so small it barely adds much to SLR – at this stage.
SLR is following a quadratic curve at this stage IMO its possible SLR might well become exponential later this century as numerous ice sheets melt, as I mentioned previously. We are facing huge problems if it does and its another reason we must cut emissions asap. I say this to get through to you I’m not downplaying the issues. I just look at what Piotr posted on analysing the existing trend and I cant fault that.
Killian19 JUN: “ Nigel, just looked back, and you are correct. I looked too quickly. The graph does not stop at 2013, it proves you wrong, and him, wrong. Check the satellite record data on that graph.
Wait a minute, Killian – are you… admitting that when you lambasted me:
“ So cute – [Piotr] stops the SLR calculation at 2010… 13 years ago.
Liars gonna lie..” [Killian 10 JUN]
you HAD NO IDEA when your OWN graph stopped ???
In other words, you accused me of intellectual dishonesty and lies, and you could not even be bothered to CHECK your own graph on which you based these public accusations???
And now you don’t have the balls to admit it, but instead you …cutely pretend to admit of being wrong, only as a springboard to:
“ it proves you wrong, and him, wrong. Check the satellite record data on that graph.
Killian Jun 16
To make it even better – you KNOW that the above is also a lie – you know, because 3 days earlier, in the post immediately above yours, I have ALREADY demonstrated that extending the data to 2022 changes NOTHING about your claim – the SLR is STILL slower, not “faster” than exponential, I quote
Piotr, Jun 13:
“the increase in SL from 2010 to 2022 [in “the satellite record data”] was ~3.5cm= 1.45in,
which means that the most recent doubling (one ending in 2022), started when SLR was 4.7in, i.e., somewhere between 1960-1970. Which means:
– the 1930-50 doubling (2in to 4in) took 20 years
– the most recent doubling (4.72-9.45in) took between 52 and 62 years (1960/70- 2022)
Now, for the growth to be EXPONENTIAL – the doubling time has to be THE SAME in ANY two periods; for the growth to be “ *faster* ” than [exponential]”, the LATER
doubling times have to SHORTER.
52 to 62 years is NOT shorter than 20 years “.
=== end of quote =====
Killian reads the above, and 3 days LATER … claims that the extension of the data to 2022:
“proves you wrong, and him, wrong. Check the satellite record data on that graph”
Ladies and Gentlemen – a Killian in a … nutshell.
Nigel, why do you insist on proving my criticisms of your participation right year after year?
The solid line is exponential. ANY steady line of growth like that is. It shows a steady doubling rate. The data at the end of the graph is ABOVE that line. (“When the relative growth rate (not the absolute growth rate) is constant, the quantity undergoes exponential growth and has a constant doubling time or period, which can be calculated directly from the growth rate.”) One can question whether that data will return to the mean and overall still be exponential on average in the future, but one CANNOT argue the nonsense you are arguing.
As ever…
Piotr? A complete waste of time. First time he ever responded to me it was an insult. He has done the same with every post since. He does not belong on this site. If this site was well-moderated, the trolls would have to behave, but… no moderation, so… slower flame wars, but still no moderation, still filled with trolls and denialists.
Fauts in my claims? Not now, not ever. Not even once. I didn’t notice Piotr and I were talking about the same graph because I looked too quickly, that’s not a claim, it’s just impatience.
You? You get nothing right when you try to correct my analysis. Ever.
And, again, you have ZERO record. Zero.
Shush. You’re not a serious person. You simply need to see your words on the internet. Zero expertise in any area, but comment on literally every thread and every issue? Notice some of, those who are serious and know what we *don’t* know, don’t comment on every single issue that is brought up on these pages? You do. Always have.
Nobody can possibly take you seriously when you show so little self-awareness.
Killian, your comments on the exponential issue are nonsensical and Piotr has responded very well covering everything. I would just add the famous quote “Physician heal thyself”
Your claim that I did not see that climate sensitivity is well above 3 degrees and that sea level rise is up to 3M by 2100 is flawed because we dont have any agreement in the science community on those numbers. You are simply cherry picking a few studies. The IPCC have different projections on climate sensitivity (most likely 3 degrees) and sea level rise (up to about 1M by 2100 with some possibility of 2M) and their job is to determine the state of the science. 2M seems a very real possibility to me.
Your claim that I didn’t see that warming could be 4.5 degrees by 2100 is a pure fabrication, and your claim I don’t see doublings is interesting given I posted articles on doublings of ice loss (The Guardian and Science Daily or some source like that) several times, and you even responded to one of these.
Just astonishing the things you come out with. Its like you live on some other planet or universe or maybe you need new glasses..
“Piotr has responded very well covering everything.”
Keep proving my point, genius. You’re incompetent; so is he. You are so busy playing infantile games you can’t be bothered with actually knowing anything.
Killian to Nigel: Keep proving my point, genius. You’re incompetent; so is [Piotr].
Put your money where your mouth. Falsify the falsifiable arguments in my post you refer to. If I am so incompetent, how hard could it be? Heck, to help you, below I simplified my points (but if you prefer the full version – see: Piotr (Re: Killian, Jun.5)):
1. Killian declares the SLR curve to grow … “ faster than exponential”, and derides Nigel for not seeing it. In that curve, the 1st doubling took 20 yrs, the 2nd doubling – 60 years. “ Faster than exponential”, you say, eh?
2. Next, Killian chastises Nigel “you didn’t see SLR of up to 3M by 2100″, even though it won’t be known for 70+ ….years, whether Killian was right seeing SLR of up to 3M by 2100.
3. Next, Killian cuts out Nigel’s words on seeing the possibility of rapid changes in the future, and after this cut – he ridicules Nigel for … not seeing the possibility of rapid changes in the future.
4. Having done all these, Killian thinks that the has proven that the Doobie Bros. words
“What a fool believes he sees no wise man has the power to reason away”
apply to … Nigel.
===
Ladies and Gentlemen – the Great Killian.
Yes, I am great – compared to you two clowns.
You have never predicted *anything.* Me?
* SLR of at least a meter by 2100
* 2016 low ASI due to El Nino (and coming low ASI in 2024)
* Significantly higher climate sensitivity. (Hansen, et al., preprint. This discussion is from 2009, and I was talking about higher sensitivity well before that, based on simple observations and logic.)
Just to name a few, My record on *understanding* and *analyzing* climate effects is undisputed and stands alone among ANY commenter on these pages. An intelligent man learns from those who know better; a fool tries to tear them down to protect their own ego.
Stop acting like %#$^ing children, both of you.
Oops, the link: http://theoildrum.com/node/5084
Killian, interesting how when anyone identifies faults in your claims you deflect to claiming you make good predictions. Your predictions are reasonably easy things to make, and aren’t telling anyone anything useful, and sound like an ego based exercise. That’s probably why nobody else here bothers to do the same.
A comment on this SLR blather.
Back before 2016, and before that, SLR had been treated by the IPCC without consideration for melting ice caps and had been projecting sub-metre SLR by 2100 (and only to 2100) which was not helpful as it allowed the denialists to poo-poo SLR as a major problem. Assessments which did consider melting ice caps came out with projections of potential metre-plus SLR by 2100. Again this was unhelpful as the rate of SLR by 2100 would suggest multi-metre SLR in the following century and this threat was being ignored.
And before 2016 we also had Jim Hansen who admitted he was an outlier in suggesting 5m SLR by 2100. My own thoughts on his 5m was that it was entirely bonker unless the mechanisms which drove it were properly explained. The problem is one of energy. Where does all the energy to melt all that ice come from? An explanation was entirely absent until 2016 when Hansen et al (2016) appeared, this a discussion document rather than a piece of strong science.
Post-2016 the real problem of SLR (of it being multi-century rather than multi-metre in a single century) is being shown within IPCC ARs (see this RC OP) but the main multi-century message remains weak, being described solely that we can expect 2m to 3m SLR in the next 2,000 years if we limit AGW to to 1.5°C and 2m to 6m if limited to 2°C .
I would characterise SLR blather in this comment thread with talk of doubling times as being multi-metre blather and rather pointless.
MA Rodger: – “Post-2016 the real problem of SLR (of it being multi-century rather than multi-metre in a single century) is being shown within IPCC ARs (see this RC OP) but the main multi-century message remains weak, being described solely that we can expect 2m to 3m SLR in the next 2,000 years if we limit AGW to to 1.5°C and 2m to 6m if limited to 2°C .”
The RC OP, dated 13 Aug 2021, that you link to included the figure from the IPCC AR6, Figure SPM.8, which shows SLRs by 2100 relative to 1900 baseline, ranging from circa 0.5 m (for SSP1-1.9 scenario) to circa 1.8 m (for “Low-likelihood, high-impact storyline, including ice sheet instability processes, under SSP5-8.5” scenario).
I’d suggest the IPCC is still relying heavily on models that don’t align with real world observations. Current climate models are not capturing all the risks, such as the stalling of the Gulf Stream, polar ice melt and the uptick in extreme weather events.
In the YouTube video by glaciologist Professor Jason Box, published 30 Sep 2022, titled Greenland zombie ice and committed sea level rise, duration 0:05:15, from time interval 0:04:05, a graph of Greenland projected Sea Level Rise (SLR) is displayed, comparing the IPCC’s AR6 SSP585 high emissions scenario with the 2022 Jason Box et. al. paper findings, and Jason Box says (bold text my emphasis):
“Our findings in comparison to current sea level projections, confront us with a shocking reality: The much larger, already locked-in sea level rise, than what ice sheet models project by end-of-century, even under high carbon emissions. Our numbers are twice as large, and don’t even include future warming. The comparison reinforces the likelihood that ice sheet models don’t deliver ice quickly enough, and for a number of known reasons, like today’s models don’t realistically treat underwater melting, bare ice darkening, ice internal heating from increasing meltwater infiltration, and basal lubrication, to name a few.”
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WHbZysQYRO4
In another YouTube video published by Jason Box on 22 Apr 2023, titled Tropical heat and moisture to Greenland and the European State of the Climate – economic impacts, duration 0:14:59, an animation of the temperature gradients over Greenland during the month of Sep 2022 was shown from about time interval 0:02:30, showing vast areas of Greenland above freezing.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZzpBo3y0xs4
With rising global mean surface temperatures inevitably overshooting the +1.5 °C threshold (relative to the 1880-1920 baseline) I’d suggest it’s very likely that surface temperatures in Greenland will be experiencing increasingly longer periods above freezing each year, and as a consequence increasingly more net ice loss will occur on average per year. That means faster SLR.
Leon Simons tweeted a thread on Mar 28:
https://twitter.com/LeonSimons8/status/1640617903597711362
Leon Simons tweeted a graph of global sulphur dioxide (SO₂) emissions from international shipping since 1850:
https://twitter.com/LeonSimons8/status/1666060308148891651
MA Rodger: – “I would characterise SLR blather in this comment thread with talk of doubling times as being multi-metre blather and rather pointless.”
I think the overwhelming real world evidence/data is indicating that the climate crisis is happening much faster than the IPCC would have us all believe.
I think per the evidence/data I see, multi-metre SLR by 2100 is a very real risk for future generations. I disagree with your assessment that it’s “blather and rather pointless.”
The greater and more urgent risk I see is that human civilisation collapses well before 2100, unless we/humanity:
1. stop burning carbon ASAP;
2. remove some GHGs to cool the Earth System sufficiently;
3. prevent the Arctic sea ice completely disappearing during summer.
https://www.cambridgeindependent.co.uk/news/life-on-earth-will-be-unsupportable-if-we-continue-current-p-9314798/
He’s Gavin’s twin in his refusal to see anything other than the absolute most conservative views as legit. He’s always wrong because if it. SLR is clearly beyond exponential, according to the NOAA: https://www.climate.gov/maps-data/dataset/global-mean-sea-level-graph
And it’s going to get worse.
Geoff Miell,
It seems you are having problems coping with the massive differences between (1) AD2100 SLR, (2) SLR from AGW after 2,000 years and (3) SLR at equilibrium. And to mix into your assessment of SLR a list of non-SLR climate hits “we are facing” suggests more hand-wringing than level-headed analysis.
Box et al (2022) ‘Greenland ice sheet climate disequilibrium and committed sea-level rise’ is saying there is an estimated 274mm SLR from the Greenland ice imbalance caused by the 2000-19 climate. I do not find that a surprising result.
And I don’t think it captures the real ‘shock-horror’ of Greenland ice melt.
Consider IPCC AR5 Fig 13.14. If this is examined minutely (which is far far beyond the accuracy intended by the graphic), this graphic suggests we should expect the Greenland value (green graph) from the 2000-19 climate (in HadCRUT5 2000-19 is +1°C above 1850-99) to be a projected two-millennia SLR of 105mm (RH graph) and equilibrium of 163mm (LH graph), but these with massive uncertainty. (The shaded area of the RH two-millennia graph extends up to 320mm.)
And the two-millennia global graphic (RH grey graph) is annotated with a 2.3m SLR per 1°C AGW. So we can presumably expect a rise of 2.3m from today’s +1°C AGW (2.3m = future rise + the rise seen so far).
But what surely is far more of a worry is the step change in SLR caused by the melt-down of the Greenland ice cap. Somewhere between +1°C AGW and +2°C AGW, the top of Greenland’s ice will begin to drop and so, encountering warmer altitudes as it drops, will be on a slow one-way downward path which would presumably require a new ice-age to kick in to stop its downward path.
So if you feel the 274 ± 68 mm SLR ‘commitment’ in a 2000-19 climate of +1°C AGW is an “urgent risk”, an extra 6,000mm SLR from a melting Greenland will transmogrify your assessment, even if such a massive |SLR is millennia away.
MA Rodger: – “Box et al (2022) ‘Greenland ice sheet climate disequilibrium and committed sea-level rise’ is saying there is an estimated 274mm SLR from the Greenland ice imbalance caused by the 2000-19 climate. I do not find that a surprising result.
And I don’t think it captures the real ‘shock-horror’ of Greenland ice melt.”
I think you are ignoring Jason Box’s point: “Our numbers are twice as large, and don’t even include future warming.” In the Results section in the Box et. al. (2022) paper, it included:
I interpret this to mean metre-scale SLR contribution by 2100 from Greenland ice loss alone is clearly plausible with additional warming. Add in ice loss contributions from Arctic glaciers & the Antarctic, particularly WAIS, and metre-plus to multi-metre SLR by 2100 is also likely on our current GHG trajectory.
MA Rodger: – “So if you feel the 274 ± 68 mm SLR ‘commitment’ in a 2000-19 climate of +1°C AGW is an “urgent risk”, an extra 6,000mm SLR from a melting Greenland will transmogrify your assessment, even if such a massive |SLR is millennia away.”
On our current GHG emissions trajectory, I’d suggest human civilisation is likely to collapse well before 2100. Published in this month’s Futures journal was a paper by C.E. Richards, H.L. Gauch and J.M. Allwood titled International risk of food insecurity and mass mortality in a runaway global warming scenario. The Abstract included:
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.futures.2023.103173
I’d suggest mass migrations away from increasing areas with mean annual temperatures (MATs) ≥29 °C and mass starvation are the far more urgent risks in the next few decades.
https://nature.com/articles/s41893-023-01132-6
Geoff Miell
It’s probably best to stick with Greenland’s contribution to SLR and hammer out our respective reasoning. Adding in other “ice loss contributions” is not helping.
I think your interpretation of Box et al (2022) requires some explanation because I see nothing in that quote to suggest a metre-scale Greenland SLR contribution by 2100, even “with additional warming.”
Box et al (2022) give no judgement on how quickly the 274 ± 68 mm equilibrium SLR they project from a 2000-19 Greenland climate will arrive. (Mind, did I hear in one of his videos some rather loose claim by Box? But that’s the video not the scientific paper.) We have been measuring the ice loss from Greenland since 2002 and there is no sign (yet) of accelerating ice loss from a warming climate. The average (no acceleration) is running at 77mm/century, no acceleration. The acceleration required to create 1,000mm by 2100 would be a doubling every 4 years (?). Whatever, it would have to be massively dramatic!! So where is it?
The remainder of your comment is not to do with a melty Greenland inducing SLR.
But I would say that I agree it is the ability of humanity to remain civilised that is at threat from AGW. In my opinion, it is the world order as we know it today that is the frog in the warming pan of water, a frog which needs to reach out and switch the gas stove off coz it ain’t gonna get out the pan.
MA Rodger: – “Adding in other “ice loss contributions” is not helping.”
Why? Not helping whom/what?
Do you think there is no ice loss in other places other than Greenland? Antarctic? Arctic (excluding Greenland)? Glaciers outside Arctic & Antarctic?
I’d suggest you take a look at the graph displayed by Professor Jason Box from time interval 0:05:48 in the YouTube video titled Arctic warming 3x faster than the globe, published 30 Dec 2021. The graph shows accelerating ice loss in the period from 1971 through 2019 (more than 5 decades of data), for SLR contributions:
* Arctic (including Greenland): 1.3 mm/decade (in 1980s); 4.6 mm/decade (in 1990s); 8.9 mm/decade (in 2000s); 12.3 mm/decade (in 2010s);
* Greenland: _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ 1.1 mm/decade (in 1980s); 1.8 mm/decade (in 1990s); 5.5 mm/decade (in 2000s); 6.8 mm/decade (in 2010s);
* Arctic (no Greenland): _ _ _ _ 0.2 mm/decade (in 1980s); 2.8 mm/decade (in 1990s); 3.4 mm/decade (in 2000s); 5.5 mm/decade (in 2010s).
And there’s the Antarctic contribution also shown on the graph.
The 5+ decade data range graph presented by Box is clearly a longer time period than the more limited circa 2-decade GRACE & GRACE-FO data (you link to).
Jason Box says: “So, at best we can say, at these levels of CO₂ the world needs to prepare itself for abrupt sea level rise.”
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3cBVs2NOWsQ
MA Rodger: – “I think your interpretation of Box et al (2022) requires some explanation because I see nothing in that quote to suggest a metre-scale Greenland SLR contribution by 2100, even “with additional warming.”
It seems to me you have selective blindness. I’ll repeat the relevant statement from the Box et. al. (2022) paper (and include bold text my emphasis):
Meanwhile, Dr Ella Gilbert published a YouTube video on 15 Jun 2023 titled Ep. 2 | Why is Greenland melting so fast? Ft. @JasonBoxClimate. Jason Box says from time interval 0:02:44:
“Well, the average loss rate of ice from Greenland is about 270 gigatonnes per year, and that’s you know, kind of a number that doesn’t have much meaning to people – another way of thinking about that is 0.7 mm per year of global sea level rise, which also sounds small, um… It isn’t that small because it’s adding up year after year.”
From time interval 0:06:38, Jason Box says:
“Right, we studied the ice loss commitment from Greenland and the variations from year to year – they actually point squarely at an ice loss commitment that right now stands at at least 27 centimetres of global sea level rise, but that’s if the climate stayed constant up to 2019. Climate will continue warming and so the ice loss commitment grows in a high emission scenario. Greenland’s ice loss commitment reaches more than one metre by end of century, so we have some time to get off of that high emission scenario, and basically halve the sea level commitment from Greenland to about half a metre by end of century.”
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tRtqOTtsCr8
I think Prof Box makes it clear what the implications are for Greenland contributions for SLR in the coming decades, following from the work in the Box et. al. (2022) paper.
MA Rodger: – “(Mind, did I hear in one of his videos some rather loose claim by Box? But that’s the video not the scientific paper.)”
So, does that mean you ignore anything that hasn’t been through scientific peer-review?
A non-peer-reviewed communication by James Hansen, Makiko Sato and Reto Ruedy, dated 14 Jun 2023, titled El Nino and Global Warming Acceleration, includes (bold text my emphasis):
https://mailchi.mp/caa/el-nino-and-global-warming-accelearation
I’d suggest we will know whether Hansen & colleagues are in the ballpark soon, irrespective of any peer-review process.
Geoff Miell,
☻ You ask what I mean by writing “Adding in other “ice loss contributions” is not helping.” I would have thought the sentence preceeding would have answered your question“Why? Whom/What?”
☻ You accuse me of “selective blindness” because I asked you for an explanation of your interpreting the quote from Box et al to say that there would be a metre-scale Greenland SLR contribution by 2100. The part of the Box et al quote you now highlight refers to “metre-scale SLR under the unabated SSP58 future climate scenario,” this being the finding, not of Box et al but of Bamber et al (2019) ‘Ice sheet contributions to future sea-level rise from structured expert judgment’. This is not the clearest of references for the quote, or the preceeding reference from the same paper and I don’t see either referring to Greenland 2100 SLR under the 2000-19 climate. Perhaps you can shed some light on that. Or perhaps not.
In the transcript you present of the Ella Gilbert video, do note these is a fundamental difference between Greenland 2100 SLR and “Greenland’s ice loss commitment … by end of century.”
☻ You ask whether I will ignore anything that hasn’t passed peer-reviewed. (I would say there is a lot that does passed peer-review which is worth ignoring.) The point I was making was that often statements made in a video are not referenced as they would be in a scientific paper (or should be referenced). The Box video comment at issue I described as being a “loose claim.” That is it was unsubstantiated.
But from that context, you diverge from such consideration and Greenland SLR as well and dive into discussion of SAT acceleration, a whole different kettle of fish.
MA Rodger: – “☻ You ask what I mean by writing “Adding in other “ice loss contributions” is not helping.” I would have thought the sentence preceeding would have answered your question“Why? Whom/What?””
What it does suggest to me is you appear to dismiss/exclude the not insignificant SLR contributions from non-Greenland sources, including:
* Canadian Arctic glaciers;
* US Arctic (Alaskan) glaciers;
* Antarctic land ice;
* “other” (excluding Scandinavian & Russian) glaciers;
* thermal expansion.
See the AMAP graph comparing Arctic sea level rates 2004–2010 with other global sea level components, at: https://www.amap.no/maps-and-graphics#3406
MA Rodger: – “This is not the clearest of references for the quote, or the preceeding reference from the same paper and I don’t see either referring to Greenland 2100 SLR under the 2000-19 climate. Perhaps you can shed some light on that.”
Repeating again, the Box et. al. (2022) paper includes:
In other words, the Box et. al. (2022) paper finds a Greenland SLR commitment of 782 ± 135 mm under anomalous 2012 melt year conditions, consistent with the findings of the Bamber et. al. (2019) paper referenced. Jason Box says in the Dr Ella Gilbert video: “Climate will continue warming and so the ice loss commitment grows…”
So, spelling it out for the last time, per the Box et. al. (2022) paper:
1. Greenland’s SLR commitment is at least 274 ± 68 mm by 2100 at current warming level (disequilibrium with 2000–2019 surface climate);
2. Global mean warming will inevitably increase (even the reticent IPCC indicates +1.5 °C warming is inevitable and likely before 2050), and thus Greenland’s SLR commitment by 2100 will inevitably increase;
3. The anomalous 2012 melt year indicates a Greenland SLR commitment of 782 ± 135 mm.
4. Metre-scale SLR commitment from Greenland alone is therefore plausible.
I’d suggest by adding in growing SLR commitments from non-Greenland sources then metre-plus to multi-metre SLR by 2100 is also plausible. Why is this so difficult for you to understand, MA Rodger?
Meanwhile, the Australian Bureau of Meteorology (BoM) updated (20 Jun 2023) their latest El Niño forecast (NINO34 model run dated 17 Jun 2023):
+3.0 °C by October 2023; and
+3.2 °C by November 2023.
http://www.bom.gov.au/climate/model-summary/#tabs=Bureau-model®ion=NINO34
Prof Eliot Jacobson tweeted earlier today (Jun 21) this:
https://twitter.com/EliotJacobson/status/1671217964144824320
Zack Labe tweeted on Jun 19 a graph, showing that while sea ice is growing (in southern hemisphere winter season), it’s growing much slower than average. The deviation is huge.
https://twitter.com/ZLabe/status/1670552177348149250
Indicators show the planet is continuing to warm and as a consequence SLR will accelerate.
At least we can agree on concerns about the “ability of humanity to remain civilised that is at threat from AGW.“
Geoff Miell,
☻ I perhaps should have been more definite up-thread.
If the task is to discuss the future contribution to SLR from Greenland, the SLR contribution from other glaciers is utterly irrelevant. To drag such factors into a discussion specific to Greenland is doing no more than changing the subject.
☻ It is evident you do not understand what Box et al mean by “SLR commitment” and this is the source of much of the difficulty we face with this interchange.
As the climate warms (more specifically, the climate experienced by the ice caps) the projected total melt required to cancel the “disequilibrium” will increase. This “disequilibrium” will not be cancelled by 2100 as big ice sheets like Greenland take centuries/millennia to reach equilibrium. Perhaps at this point I am the one who should be asking “Why is this so difficult for you to understand, Geiff Miell?
And if I consider your insistance on adding non-Greenland ice sheets to this interchange to be ‘subject-changing’, the strength of the coming El Niño is doubly so. Ditto the concentrations of Antarctic SIE. (Golly!! The 12-month rolling average of JAXA’s daily Antarctic SIE has now dropped below the record low level set in the year to Sept 2017, and of late has done so with some spectacular new daily records. But the Antarctic climate is a poor a measure of global temperature.)
And I would point out that NINO34 was recorded averaging +2.8°C Nov/Dec 2015 (Nov 2015 averaged +2.9°C) while the Oz BoM forecast of June 2015 projected an average Nov2015 value of +2.3°C. (Note that I have mentioned in reply to your last month that Jacobson is not a reliable source.)
MA Rodger: – “If the task is to discuss the future contribution to SLR from Greenland, the SLR contribution from other glaciers is utterly irrelevant.”
This discussion thread, as far as I’ve been concerned, has been principally about the critical issue of where the SLR trajectory is headed within this century from ALL contributory sources. Metre-scale (or more) SLR by 2100 would be highly damaging/disruptive for coastal infrastructure throughout the world. I’ve referred to papers/statements by Box, Rignot, Englander and NOAA in this thread and/or elsewhere at this blog, that indicate the accumulating data/evidence and increasing probability of metre-scale or more SLR by 2100.
https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2023/04/unforced-variations-apr-2023/#comment-811073
MA Rodger: – “To drag such factors into a discussion specific to Greenland is doing no more than changing the subject.”
The discussion was originally about, as you called it: “this SLR blather.”
https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2023/06/unforced-variations-jun-2023/#comment-812166
It seems to me you are the one trying to restrict “this SLR blather” discussion to Greenland contributions only. Data indicates Greenland is not the only major SLR contributor.
https://www.amap.no/maps-and-graphics#3406
I think it’s a poor and futile attempt by you to justify your earlier dismissive comment: “I would characterise SLR blather in this comment thread with talk of doubling times as being multi-metre blather and rather pointless.”
MA Rodger: – “☻ It is evident you do not understand what Box et al mean by “SLR commitment” and this is the source of much of the difficulty we face with this interchange.”
I think you are the one misrepresenting the meanings and intents of the Box et. al. (2022) paper, and dismissive of what Jason Box says in the Dr Ella Gilbert video: “Climate will continue warming and so the ice loss commitment grows…”
IMO, it’s also dismissive of the work by Eric Rignot, John Englander & NOAA.
MA Rodger: – “And if I consider your insistance on adding non-Greenland ice sheets to this interchange to be ‘subject-changing’, the strength of the coming El Niño is doubly so.”
More heat; faster melting; faster SLR. It’s another indicator of the worsening climate crisis that you seem to dismiss as irrelevant within the context of disruptive consequences manifesting this century.
I think your apparent dismissive attitude is not helpful.
Geoff Miell,
☻ It is true that my initial entry into “this SLR blather” concerned SLR in total and it is true that the total level of SLR is the important factor to consider and that, by adding to such a total, even minor contributions to SLR become significant.
All this is true.
But….
If the level of the different contributions cannot be nailed down in some manner, such discussion remains simply “SLR blather.”
And in that ‘nailing-down’, you were the one that kicked off proceedings by addressing Greenland SLR and in doing so demonstrated massive misunderstandings of the findings of Box et al (2022) ‘Greenland ice sheet climate disequilibrium and committed sea-level rise’
I would suggest that allowing such a misguided take-away from this discussion is something any science-minded participant should prevent (although it appears such prevention is proving remarkably difficult).
☻ Here’s a thing.
Geoff Miell, you throw into this interchange justification for your adding the strength of the coming El Niño into this interchange by suggesting that the coming El Niño will bring “more heat” (true – global temperatures are boosted following an El Niño) and thus “faster melting, faster SLR.”
This latter inference of yours is surely simplistic garbage.
Consider the findings of Mankoff et al (2021) ‘Greenland ice sheet mass balance from 1840 through next week’ which is brought up-to-date in this 2022 CarbonBrief article in a chart ‘Total mass balance and its components 1987-2022 (hydrological year)’ (CarbonBrief don’t provide for hot-URL linking. The chart is third from the bottom.). It is, of course, this total mass balance that impacts SLR.
So here’s a thing.
If you rank those 36 years of total mass balance and compare that ranking with the strength of El Niño (using MEI), we do not find SLR is increased during El Niño years. It is perhaps the opposite. El Niño years see smaller levels of SLR.
Top 10 MEI years & Greenland ice loss ranking
1998 … … 21st
2016 … … 7th
1992 … … 35th
1987 … … 28th
1993 … … 23rd
1995 … … 6th
1988 … … 25th
2010 … … 3rd
2003 … … 24th
2015 … … 9th
Even the correlation between annual global temperature and Greenland ice loss (which would correct for the AGW in more recent years) is absent.
Top 10 warm years (HadCRUT5 global) & ice loss ranking
2016 … … 7th
2020 … … 11th
2019 … … 2nd
2017 … … 27th
2015 … … 9th
2022 … … 26th
2018 … … 32nd
2021 … … 15th
2010 … … 3rd
2014 … … 10th
I would suggest that it is not me being “dismissive” and “unhelpful” here.
MA Rodger: – “I would suggest that allowing such a misguided take-away from this discussion is something any science-minded participant should prevent (although it appears such prevention is proving remarkably difficult).”
My take from your comments suggests that people/organisations that I’ve mentioned previously, like Eric Rignot, John Englander, NOAA, and I’ll now add also Kevin Anderson, must also be “misguided” in your view, MA Rodger?
In the YouTube video published on 8 Jun 2023 titled A True Paradise: WHERE WE ARE HEADING – Kevin Anderson, duration 0:16:25, climate scientist Kevin Anderson warns that continuing on our current path could result in a 3-4°C temperature rise by the end of the century, a catastrophic outcome to be avoided at all costs. Kevin Anderson says from time interval 0:02:52 (bold text my emphasis):
“When we think about 3 or 4 degrees Centigrade, let’s be clear: We have no historical precedent in human history for these sorts of temperature changes, and they are occurring overnight, and they don’t just occur across this century. Firstly, we know that things like sea level rise will keep going for hundreds of years after that, and that we are locking-in, absolutely locking-in really high levels of sea level rise, maybe 7, 8 or more metres. So we may only across this century see one or two metres, which will be devastating for many of our coastal cities. And of course, most of the population of the world live near the coast. So that will be devastating for our existing communities. But we are locking-in this devastation for centuries to come, but we are also changing very significantly how we will produce our food, whether we will produce enough food, where will our food be produced, and that’s because we’re changing the complete weather patterns of our society, of our Earth. We’re changing rainfall patterns. We’re changing insect pollination of our crops. So all of this plays out, one disaster after another. So any single one of them we might think, oh, we can resolve, we can deal with that, but when you bring all of these together, occurring almost overnight, you’re talking about the collapse of our modern society. You’re talking about the collapse of most of our sort of emblematic ecosystems. So this is not a future that we should be in any way be, we should be heading towards, and we should be doing everything we can to avoid it. The sad state of affairs is, though, that we’re doing nothing to avoid it. There is plenty of talk, but no action. And what we have to bear in mind is the climate only responds to action. The physics responds to how much carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases we put in the atmosphere. So we can talk about efficiency, we can talk about green growth and all of this stuff. It’s meaningless! What really matters is keeping the emissions out of the atmosphere.”
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o_FtS_HNbkc
Quoting Greenland annual ice loss rankings correlated with ENSO is all very well, but I’ll invoke the disclaimer: “Past performance is no guarantee of future performance.” I’d suggest the overwhelming evidence/data indicates we/humanity are entering new ‘territory’ beyond the experiences any of our species has ever encountered.
Meanwhile, it seems perhaps extensive regions of the Greenland ice sheet are currently enduring ‘heatwave’ (air temperatures above freezing) conditions. See the YouTube video by Jason Box titled How do foehn or chinook winds enhance a north Greenland heatwave?, published 27 Jun 2023, duration 0:09:14.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SXFzkgDJsiw
Per Jason Box’s tweet posted Jun 29, the Greenland melt is currently ‘punching off the charts’.
https://twitter.com/climate_ice/status/1674129271294513152
Depending on how warm the remainder of the melt season is will determine the net ice loss for 2023.
MA Rodger: – “I would suggest that it is not me being “dismissive” and “unhelpful” here.”
We’ll see soon.
MAR: Back before 2016, and before that, SLR had been treated by the IPCC without consideration for melting ice caps
BPL: I find that very hard to believe. Citation?
Barton Paul Levenson,
Perhaps I should have added the adjective “proper” to describe the absence of consideration of melting ice caps by IPCC FAR, SAR, TAR & AR4. AR5 does make good the damage and is a couple of years prior to 2016, thus the “Back before 2016, and before that.”.
You ask for a citation. While the ARs are a mite big for a simple citation, I could respond with the valid reference that it was well-known, but time has marched on. So consider TAR CH11 which managed to project the components of 2100 SLR as follows:-
• thermal expansion of 0.11 to 0.43 m, accelerating through the 21st century;
• a glacier contribution of 0.01 to 0.23 m;
• a Greenland contribution of –0.02 to 0.09 m;
• an Antarctic contribution of –0.17 to 0.02 m.
The TAR ‘central’ estimate’ for total SLR 1990-2100 is +0.49m. The small contributions from the polar ice caps are due to the “improper” modelling. And when models for local SLR were attempted (Fig 11.13 & Table 11.15) they are provided with the comment “Sea level changes due to land ice and water storage are not included.”
MAR: a Greenland contribution of –0.02 to 0.09 m;
an Antarctic contribution of –0.17 to 0.02 m.
BPL: You said “SLR had been treated by the IPCC without consideration for melting ice caps.” You then attempt to refute me by showing me where they considered melting ice caps.
I can’t think of anything to say.
Barton Paul Levenson,
Given the short but dodgy reply you do make, it is perhaps fitting that you say no more.
MAR: Given the short but dodgy reply you do make, it is perhaps fitting that you say no more.
BPL: Look, you said the IPCC hadn’t considered polar ice cap melt. Then you listed where they considered polar ice cap melt. If you can’t see the contradiction there, I can’t help you.
Ice dynamics *were not* part of IPCC IV. SLR was, That was 2007. The next IPCC was in 2014. Ice dynamics STILL were not represented and the same 1/3 meter-ish nonsense was trotted out.
Hate to agree with MR given his hyper-reticence in dealing with rates of change and future-looking issues, but they’re right. It was that total lack of ice sheet dynamics in IV that caught my attention and got me started paying real attention to climate issues.
Tim Lenton: Climate Tipping Points (2022) https://earthclimate.tv/video/tim-lenton-climate-tipping-points-2022/
Students and Faculty at Ohio State Respond to a Bill That Would Restrict College Discussions of Climate Policies“You can say gravity isn’t true, but if you step off the cliff, you’re going down,” says climate scientist Katharine Hayhoe about restrictions on teaching.
COLUMBUS, Ohio—Keely Fisher chose to pursue her Ph.D. at Ohio State University because she wanted to learn about climate change from a world-class faculty.
Now one year into her program, she wonders if she belongs here.
The problem has nothing to do with Ohio State and everything to do with the Ohio General Assembly and a proposal that would regulate higher education. The wide-ranging bill includes a provision that designates climate policy as a “controversial belief or policy” and says faculty must “encourage students to reach their own conclusions about all controversial beliefs or policies and shall not seek to inculcate any social, political, or religious point of view.”
https://insideclimatenews.org/news/31052023/ohio-state-college-climate-bill/?utm_source=InsideClimate+News&utm_campaign=342f691b91-EMAIL_CAMPAIGN_2023_06_03_01_04&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_29c928ffb5-342f691b91-329698521
The “controversial concepts” specified in the law include “climate policies, electoral politics, foreign policy, diversity, equity, and inclusion programs, immigration policy, marriage, or abortion.”
God help us all.
Levenson
I have looked into it.
It looks ugly. I would not take such a university for serious.
But we also say “However bad, it is good for something!” and further “I allways look at the bright side of life”
If it relates to one and only one university in one and only one US- state, and is due to one and only one grand old party in that state, then it is good to know where we have them.
Because, in all autentic temples and Gothic cathedrals, the Devil is also mounted and pictured in a special niche and corner made for him. Else he will spread all over the room and people will look for him and find him everywhere. So by doing it rather the cunning way The obvious official ERROR is allways found somewhere, consciously and cunningly pictured and mounted, in any Masterwork.
This is a very important rule of Mastership. It is also done in order to know where the devil- worshippers will assemble.
Because, ERRARE HVMANVM EST, that is to be remembered.,
Wherefore mankind , not even Masters, should go God into his craft and try and make everything perfect. That will only become Hell.
So we should rather hope and pray that it will remain there, clear enough, so it does not spread out over the very US..
Can’t imagine that that one will survive legal challenges on First Amendment grounds any better than in this case:
https://www.npr.org/2022/11/18/1137836712/college-university-florida-woke-desantis-1984
On the Arctic Sea Ice and AMOC Relation https://climatestate.com/2023/06/05/on-the-arctic-sea-ice-and-amoc-relation/
Bye-bye, ASI! Thus spake Zara… er… some climate scientists. Under any and all scenarios, a BOE is gonna happen sometime between now and 2050, with the smart money seeming to sit between 2030 and 2040. Key finding:
Adjusting models to reflect observations, thus correcting underestimating melt, gives the above results. Paper: https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-023-38511-8
My counter? Run the numbers with sub-300 ppm achieved by 2050. What happens then?
Let me repeat myself: There is only one option that meets the risk assessment: Rapid, pervasive simplification. And it’s completely doable. Remember: The longer you wait to solve a problem, the narrower your options become. We’re down to our last option.
Replying to
https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2023/06/unforced-variations-jun-2023/#comment-812112
Dear zebra,
Thanks a lot for your objection that should the surface cooling by water evaporation work, we sholuld observe clearly lower average temperatures in heavily irrigated areas like San Joaquín Valley in California, in comparison with nearby deserts located in the same region.
I made a short Google search and it appears that there might be about 120 000 square kilometers of irrigated land in California, and that perhaps about 40 km3 water is annually spent for irrigation,
Should the figures be correct, then an average annual evaporation from the irrigated land in California could be about 333 mm of water column, what roughly corrresponds to latent heat flow 27 W/m2.
The average annual temperature in Palm Springs shall be about 19.9.°C. Provided that it is also the value of the average radiation temperature there, corresponding average longwave radiation flow according to Stefan-Boltzmann law is 417.9 W/m2.
By subtracting 27 W/m2 for the latent heat, we obtain an average annual radiation temperature for “irrigation chilled Palm Springs” 15 °C, 4.9 K lower than the observed annual temperature there.
Annual average temperatures for cities in San Joaquín Valley are not that low,
I found e.g. for Sacramento 16.8 °C. The difference in annual precipitation (217 mm in Palm Springs, 613 mm in Sacramento) is 396 mm, what could roughly correspond the difference in evaporation that may be ascribed to irrigation, whereas we still observe only ca 3 K difference in average annual temperature instead of the expected 5 K. Moreover, Sacramento is located significantly more northern than Palm Springs and supposedly has also commensurately less sunshine.
I hope there might be studies analyzing the influence of irrigation on average temperatures in California in detail. If so, I believe these studies also clarify in which extent the increased irrigation increased the average absolute humidity in irigated areas. Such studies could also clarify in which extent the enhanced greenhouse effect of water vapour actually “cancelled” the surface cooling caused by evaporation.
Perhaps could the moderators help and give us a hint towards such a study?
Greetings
T
Hello Tom – try here for global & California
https://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/docs/2009/2009_Sacks_sa02200i.pdf
https://www.pnas.org/doi/full/10.1073/pnas.0700144104
in Re to https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2023/06/unforced-variations-jun-2023/#comment-812184
referring also to
https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2023/06/unforced-variations-jun-2023/#comment-812183
Hi Macias,
Many thanks for these references. I believe that both of them provide a piece of valuable evidence that you, JCM as well as those scientists across the world who express their concern that human interventions into the water cycle have contributed to the observed climate change, may be right.
This concern is in accordance with rising evidence that although, on one hand, irrigation carried out in arid hot regions cooled the climate a little bit, the opposite changes in the water management carried out in humid areas prevailed (thank to you and JCM https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2023/06/unforced-variations-jun-2023/#comment-812053 for references).
In this regard, I appreciate all contributions made in the present discussion, because I believe that despite of frequent disaccord, the ongoing debate already clarified* at least one point, namely that
(i) contrary to frequently spread misinformation that latent heat flow from the Earth surface cannot play a role in global climate because the condensation heat released in the atmosphere allegedly “stays in the system”, water cycle is in fact one of essential elements of Earth climate regulation, because
(ia) Earth atmosphere is NOT a “closed room” and the release of the condensation heat into the space in form of longwave infrared radiation (my special thanks to JCM https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2023/06/unforced-variations-jun-2023/#comment-812161 and Patrick o twentyseven https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2023/06/unforced-variations-jun-2023/#comment-812164)
is one of crucial conditions enabling weather phenomena (here, my special thank also to Carbomontanus for his impressive description thereof in https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2023/06/unforced-variations-jun-2023/#comment-812151), and
(ib) the average global annual latent heat flow defined by global annual precipitation does represent a significant part of the global Earth energy budget.
There is still an ongoing argument whether or not we indeed contributed to the climate change by prior changes made in the water cycle, and, if so, whether or not we can / should repair the possible damages. I still hope we will learn more also in in this respect. Let us continue step-by-step.
*unfortunately, I just noted that we have not convinced zebra yet
https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2023/06/unforced-variations-jun-2023/#comment-812169
that despite of the greenhouse properties of water vapour, cooling effects of water evaporation on both the local as well as the global scale are real and significant.
Perhaps the references you provided change his opinion.
I think I can provide a bottom-line outline of this:
OLR (LW flux to Space at TOA) is the only significant outflow of energy from the climate system, and it is thermal radiation, thus dependent on temperature. So if we hold H2O, clouds, snow, vegetation, etc., constant, generally, any cooling in any location at or above the surface must be compensated by some warming – could be at a different place, time, or vertical level, in order to maintain energy balance (balanced fluxes at TOA) in the global-time average. Ie./eg. forced enhanced convective cooling (eg., by irrigation) can have a local cooling effect, which reduces net radiant cooling at that location; the extra convective flux heats some other location, so that net radiant cooling at this warmed location balances it.
Caveats and exceptions: The average Temperature change needn’t be 0, because OLR is more sensitive to temperature changes at some heights and conditions (atmospheric H2O, clouds, baseline temperature) than others. Which leads to the exception – changes in Temp that are completely hidden from above in the LW (eg. under a sufficient cloud layer) do not require compensatory changes at other locations – although there is the matter of where the extra convective fluxes add up.
Hence, I would guess, if you are irrigating and it is not overcast skies, whether this achieves net/average surface cooling depends either on whether you can get more cloud cover – in particular, low-level clouds that tend to have a stronger solar albedo effect than a greenhouse effect, such that upper level warming needn’t happen, or whether lower-level humidity, or upper level warming does not wipe out the surface cooling via enhanced greenhouse effect (I would guess the upper level warming would tend to add more H2O at upper levels and increase/raise upper level clouds (higher clouds are more effective at reducing OLR than lower level clouds, typically – because they are colder).
None of which is at odds with extreme heat waves become more extreme due to drying, or wet surfaces having reduced temperature increases over the daytime heating, etc.
“Which leads to the exception – changes in Temp that are completely hidden from above in the LW (eg. under a sufficient cloud layer) do not require compensatory changes at other locations ” – well, maybe not quite; a colder surface radiates less flux upward into the overlying humidity and clouds, etc., having a cooling effect on them; in particular the cloud base would cool. The extent to which this is transferred to the top of a cloud depends on whether the cloud is relatively thin and whether it is in a convecting layer.
I think I messed that up a bit. For simplicity we could start with the assumption that all changes in fluxes are balanced in the same vertical column. In the case that irrigative-enhanced convective cooling occurs under clouds, I imagine the same total net upward LH+SH+LW radiant flux could occur up to cloud level (with from Temp-dependent radiant+SH flux to Temp+other LH fluxes), so that the cloud level recieves the same flux and doesn’t cool, and OLR is unchanged without any warming to balance cooling at the surface, setting aside changes in cloud base?, H2O, etc… Then if we have horizontal advection on top of that, the cloud level may cool locally while warming balances that at some horizontal, possible temporal remove… Etc.
Correction: – although there is the matter of where the extra convective fluxes end up.
I would not lean towards depending on irrigation/water management as a major climate mitigation strategy (H2O resource, other land use needs, and potential climate side-effects eg. shifting monsoons, storm tracks? severe thunderstorms (are you creating drylines?) etc.), but maybe it could help marginally. And of course irrigation is important to food production, but we need to conserve water – but solar-powered reverse osmosis – but expense… And of course, let’s try to preserve our wetlands and manage H2O resources to prevent floods and get through droughts…
Maybe in the future we could use models to optimize irrigation and wind turbine use, etc., to avoid increasing cloud cover over solar panels when the wind is light or the birds are in flight and electricity demand will be high, or modulate wind turbine usage to … bring the rain into the hydroelectric reservoirs etc., bearing in mind the interaction between energy demand, supply, and weather. – or the benefit might be too small to justify the effort?
I don’t think it makes sense to irrigate the Sahara desert to cool it off, unless we’re planning on having a bunch of people live and farm there – although if you’re creating brine pools to mine Li and Mg and … Okay… It may make more sense to use night-cooling and thermal storage to keep solar cells cool for their efficiency(?), except wherein the can be combined with water preheating for use in buildings/etc.
Also: CO2, in addition to being a greenhouse gas, absorbing some solar radiation, and altering seawater chemistry, also has a direct effect on transpiration, by allowing plants to breathe it in with less H2O loss – which also allows plants to grow in dryer conditions and higher elevations, I think … and has a surface heating effect, unless the soil just stays that much wetter, although leaves may have a surface area and height advantage… of course I think this affects different plant species differently.
ERA5 SAT reanalysis has posted for May with an anomaly of +0.395ºC, well up on April’s +0.32ºC but below March’s +0.51ºC. May 2023 is the 3rd warmest May on the ERA5 record, below 2020 (+0.47ºC) & 2016 (+0.41ºC) while a little above 2017 (+0.37ºC) & 2019 (+0.36ºC) with 2021, 2022 & 2018 all lower still (+0.25ºC), these the 8 most recent Mays thus comprising the top 8 warmest Mays.
The 2023 start of the year remains in 5th place.
…….. Jan-May Ave … Annual Ave ..Annual ranking
2016 .. +0.56ºC … … … +0.44ºC … … … 2nd
2020 .. +0.53ºC … … … +0.47ºC … … … 1st
2017 .. +0.42ºC … … … +0.34ºC … … … 4th
2019 .. +0.38ºC … … … +0.40ºC … … … 3rd
2023 .. +0.35ºC
2022 .. +0.29ºC … … … +0.30ºC … … … 5th
2018 .. +0.27ºC … … … +0.26ºC … … … 7th
2010 .. +0.23ºC … … … +0.13ºC … … … 9th
2021 .. +0.19ºC … … … +0.27ºC … … … 6th
2015 .. +0.17ºC … … … +0.26ºC … … … 8th
2007 .. +0.14ºC … … … +0.04ºC … … … 15th
2014 .. +0.08ºC … … … +0.11ºC … … … 10th
@ Thomas Kalisz and JCM
I must answer here because the coloumn above gets too thin.
Your conscepts of “turbulent convection” and “latent flux” with so fine and profressional words, does rather betray unawareness of what it is about, and in the same way hiding elementary and trivial reality for yourself and for everyone.
Kalisz may be excused for being Polish. Seemingly with better anchoring in facultary educative diciplines.
. Being an amateur does not allow one to commit class tribal and racial stuggle and civil war against due higher formation.
Permit me to suggest Cumulonimbus rain and hailstorms with thunder, that is even electric convection with turbo if large enough. but why not simply a thunderstorm? or Burza z piorunami in polish. And specified in Latin LATIN for understanding worldwide. , as “Cumulonimbus” a majestetic word..
Thomas Kalisz at least may get it better if I start discussing “hvite blomkålskyer med tordenvær”, “Oskväder” in Swedish.
But what about “Rassabøyer”? That are quite dangerous under sail. It means dangerously strong and unpredictable gusts of wind at sea, obviously turbulent..
All theese things are “solar”. in combination with BIG BANG, namely the chill of space and the chill of dark night with solar right on…. where the air ecomes thin and the sky more dark blue.,
The chill of space, not of the north pole that would have melted long atgo by all that warmth, and is too far away from it to have any effect, whereas “BIG BANG! is there rather locally everywhere, and begins just 12 Km right above your head..
The chill of space cools the turbo- hot steam-thermo- dynamic engines as their necessary condenser to lower the pressure again and to re- cycle the water, in order for the weathers to run on and on and on—- .
.The largest of all in that turbo- convective and – electric latent heat flux – verticle class with turbo is the tropical hurricanes,
The tropical hurricanes with a hole in the middle of the turbine are having snow- hurricanes on the wide and flat top of it even with the sun right in zenith with hardly with any sunscreening
That Turbgo cooling and sundriven air- conditioning system .cools the earth especially efficiently over very large areas, bringing down bitties and barrels of ice cooled water right from the condenser when the sun has heated long enough. .
I have seen it fror myself. All the water is flying in the air. All smasll pools are blown emply, Crocodiles and rattlesnakes may be flying in the air together with roofs and chimneys. Cars are blown to sea and large ships on land. High voltage networks are blown out like spiderspin, even asphhaslt is blown in flakes off from the roads and into the bushes
But the strongest Turbo convective tubular cooling things is found to be the tornadoes.
Why not mention that instead Hr. Kalisz, so people could judge it critically and cunningly from their own experience especially over there in the states?
Aerophotos of it afterwards that I have seen, show clear evidence of Turbo convection ., longt and lartge stripes of just milled rubbish as if a very large and strongly motorized , turbo-rotating cutting and milling device has made its way through the US sub-urban settlements.
Why not rather tell what turbulent and cooling convection really is?. , The fameous convective and turbulent dust- devils, for instance We calol it ,Skypumpe- sky- pumps.
Even obviously tubular covective turbo in some cases, that are driven by solar heated hot air and steam when the sun has warmed the ground and the sea long enough and there is also chill enough on the other end for condensation, to keep it going.
It may happen more ofrten in Polen that is a bit warmer allthough not so moist. In Norway we only have it in the south and on the coast, in the summer warmth. An imjportant premise known especially from the USA is chill in the heighth for especially steep and dangerous vertical temperature gradient.
That also repeats in the fameous small strong sudden and dangerous arctic hurricanes in the winter.
Where, still summer warm and vapouring seawater is coming in under deep polar night chill in the air. They occur in winter near to the polar sea ice edge and are especially unpredictable.
All theese things , Cumulonimbus, Tornados and Skypumpe, Tropical and polar hurricanes work by sucking up hot water vapour near to the ground and at sea, that goes up vertical by turbo- convective forces, and are getting cooled and condensed by BIG BANG namely the chill of space, at the top. And return icy water and even hails in bitties to cool down the sea and the landscape. Fisherboats in the arctic night may suddenly be blown full of rapidly freezing seawater. and capsize from that sudden heavy weight over deck and in the rig..
As in Antarktis, when all the penguins lay down flat on the ground with all the beaks pointging in one way and tail the other way, , all the people will also know where it will come from.
Old houses on those shores in that extreemly dry climate are strongly sand- blasted eroded after 50-100 years. As Antarktis also have fierceful subpolar hurricanes.
It cools the earth it cools the sea, and recycles the water, solar driven by turbo convection and latent heat flux.
But, you can hardly accellerate and improove this allready natural, latent heat turbo-convectional cooling and airconditioning system by spraying scarce riverwater and groundwater against desertification and global warming.
Better find Gavin Schmidts fameous turning knob on the global airconditioning turboconvectional tubular device, , and try and operate on that, if you whish a better climate and a better understanding of it.
“natural, latent heat turbo-convectional cooling”
This is progress. Not necessarily cooling more generally, but of an active constraint member in the non-equilibrium steady-state.
JCM
Latent heat cannot flux you see, then it is not latent anymore.
I find it very hard to believe that the IPCC and the NASA GISS has not understood and integrated /”modeled” that of phase- transition- entropies and of solar- driven and radiator- cooled PdV-energies in the air.
It is public school pensum on the bathing weathers and daily thunderstorms for me. Ask Rasmus benestad, he is from the bible belt next by wher such things must be grasped. And what about the trade- winds. We would have starved wityhout them.
It is quite much easier to believe that you and the turbo diesel adiabatic lapserate compression with vertical even latent turbo- flux pumping and airconditionintg – cooling argument….
……. is a systematic propaganda from qvasi- scientific and sponsored side on Frank Lunz recommendation against any kind of historical responsibility and guilt for Big Coal and Big Oil by that Grand old Party with P. both west and east……
as you also officially find peoples fascination with the CO2- radiative argument “awesome”.
Your troubble is that there would be no vertical dieseling, cooling and even strong turbo pumping without that radiative interferece of natural, oligo atomic gases with dis- continuous spectra.
Class warfare, Racial and political civil war against this is the flaw of Hans Jelbring & al`s “Atmosfäriska effekten” argument.
That engine cannot diesel and and even turbo- pump heat adiabatically in tubes.,….. without any CO2- Katalysator in it, namely the greenhous gases mixet as catalysators into the air in order to make it f moove, cycle and re- cycle,. , turbo, and pump.
It is Tubal Thermo- dynamics turbo- convectional air condition with Katalysator, solar driven, quantum mechanical and cooled with Uranos directly on the Radiator, you see.
That is what you have to deny and ridicule and better improove in your way..
That takes more than just membership background and blind belief in the scriptures where the earth is flat and air is but a particular, dry material classical mechanical and political sandstorm,
PS By the way, how do you draw out your cash? I just wonder. DS.
.
“hard to believe…..has not….integrated /”modeled” that of phase- transition- entropies”
believe it
To all and everyone
about PdV electric turbo engines in the air
I forgot to mention that it is Tor with his hammer in his warrior waggon driven by Ram- Bucks … rolling over the situalion and through the heavens in his obvious and convincing also turbulent way.
and even Zevs with up to 6 teravolt turboelectric sparks, beat that.
Tesla did remain way behind. .
zebra’s denialist troll test
They never answer questions.
I don’t usually spend as much time on these people as I have with Tomas, but I thought it would be a good illustration of that observation, which I have brought up many times. What I find interesting is how similar they all are in presentation, despite variations in specifics and accent. Sometimes I think there is a genius/dumb AI producing sock-puppets… it does individual personalities great, but it can’t produce arguments that don’t obviously defy the laws of physics, and uses the same rhetorical/logical fallacies over and over.
Is Tomas going to be the new Victor? It’s up to you to decide.
But I do have a real question. Where did the absurd water-cycle meme come from in the first place?? Did someone decide that it would be fun to drive scientists crazy, proposing to solve the GHG problem… by increasing GHG? Who thinks these things up?
Dear zebra,
Macias shurly provided some references suggesting that evaporative cooling, e.g. by irrigation, does indeed work:
https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2023/06/unforced-variations-jun-2023/#comment-812184
Perhaps the cooling effect is not as high as suggest the simplest calculations by subtracting the corresponding latent heat flow from the average radiative heat flow from the same land without irrigation, but it still seems to work decently.
Therefore, if you see irrigation as an attempt to decrease surface temperature by increasing the greenhouse effect, you offer a conundrum that I cannot resolve. I simply do not know why irrigation does work when it should not. The only thing that comes to my mind is that you perhaps too much rely on certain assumptions that may not be fulfilled in the specific case under consideration.
For example (I already mentioned it in connection to my comparison of latent heat transfer in the atmosphere with latent heat transfer in technical cooling elements called “heat pipes”), isn´t it possible that if we have another heat transfer mechanism that is under chosen conditions much more powerful than radiation, we do not need to care about radiation anymore?
Greetings
Tom
Zebra
Maybe I know the Polacs better. We are neighbours. They are experinced, reliable, they come and they are very good at work. They are not snobbish. But there are exeptions also in Polen namely the old comrades. . Hr Kalisz is hardly one of them.
Genosse Schürle is more of that religious heritage from old Dresden, Ljeningrad and Greifswald Arbeiter und Bauernfakultät.
King Donald Grozny also showed to be an inaugurated national socialist ultraleftist young pioneer from the progressive STASI- career- training camp.
I try all the time to take them by ideological and technical archaeology as I am aquained from Early Music, on who learnt what from whom, who had whoom for his / her GURU prophet and professor of systematics. craft and behaviours. And find that denialism here where I live the so called “climate- realists” do have obvious roots back in the LENIN STALIN progressive QVISLING- Mussolini- order and state religion.
Who later assembled (due to political opportunism) through the Grand old National Socialist labour Union Party that took up all those elements. .. They later became the failed pioneers and trained KADRE and teacher- class, who lost their military backing as the wall fell down in Berlin.
(SIC TRANSCIT GLORIA MVNDI!)
They were frired and unemployed and took stray jobs on arbitrary denialism and surrealism but the antivaxine and climateb denial moovement could largerly employ and give themj new hope again.
They have now tended strongly to become populists for a while..
When I am writing “Genosse”, then I am insinuating that state religious background.
The grandchildren of the old genossers systematically became “Populists” and climate- denialists that could be cheaply employed for the republican war on science. They are “The intellectuals of the left” from the GDR- missionary school class in the provinces worldwide.. Today maybe even Puttlers advocates.
But this may even be too provincial and special. So a deeper hypothesis is that they are , the autentic Trolls and “Orcs” by Blood! and pure race, who can take service wherever needed. It is due to Mendels laws of heritage, the fathers sins that is inherited and shows up again in 3rd and 4th generation., namely Old surrealism and irresponsible clueless fucking of that class.
The results of such old sins is bought up very cheaply, and worth gold for the MAFIA due to their political Cadaver- diciplinary training, to the revolution that did not come.
Here in Norway that “class” or Blood was deeply frustrated as Gro Harlem Brundtland took over the grand old Party with P and suddenly demanded higher education without cheating, for possible advancement to the high- grades in that special Party with P (Kalisz will know which Party with P, , the grand old one)
. Gro H.Brundtland came from the faculoty of medicine of The Royal Frederiks. She was orderly educated and examined and founded the IPCC. as a synthesis of UNEP and WMO.
She Understood Roger Revelle and James Hansen from NASA GISS because she felt no need to refuse, deny and to fight the Apollo- landings.
Victor is more a trained populist and Orc of the Puttler/ Trump KGB-STASI class order, whereas Thomas Kalisz is not, he shows rather clear, polish syntax, manners, and grammars.
To check up people wherther they are autentic, I have also asked them for uranological events such as sun and moon and major planets as seen from their global standpoint. And on behalf of of myself “Now it is 11 PM and deep azur blue sky, rosy red all over in northwest and hardly with stars.”
This is an entho-centric political perspective. First one must appreciate what is happening beneath our feet. It is from there which the policy-makers can be informed more adequately. The urban populations know only asphalt.
JCM
also up in the sky and the starry heavens. See the difference of Cumulus and Scirrus, woolen or feathery clouds, that is liquid water droplet fogs different from solid icy cristal smokes., having different electrostatic properties.
and for asphalt, there you are misconsceived again. They are having huge bandages on their hind paws and walk only on vinyl that is industrially flattened for them. Asphalt is rather pleasant walking barefoot if not too hot. Offroad is better.
Shoes and boots yes or no, that is what makes the major difference. With shoes boots and sandals on, people do not watch their steps anymore.
What the ____?
Yes, DNA goes into making a person. And epigenetics, which I do not much about. And the biochemistry of the womb, etc. And the environment after birth – which includes other people, their cultures and personalities, parenting obviously, economic situation, … and nutrition, pollution, pollen, weather, and media – TV, books, etc. (ultimately other people, but also pictures of trees n’ stuff) – of course these are not all independent factors but anyway -, and their own decisions, which ultimately have exterior causes, of course, but it is important to note that a baby changes the course of their own life whenever they turn their head and see something they would have otherwise missed. There’s some systematic/predictable stuff but a lot of stochastic stuff in there as well.
It is a core part of bigotry to assume the aspects of a group – real or imagined – apply to an individual.
If you are attempting to mock the racism of others, it is not clear that this is the case; best leave that level of political comedy to the experts
PS betraying one’s own – often otherwise known as
transcendence
enlightenment
being a hero
I was alluding to the accusation of “traitor to your kind” sometimes hurled at the hero by the villain. Of course, the hero in actuality may not be betraying any one; the villain just (chooses to) see it that way.
And by weather, I didn’t mean it the way Aristotle did. I meant things like somewhat might be inspired to be an artist, scientist, etc. upon observing an awesome thunderstorm.
…Likewise, consider the joy of seeing swallows performing their stunts, swooping low over the ground, corkscrewing down and doing figure 8s ’round others at high speed, etc.
@ victor-zebra says: – ” genius/dumb AI producing sock-puppets… ”
ms: — Even worse are only sock puppets that produce a dumb AI … and feel like a genius.
Sockpuppets. Yeah, I’ve been wondering that to, especially about a couple of people here. Are they the same person? The old bad cop/good cop ploy.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Good_cop,_bad_cop
@ all and everyone
I must add here that I may have been told Le Chateliersprinciple wrong.
I checked up Wikipedia, , and hardly learnt it especially as “Le chateliers law” on phase equilibria before, That seems to be the original version.
But it is given quite in general in my pensa many times as::
“If, in a system of complex , stable eqvilibrium determined by many parameters, one of the parameters is mooved to bring it out of eqvilibrium, the other determining variable will react and moove in a direction such as to re- store the stable eqvilibrium!”
This fameous principle seems quite universal and appliciable to any stable and dynamic systems, at stable equilibrium, wherefore it is so practical and useful, and wherefrore I have found it mentioned and used in the litterature arguments and in the laboratory on so many different places.
For instance on complex wave mechanical -morphological systems in musical wind instruments (organology) where stability soundcolour and intonnation- pitch must be kept and tuned together for fine artistic musical purposes. One finds le Chateliers principle all the way in the complex and consonant, integrated orchestra
I could write on behalf of science that : “Roses of timeless wisdom does not ask the faculty of fine arts where to grow!” which was appreciated.
Then further in complex machinery with viscous, mechanical, and thermodynamic systems and eqvilibria, and in the chemical glasses. .
In meteorology and climatology of course, you will find yourself better equipped having Le Chateliers principle in mind, that will protect your thoughts and your soul, and helps you from thinking and performing mono- causal surrealistic like a blind flat earther and believer and desert walker all the time, who is chasing Fata Morgana in the horizons. . Maybe even against drunken sailors who are advocating bushfires in our days for better pissing and to save the earth..
One could surely derive Newtons and Kepplers laws from it also.
Le Chateliers principle seems to have been known worldwide by wise men and women, at any time everywhere.
..Thus it is timeless wisdom that you should secure for your engineering and philosophical toolbox. It disqualifies the alternative and false beliefs and speculations.. .
Also in politics, provided that complex stable and dynamic eqvilibria should be acheived or can be found even there.
Thomas, your scheme to cool the climate by promoting extra irrigation and thus evaporation and the consequent release of energy from condensation when it rains is completely hopeless Ejecting all that extra water vapour into the atmosphere causes a greenhouse warming effect, and latent heat release of condensation ADDS to the warming and most of that happens at the middle and lower atmosphere . . Only a little bit of rain is caused very high up with cirrus (?) clouds such that the heat of condensation might escape to space via exciting CO2 molecules. This is outweighed by the extra heat retained.
And the scheme would require massive levels of irrigation draining rivers and aquifers already over used. Its a hopeless idea. I’m a lay person, but its intuitively obvious and I would bet serious money on being right about this.
I think Zebras right. Some of these water cycle advocates are cranks, and probably have links to the fossil fuels industry.
“caused very high up with cirrus (?) clouds such that the heat of condensation might escape to space via exciting CO2 molecules.”
this is nonsense.
JCM
Again, avoid teaching when you fail to understand things. It is childishy ape- manners. Children cannot understand what the teacher teaches so they ape after their teacher and begin to teach wildly.
C0ndensation heat is reality. Permanence of energy and heat is reality, so when heat is released in clouds formation high or low, where shall it go?
and you teach that this is non- sense.
Instead of telling the accute truth, which could be “I do not understand this elementary physics either.”
Manners in school, manners first in the classroo0m you see.
It seems rather self evident there is no need for the various phases of atmospheric H20 emission agents to be exciting CO2 molecules in order to dispatch energy to space. The condensate has a particular advantage for it emits continuous spectra. If trace gas were to be the only available emission agents the Earth would be a very hot place indeed. That increasing trace gas, along with their relatively ineffective power of emission, must have a warming influence is not in dispute. However, I see no reason to speculate that trace gases are the only contributors to OLR. It has been my understanding that the bulk of emission is in fact outside the CO2 band(s). This is a critical component of the non-equilibrium steady-state condition.
@ Nigelj
Yes, I also tend to think so., that at least some of these water cycle advocates are the Devils Cadavre- diciplinary advocates obeying under their owner in all respects and into minute details, furthering the sales promotions of progressive racial Monopoly Capitalism, Big Oil and Big Coal on the free market.
The convective lapse rate is globally-complicated, but in a 1-D model at least, a switch to a moist adiabat at a lower level (if Temp. is unchanged below) will cause warming above that over the depth of the troposphere above – it will approach a dry adiabat up high but it will be a different (shifted to higher T) dry adiabat.
I chimed in on this conversation partly because I noticed some errors being made about latent heating not being able to be balanced by radiant cooling within the troposphere. Yes, denialists have argued as if convection were some magic that would just whisk heat away to nowhere, but this isn’t that. It’s a bit like the negative lapse rate feedback to global warming, but in this case the convective lapse rate change, if necessary? (see next sentence), is being forced by surface wetting, so the cloud and H2O effects may be different. I’ve gotten the sense that enhanced albedo via more cloud cover (I presume lower clouds?) may have some tendency to win out over enhanced greenhouse effect.
That being said, there is a risk of side effects, etc. – modelling could mitigate that, but also H2O resource concerns – we may need to irrigate even more in the future but we’ll need to be smart about it … Irrigating the Sahara doesn’t make much sense – maybe it would be harmful even not considering local etc… (Saharan dust fertilizes the Amazon basin, doesn’t it? …) – I mostly agree…
(allowing possibly a marginal role – but watch out for the heat index/wet-bulb temp, of course – although the albedo… etc.)
… that irrigative cooling shouldn’t be relied upon as a major part of climate change mitigation.
Oops, I meant there would be a lapse rate change to balance surface cooling with upper-level warming to keep up the OLR (unless there is surface warming elsewhere) but with cooling over-all due to albedo increase (or maybe irrigation were limited to cloudy conditions(?), which would be a bit odd.)
Signs of Change: Antarctic Sea Ice hits lowest for this time of the year Remarkable, the Antarctic sea ice is currently way below any other year in the same period. But what does it mean? https://climatestate.com/2023/06/09/signs-of-change-antarctic-sea-ice-hits-lowest-for-this-time-of-the-year/
It’s good to see on the webpage you link-tosomebody else plotting the year-on-year Antarctic SIE anomaly (so without the big annual cycle). Of course it shows 2023 running along for most of the year as “lowest for this time of year”. The ‘hitting’ actually occurred on Boxing Day last year with 120 of the 167 days since then being “lowest for this time of year” (those other 47 days with 2023 being either in second place or equal-second place).
The paper-in-review featured on that webpage will be an interesting read. It suggests it has found the evidence for the changing Antarctic SIE levels being “noticeably influenced” by stratosperic-tropospheric coupling.
Cordero et al (in review) ‘Signature of the stratosphere-troposphere coupling on recent record-breaking Antarctic sea ice anomalies
Macias Shurly (7 June) said
“ms: — Our GranMaster Dr. Gavin Schmidt says: The warming potential of water vapor is ~50%, for clouds ~25%, // for CO2 19% and for all other greenhouse gases ~6% of the total GHE (~160W/m²) * 75% = ~120W/m².”
https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/2010JD014287
“In contrast, the cooling effect at the surface of evapotranspiration is ~ -86W/m² and that of clouds ~ -47W/m². The water cycle thus has a net cooling effect of ~ -13W/m².”
“By this net balance, the earth is a water-cooled planet – whether you like it or not.”
Its good that MS has done some analysis and some math. But can someone with some applicable expertise please CHECK what MS posted?
“can someone with some applicable expertise please CHECK”
lol.
nigel: ” can someone with some applicable expertise please CHECK”
Nigel, Mr. Shurly is subtracting apples from oranges. He takes data of water vapour and clouds warming effects, and cloud albedo – from Schmidt et al. 2010 paper: https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/2010JD014287
M. Shurly: “Dr. Gavin Schmidt says: The warming potential of water vapor is ~50%, for clouds ~25%, // for CO2 19% and for all other greenhouse gases ~6% of the total GHE (~160W/m²) * 75% = ~120W/m²; cooling by clouds [albedo] ~ -47W/m²
But then Shurly subtracts these from some unidentified source evapotranspiration ~ -86W/m²””
This number is not from Gavin’s paper (no “evapotranspiration”, “86” or “85” there). I presume that Shurly took it from a value of evapotranspiration from some radiative budget. And this is the problem:
– Gavin’s numbers are the NET fluxes: difference between emitted by Earth and escaped into space.
– Shurly’s evapotranspiration is a GROSS flux – the 86W/m² of removed from Earth. WITHOUT subtraction of the majority of that 86W/m² that is reemitted back toward the Earth, thus does not cool the Earth
Let see if it makes a difference – from Trenberth radiative balance we get: 531(= 78+80+17+356) W/m²absorbed by atmosphere, of which 333W/m² is radiated back toward Earth surface. This means that on average only 1/3 of the heat absorbed by atm. is emitted into space.
Now let’s see what it does to Shurly’s calculation of the Net GH by water:
Shurly’s Net GH = 120 – 47 (cloud albedo) – 86 = -13 W/m²
CORRECT Net GH = 120 – 47 (cloud albedo) – (1/3)*86/m² = +44 W/m²
Makes a bit of difference, to the conclusions, doesn’t it?
Shurly: “The water cycle thus has a net cooling effect of -13W/m²”
Reality: “The water cycle thus has a net WARMING effect of +44 W/m²”
Shurly: “The earth is a water-cooled planet – whether you like it or not ”
Reality: “The Earth is a water-HEATED planet (3 times MORE heated, than
Shurly’s cooling) whether you like it or not.”
So thanks to MS, I was able to kill 3 birds with a single stone:
1. Macias Shurly – by proving his calculations wrong, and by putting his self-assured claim: “The earth is a water-cooled planet – whether you like it or not” on its head.
2. Tomas Kalisz – by proving that his plan for massive evaporation – instead of cooling, would cause (much larger) net warming of the Earth instead.
3. JCM – by cutting him down to size, after he arrogantly replied to Nigel:
Nigel: “can someone with some applicable expertise please CHECK what MS posted”
JCM: “lol”
LOL indeed.
From googling Piotrs values I have come across this version of the Trenberth chart on a random page.
https://skepticalscience.com/pics/Figure1.png
Trenberth is giving the following values in watts per m square so we do not need to engage in double accounting:
SW surface absorbed = 161
LW down surface absorbed = 333
Surface emitted LW = 396
OLR = 239
LE = 80
H = 17
My observation:
Surface total radiation = SW absorbed + LW absorbed
494 = 161 + 333
Surface net radiation = Surface total radiation – surface emitted radiation
98 = 494 – 396
Surface net radiation = H + LE + surface storage.
98 = 17 + 80 + (1).
Following the slab two stream radiative approximation, as illustrated in Hartmann 1994 text Figure 2.3 and various other conceptual diagrams:
Surface total radiation = 2 x OLR
494 = 2 x 239 + (16)
Notice this value in the residual 16 is matching the magnitude of the sensible heat.
Without the heating flux H, atmosphere appears to match radiative two stream closely, with also the net radiative surplus +1 into the surface.
In my interpretation that residual surface heating flux H is unlike the net negative LW radiative and latent moistening surface flux agents.
H isn’t going much of anywhere outside the boundary layer is my read.
As for the atmospheric absorbed radiation, again from the slab two stream radiative regime.
The atmospheric absorbed radiation = 3/2 x OLR
Atmospheric absorbed radiation = 3/2 x (239) = 358.5
Trenberth is listing a 356 for these radiative exchanges. Pretty close.
And the relationship between the LE and the transmitted flux in the current state of affairs:
The transmitted flux = 1/2 OLR – LE
The transmitted flux = 0.5 (239) – 80 = 39.5
Trenberth is listing 40 for this value.
Holding all else constant, 1 unit more LE corresponds to 1 unit less surface radiative transmission.
A change in the average rate of evapotranspiration must, however, change the proportion of H, change the air temperature down here, and change the radiative surface emission temperature.
In my estimation at this time there should be no anticipated surplus LW radiative effect from an increase in the rate of evapotranspiration.
Additionally, H has been somehow mischaracterized I think, and one doesn’t seem to need a special longwave cloud radiative effect. Cloud is fitting into the standard two-stream just fine without special LW consideration.
In a true unperturbed non-equilibrium steady state there is no heating or cooling influence by any of these mechanisms, so it is a poor mental framework to begin with. The freedom of agents is constrained against one another in maximum tension.
@piotr says: –
” …by proving his calculations wrong
…CORRECT Net GH = 120 – 47 (cloud albedo) – (1/3)*86/m² = +44 W/m² ”
ms: — (1/3)*86W/m² is probably the idiot-piotr factor, because even if you don’t know anything…you always have to say something.
According to dr Gavin Schmidt – GHE (H2O) = ~ 120W/m² !
Why are you double-subtracting another amount for the GHE on the right-hand side of the equation? !!! These are the cooling energy fluxes – you sleeping pill.
!!! So remember !!! on the left the warming GHE of H2O +120 —> on the right the cooling effect of evaporation -86 and cloud albedo -47 = ~ -13W/m². This is the net balance.
In addition, you and the other noisy desert lurkers here have apparently still not noticed that additional evaporation on land surfaces correspondingly reduces the values for LW up surface & sensible heat and thus also decreases LW down surface.
You haven’t even begun to understand how a greenhouse gas is quantitatively defined.
Roughly speaking, it is the absolute amount of greenhouse gas, its ability to absorb a wide range of long-wave bands of radiation and its residence time in the atmosphere that determine the strength of a greenhouse gas.
In the case of H2O, it is the total volume of currently 12-13000km³ in the atmosphere that has been in the atmosphere since the oceans formed ~ 3 billion years ago. Less in ice ages – more in hot periods.
Now if you add smaller amounts of evaporation from irrigation, like currently ~1025km³ per year, these amounts of water vapor only have a residence time of ~9-10 days – and thus a negligibly small GHE.
https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/aae018
In addition, the discussed IPCC graph still tells us that current irrigation of 1025km³/y and the resulting cloud albedo has a cooling effect of ~ -0.15°C. Unfortunately, what the graph does not tell us is the warming effect of man-made evaporation losses, which I calculate and estimate at ~ 6-7000km³/y (~ +0.9°C) since 1950.
Maybe you should share your phenomenal 1/3 findings with a nice letter to the IPCC, so that I can finally have my peace of mind.
Anyone who throws stones at birds has not yet completed their puberty. Calculating, provings and down size of other persons are apparently not exactly your parade disciplines either. — XXXS across the board.
Replying to
macias shurly
https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2023/06/unforced-variations-jun-2023/#comment-812311 ,
Piotr
https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2023/06/unforced-variations-jun-2023/#comment-812262
and
https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2023/06/unforced-variations-jun-2023/#comment-812255 ,
JCM
https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2023/06/unforced-variations-jun-2023/#comment-812293
and also to Barton Paul Levenson
https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2023/06/unforced-variations-jun-2023/#comment-812237
and
https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2023/06/unforced-variations-jun-2023/#comment-812238 ,
nigelj
https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2023/06/unforced-variations-jun-2023/#comment-812223
and
https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2023/06/unforced-variations-jun-2023/#comment-812294 ,
Kevin McKinney
https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2023/06/unforced-variations-jun-2023/#comment-812254 ,
Ron R.
https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2023/06/unforced-variations-jun-2023/#comment-812281
and Carbomontanus
https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2023/06/unforced-variations-jun-2023/#comment-812284
plus
https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2023/06/unforced-variations-jun-2023/#comment-812305 .
Dear colleagues,
1) First of all, I am not sure that the present discourse about the article Schmidt et al. https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/2010JD014287 and the “cooling” or “warming” effect of water cycle based on this article does make sense.
In my understanding, the article simply takes the difference in black body radiation flow 155 W/m2 that corresponds according to Stefan-Boltzmann law to observed difference 33 K between the observed mean surface temperature of Earth (15 °C) and calculated mean surface temperature without atmosphere (- 18 °C), and strives to formally distribute this value between various “greenhouse agents”.
Please note that in this approach, all non-radiative energy flows (approximately 100 W/m2, if we count both latent as well as the sensible heat) are already included among these “greenhouse agents”.
I suppose that the observed value characterizing the greenhouse effect would have been, actually, significantly higher than observed 33 K if there were no non-radiative heat fluxes at all. Thus, the non-radiative flows are already subtracted from the actual greenhouse effect. In other words, Gavin et all simplify the real situation by assuming that there is radiative energy transfer ONLY, and then formally ascribe the observed temperature difference to real “greenhouse agents”.
I am afraid that this approach cannot bring the sought clue to the question if an isothermal increase in water cycle intensity will cool the Earth as assumed by me, macias and JCM, or warm it, as assumed by our opponents.
2) As regards the relationship between water cycle and the latent heat flow in Trenberth’s diagrams for global energy budget, I still think that Piotr may be mislead.
If we take mean annual precipitation 990 mm
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Earth_rainfall_climatology
and consider that evaporation of 12.5 mm water column requires annual heat flow 1 W/m2, we get latent heat flow 79 W/m2 fitting well with published diagrams. Herein, I should correct myself – the 130 000 km3 mentioned by macias is certainly not the volume of global annual precipitation, because for 990 mm, the annual global precipitation will amount ca 504 000 000 km3. I think that the 130 000 km3 was rather the amount of annual precipitation on the land that does fit with macias’ data, wherein the latent heat flux is 86 W/m2.
Irrespective of uncertainties in the values of the global rainfall, I think these are one of a few relatively fixed points that may help us to progress further in the present debate. I think so because all the water that fell down from the sky
– had to evaporate previously and
– would have not condensed if it had not lost its latent heat.
I have not tried to calculate how much the condensation of 500 000 000 km3 water would have heated the atmosphere if the released heat were not radiated out in the space. I think it is basically unnecessary, because if the latent heat comprised in the vapour could not be released, all this water vapour would have never condensed nor precipitated and would have actually stayed in the atmosphere instead.
I therefore suppose that Piotr’s objection (that we should consider the back-radiation of a significant part of the condensation heat towards the Earth surface) is in fact unsubstantiated, and that all this ping-pong between upwelling and downwelling radiation is already more-less correctly included in diagrams showing the “energy budget”.
3) As regards Claudius Clapeyron equation
I admit that although I am physical chemist by education, I have never studied non-equilibrium thermodynamics and do not know if the validity of this equation can be somehow extended to non-equilibrium systems, as supposed by Carbomontanus. Honestly, I rather tend to agree with macias who assumes that from the viewpoint of classical thermodynamics, the Earth is a non-equilibrium system, and that extending laws derived for the equilibrium systems to the entire Earth may be tricky.
4) To the exchange between macias and Barton Paul
BPL: “you post things like less water vapor in the atmosphere causing a temperature increase”
I think that Barton Paul misinterpreted what macias strived to communicate, due to an incorrect assumption that water content in the atmosphere must be commensurate to evaporation intensity. There is, however, no such simple relationship, because water condenses and precipitates. As macias mentioned, global annual evaporation (and precipitation) is about 500 000 000 km3, whereas the mean water amount in form of atmospheric vapour is about 13 000 km3 only.
I do not think there is a principal rule preventing the Earth from changing the global annual precipitation value of 500 000 000 km3; it is in my opinion just the present value. Of course it may change with changing mean surface temperature, but I strived to show that it can change also in an isothermal regime.
In other words, even when the surface temperature stays constant, you can change these 500 000 000 km3 of annual precipitation significantly, if you will turn Earths 13000 km3 of atmospheric vapour around more quickly or more slowly.
5) Remark regarding geoengineering
Production of non-condensing greenhouse gases is no way the sole geoengineering experiment the humankind is running. In the industrial era, we can mention e.g. production of sulfate aerosols or production of compounds depleting the ozone layer.
The longest human geoengineering experiment is, however, introduction of agriculture, urbanization and huge changes in Earth water regime related thereto. I think that the efforts exhibited by macias and JCM who tirelessly strive to show the importance of this fact deserve not only attention but also respect.
I would like to add that neither macias, nor JCM, nor me proposed to deal with water cycle repair INSTEAD of mitigation of the greenhouse effect, as incorrectly assumed by Piotr
https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2023/06/unforced-variations-jun-2023/#comment-812308 .
6) A personal remark
I am aware that even merely asking publicly relevant questions can be harmful or even deadly in certain extreme situations. An example can be e.g. disclosure of secrets important for defence or other vital interests of the democratic society, but I believe that there is no such threat in the present discussion.
I think that the only prevention against serving as a useful idiot is a good understanding to what is actually going on. In this sense, I thereforre think that asking questions, wherever one sees or feels discrepancies in the publicly accepted picture, may be helpful.
I believe that if my questions are mislead, the faults can be explained and corrected. I do not see any particular harm that might arise from such procedure, rather oppositely. I think that our debate already showed that some seemingly clear things are in fact more complex and hope that a further thorough discussion may improve my understanding further.
6) Thank you all for your contributions!
Greetings
Tom
ms: it is the absolute amount of greenhouse gas, its ability to absorb a wide range of long-wave bands of radiation and its residence time in the atmosphere that determine the strength of a greenhouse gas.
BPL: The first two are correct, the third is not. The strength of a greenhouse gas doesn’t depend on its residence time in the atmosphere.
TK: Gavin et all simplify the real situation by assuming that there is radiative energy transfer ONLY
BPL: They were only looking at the radiative transfer in that breakdown. Of course they ignored other effects. Did you look at how they arrived at their figures? For example, for carbon dioxide, they calculated the change in temperature (1) removing CO2 and running the simulation, and (2) starting out the simulation without CO2 and then adding it. The non-radiative processes were free to respond as they usually do. Changing them would have made some difference to the results, but would have been unrealistic. You isolate a process to study that process. Reductionism is how science works. You don’t deliberately complicate the experiment.
macias shurly: (1/3)*86W/m² is probably the idiot-piotr factor
P: An idiot is what idiot writes:
– MShurly: According to dr Gavin Schmidt – GHE (H2O) = ~ 120W/m² !
– P: and … that’s what I used, when I recreated YOUR calculations, so …why the exclamation?
– MShurly: Why are you double-subtracting another amount for the GHE on the right-hand side of the equation? !!!
– You don’t recognize YOUR OWN calculations, Genius? HOW ELSE have you calculated YOUR net balance of “-13 W/m2” IF NOT by “subtracting” from 120W/m² those 86W/m² and 47W/m²?
I merely recreated your calculation:
Piotr, Jun 6: “Shurly’s Net GH = 120 – 47 (cloud albedo) – 86 = -13 W/m²
See? YOUR “net balance” of -13 W/m².
So much for your:
– MShurly: These are the cooling energy fluxes – you sleeping pill.
!!! So remember !!! on the left the warming GHE of H2O +120 —> on the right the cooling effect of evaporation -86 and cloud albedo -47 = -13W/m². This is the net balance.”
At the request by nigel – I have checked your calculations and found a mistake that changes your whole conclusion. See my previous post:
==========================
Piotr, Jun6:
” Mr. Shurly is subtracting apples from oranges.
Gavin’s numbers are the NET fluxes: difference between emitted by Earth and escaped into space. Shurly’s evapotranspiration is a GROSS flux – the 86W/m² of removed from Earth., WITHOUT subtraction of the majority of that 86W/m² that is reemitted back toward the Earth (thus does not cool the Earth).
Let see if it makes a difference – from Trenberth radiative balance we get: 531(= 78+80+17+356) W/m²absorbed by atmosphere, of which 333W/m² is radiated back toward Earth surface. This means that on average only 1/3 of the heat supplied to the atmosphere escapes into space.
Now let’s see what it does to Shurly’s conclusions about the Net GH of water:
Shurly’s Net GH of water = 120 – 47 (cloud albedo) – 86 = -13 W/m²
CORRECT Net GH of water = 120 – 47 (cloud albedo) – (1/3)*86/m² = +44 W/m²
Hence:
Shurly: “The water cycle thus has a net cooling effect of -13W/m². The earth is a water-cooled planet–whether you like it or not ”
Reality “The water cycle thus has a net WARMING effect of +44 W/m².The Earth is a water-HEATED – whether Shurly likes it or not.”
=====
I leave to the readers to decide from themselves who of us two, me or Macias Shurly,
turned to be a full-of-himself idiot.
Piotr
Here I have a political poem again.
In the good old days as there was order in the Parlament, the Hon. spokesman of the Party A, the grand old one, spoke: “The spokeman for B must be blunt, not to understand that,… etc etc etc.”
To which the Hon. spokeman B replied: “No the spokesman for A must be blunt for not to understand that,.. bla bla bla..!”
The high Parliament Precident then knocked off with his hammer, and said: “I recommend it it to the high representatives not to discuss each others bluntness!”
I heard it myself on the radio in the good old days when there were still high parliament precidents to administer the debates in the Parliament.
@ Levenson
about TK & al and his basic interest, Learnings, , and mission:
I have suspected it now for a long while as it resembles style and æsoterics liturgy of the pre- war labour union progressive political missionary pioneering leftist surrealist moovement,…..
…………….that what you suggest for them as partial derivation analytics in multi- dimensional and causal systems, elsewhere known all the way in facultary science on complex systems a mess of events and how to pick into rapiudly interfering reacting and decaying- radiating….
compositions , stews and garbage,….. in dynamic quasi- eqvilibrium…..
….. that they simply were not permitted to it and allowed to learn about it and how to tackle it and live with it and make the best out of it.
because such knowledge might disturb their warrant and pioneering mission in society and worldwide. .
And the sins of the Fathers you see, of their eldelies high prophetsb and teachers,….. are inherited and show up again and carry on in the third and fourt generation as if the book (Moses § 2) was right on that point.
The same also follows from Mendels laws of genetic heritage especially from clueless , sinful fucking of artificial illusions and idols / of virtual reality,….,…. among the “fathers”. The consequent revenge haunts them as if they were Mendels beans.
Ideology and vulgar religous fanatism in society also seem to Follow Mendels laws over the generations..
But Allah guarantees sustainable and happy nomadic lifestyle in a semi- arid environment for 1000 generations at least if one only can just resign on such clueless, sinful behaviours.
I would expect from then Polacs that they are autentic, and should have learnt rather from Copernicus, Frederic Chopin, Maria Sklodowska, Pastor Vojtyla from Krakow, , , and Lech Valenza. And not administer the coalsmokes and the rivers and other peoples livingrooms / lebensraums along with Adolph and Stalin.
T. Kalisz: “ Gavin et all simplify the real situation by assuming that there is radiative energy transfer ONLY, and then formally ascribe the observed temperature difference to real “greenhouse agents”. I am afraid that this approach cannot bring the sought clue to the question”
This would have been true ONLY if all evaporative latent heat escaped into space into NON-RADIATIVE form, i.e. in the heat contained in air PARTICLES that escape the Earth’s atmosphere. Which, when compared to the radiative fluxes involved, is practically ZERO.
Which means that ALL latent heat is reemitted in form of IR, with MOST of it ending up absorbed by the Earth, and only a ultimately escaping into space.
Of the total amount of heat put into atmosphere, only about 1/3 escapes into space, probably considerably LESS for latent heat which is deposited closer to the Earth than
for instance solar rad. absorbed by stratospheric ozone (the closer to Earth the bigger the chance you would be absorbed by Earth).
Which means that AT LEAST 2/3 of latent heat flux returns to Earth and has no cooling effect. Which puts Shurly’s calculations on its head as discussed in my previous posts:
“Shurly’s Net GH of H2O = +120 – 47 (cloud albedo) – 86 = -13 W/m²
“CORRECT Net GH of H2O = +120 – 47 (cloud albedo) – (1/3)*86/m² = +44 W/m²
But it may get better – since Gavin’s paper quantifies the warming effect of various components by changes in the outgoing LW and SW radiation at TOA (top of the atmosphere) – the effect of latent heat may already be IMPLICITELY INCLUDED – if running their model without water evaporation they set also the evaporative latent flux to 0. Which would made: Net GH of H2O = +120 – 47 (cloud albedo) = + 73 W/m².
Either: +44 W/m² or + 73 W/m² – mean that contrary to the claims of your little friend, Macias: the water cycle thus has a net WARMING effect.
Which is consistent with increasing evaporation being the POSITIVE, not negative, feeback with temperature.
Which makes your plan absurd – you propose to throw $ trillions and cause massive GHG emissions needed to pump and spread 13 000 km3 of seawater over 9 mln km2 of Sahara, to cause … increased Global Warming.
@ Tom says:
– ” the 130 000 km3 mentioned by macias is certainly not the volume of global annual precipitation, because for 990 mm, the annual global precipitation will amount ca 504 000 000 km3. ”
– ” As regards ClauSius Clapeyron equation ”
ms: — I never claimed anywhere that global precipitation = 130000km³. On my website they are declared at ~100000km³ (over land) and 380000km³ (over sea). 500,000,000km³ is precipitation for 10 years.
Applying the Clausius-Clapeyron equation to the atmosphere and expecting that a 1°C warmer atmosphere will contain 7% more water is your friend Carbomontanus’ nonsense. Water evaporates faster, but unfortunately only as long as water is available.
47% of the land regions are “dry gets three” regions in which precipitation & and with it evaporation are falling. In the “wet gets wetter” regions (27%), higher rainfall spread over fewer rain events primarily causes more runoff.
Drought and flooding are indicative of poor distribution of an element whose primary climatic function is actually the distribution and transport of energy.
Gravity measurements (GRACE-FO) have shown that the continents lose about 100km³ of water annually, which contributes about 10% to sea level rise.
89% of these are glaciers, permafrost that are bound for a relatively long time without contributing much to evaporation. But if only 10% of the lost water circulates over land with a residence time of 10 days, that is 400km³ less evaporation – every year.
Clausius-Clapeyron, in his quest for 7% more water vapor, fights a variety of enemies. Desertification, further urbanization, continued loss of forest cover, falling water tables, compacted soils with less organic matter, closing stomata…etc.etc. Declining relative humidity for decades (or centuries) is the quantitative answer to these evaporative losses
(> = 6-7000km³).
@ bpl says: – ” The strength of a greenhouse gas doesn’t depend on its residence time in the atmosphere. ”
ms: — https://www.acs.org/climatescience/greenhousegases/properties.html
Global Warming Potential
In the context of contributions of different gases to atmospheric warming the concept of global warming potential (GWP) can be useful. GWP is a measure of how much energy a greenhouse gas would add to atmospheric warming in a given time compared to CO2. A molecule’s GWP depends on three factors:
1.) the wavelengths where the molecule absorbs. (The absorption needs to be in the thermal IR range where the Earth emits and will be more effective if it absorbs where water vapor and CO2 do not.)
2.)the strength of the relevant absorptions. (The more energy the molecule absorbs, the more effective it will be in warming.)
!!! 3.) the atmospheric lifetime of the molecule. (The longer the gas persists, the more warming it can produce.) !!!
@piotr says: – ” The Earth is a water-HEATED ”
ms: — IPCC says: irrigation & albedo cools up to -0,15°C.
The full-of-himself idiot is you.
re Piotr – a couple corrections/clarifications: latent heat released low in the atmosphere is still carried upward as sensible heat (but mostly stopping before the stratosphere, of course; net convective heating = convergence of convective flux, generally (or at least on average) positive over the troposphere and negative at the surface)
latent heat transfer and transport thus cools the surface and warms the atmosphere, in equal amounts – refering to the direct effects and not the radiative consequences. See my https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2023/06/unforced-variations-jun-2023/#comment-812388 and follow-ups – I feel it’s easier to look at it that way (radiative-convective equilibrium).
ms: @ bpl says: – ” The strength of a greenhouse gas doesn’t depend on its residence time in the atmosphere. ”
ms: — https://www.acs.org/climatescience/greenhousegases/properties.html
Global Warming Potential
BPL: The Global Warming Potential is not “the strength of a greenhouse gas.” That would be measured by the absorption coefficient (monochromatic), or the integral of the absorption coefficient over a range of wavelengths of interest (polychromatic). You used the wrong term.
Study: “Future of the human climate niche.”
https://www.pnas.org/doi/10.1073/pnas.1910114117
I thought it took a well known issue, and by quantifying it makes it very interesting.
Published on May 23 at The Conversation was a piece headlined Study finds 2 billion people will struggle to survive in a warming world – and these parts of Australia are most vulnerable. It begins with:
https://theconversation.com/study-finds-2-billion-people-will-struggle-to-survive-in-a-warming-world-and-these-parts-of-australia-are-most-vulnerable-205927
The Conversation piece refers to a Nature Sustainability article by Timothy Lenton et. al., published on 22 May 2023, titled Quantifying the human cost of global warming. It includes Fig. 4: Regions and population densities exposed to unprecedented heat at different levels of global warming. Fig. 4a shows large regions of the world expected to be exposed to unprecedented heat (MAT ≥29 °C) under +2.7 °C global mean warming scenario. Fig. 4b shows regions of the world expected to be exposed to unprecedented heat (MAT ≥29 °C) under +1.5 °C global mean warming scenario.
It appears from the map that the region between Port Hedland and Broome extending inland, and around Kununarra in Western Australia, could start to become increasingly unlivable at the +1.5 °C global mean warming threshold.
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41893-023-01132-6/figures/4
Fig. 5 shows the country-level population exposure to unprecedented heat (MAT ≥29 °C) at +2.7 °C and +1.5 °C global mean warming scenarios in a world of 9.5 billion people (around 2070 under SSP2).
Professor Stefan Rahmstorf tweeted a thread on May 25 (translation from German to English), including:
…including a gif animation of a colour-gradient temperature map for global mean surface temperature scenarios ranging from +1.5 °C, stepping through +0.3 °C increments, up to +4.4 °C.
https://twitter.com/rahmstorf/status/1661450321766371329
The water cycle advocates on this page believe that massively increasing the irrigation of the land by spraying vast quantities of water around will lead to more evaporation and a cooling effect. Yes it does but this is only in a few rural areas where population density is often very low, so its not much use to most people who are living in the cities, and is counter balanced by the release of heat energy from condensation higher up and affecting weather patterns and also the increased rainfall would likely exacerbate flooding.
And it adds to the greenhouse effect, which would negate a very significant part of the evaporative cooling effect. And of course you have to find trillions of litres of water from rivers and aquifers already under strain. Over irrigating the land also makes it water logged. I think Piotr may have pointed this out.
It doesnt look like a wise use of resources. Better to put these into reducing CO2 emissions.
Agreed. MS, JCM, and TK say “ignore carbon dioxide, we can do it all with giant irrigation schemes” school–which means that, whether they’re aware of it or not, they’re working for the interests of the fossil fuel industry. Their schemes are just wrong; they won’t work; they’re pseudoscience. But if you point that out to them, you’re part of the (alleged) CO2-only AGW conspiracy. They can’t be taught. But we can at least set lurkers right.
“Better to put these into reducing CO2 emissions.”
The politics of the matter and solutions-oriented focus is influencing our ability to comprehend what is the nature of the system.
The irrigationists, too, are offering a solutions-oriented perspective on the system. They seek to engineer the lost ecosystem services after the fact.
While not explicitly stated, the irrigationists likely concede that one of the many mechanisms of unnatural temperature changes at various scales is the profound loss of historical evapotranspiration ability in space and duration. That is the root of the observation. The “land-use” change albedo parameter does not scratch the surface.
Coupled to profound loss of historical evaporative landscape is the increasing hydrological extremes associated with concrete-like catchments. Lands characterized by unnaturally flashy hydrographs with net loss of moisture.
The psycho-social forces are powerful on these pages and insidiously erode productive discourse. I detect a lot of baggage here and mis-categorization of your allies in earth science.
sustained!
@nigelj says: – ” increasing the irrigation of the land … will lead to more evaporation and a cooling effect. ”
ms: — !!! IT IS THE IPCC; WHO CLAIMS THAT !!!
…and in the 35 years of activity of the IPCC – ! the most important climate gate and failure of this organization. !
Actually, in the relevant IPCC graphic (see below) instead of “irrigation and albedo” there should be two other terms, namely * evapotranspiration and cloud albedo *, because even YOU CANNOT EXPLAIN what the difference in evaporative cooling between artificial irrigation and natural precipitation should be.
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/a/a0/Physical_Drivers_of_climate_change.svg/450px-Physical_Drivers_of_climate_change.svg.png
In addition, it is now well known that the UHI and the warming in regions where there is extensive deforestation are mainly based on decreasing evaporation. I estimate the man-made losses since industrialization alone at ~ 6800km³ – 6-7 times as high as the current evaporation from irrigation (~1000km³), which the IPCC assigns a cooling effect of 0.15°C.
So we can attribute a warming over land areas of about ~1°C since 1750-1850 to the evaporation losses. Since the land areas have warmed by approx. 1.56°C to date, increasing concentrations of greenhouse gases can only be responsible for a temperature trend of approx. 0.56°C.
This is described in more detail on my website – and the CERES data since 2000 also speak a clear language in this regard. The trend towards desert and clear sky atmosphere is very clear in the following global energy balance.
https://climateprotectionhardware.files.wordpress.com/2023/03/geb_2000-2020finish.png?w=1024
MS. The IPCC do indeed say ” increasing the irrigation of the land … will lead to more evaporation and a cooling effect. ” but I recall they ALSO say do not rely on it as a major climate mitigation tool.
And if I’m not mistaken, and I admit that I often am, water loss to evaporation is already a big conservation problem in stressed arid lands. See the American Southwest, for example.
And just as a word of caution regarding water in general, note Syria’s civil war, sparked by draught, and what has evolved out of that.
Yes!
@ R. Havers
You are hardly mistaken here.
And if you whish to become unpopular in this world, then take in by an Arab, They are especially known for their hospitality. And begin stealing his water!
A colleage quite practical, went through Sahara with his Landrover. And thought, when we go to Sahara, then perhaps build in an extra tank of freshwater in the Landrover….
That showed very practical. That tank opened all doors. Because, When 2 high Beduins meet with their camels in Sahara, they give out and exchange a glass of water first.
Because if you cannot do that and have gone out in Sahara without enough water, you are a child having ran away from your mother, and duty to Allah is to help you home to your Mother then. Which is expensive.
Or you are a crook who is out for other peoples water.
Climate, water, and food insecurity are certainly linked. One of the causal links in Syria’s “bread war” is climate change.
Here are some knock on effects: the civil war draws in Russia; Russia commits atrocities with impunity; emboldened, Putin struts into Ukraine; shit hits the fan; grain supply from Ukraine is jeopardized; the world’s boat is rocked; political realignments ensue… fubar, fubar, fubar.
Not saying climate change is the sole cause of this mess, just that it’s a multiplier. It makes everything worse.
And yeah, don’t play games with people’s water.
Personally, I think there can be local advantages to more wetland, more tree cover, etc. Evapotranspiration is usually A Good Thing.
But it’s delusional to think that we’re going to be able to manipulate the water content of the entire atmosphere in this manner, and thereby mitigate AGW.
Dear nigelj,
Actually, I started the present discussion with proposal of an urban experiment.
If we need lot of electricity for air conditioning during sunny summer days, it might be good producing it locally from solar panels.
The possible disadvantage may be that the “waste” heat caused by low albedo of solar cells in combination with their low efficiency may worsen the “urban heat island effect”.
Interestingly, some climate models predicted that massive solar installations should bring more precipitation into deserts e.g. in Saudi Arabia. I therefore came to an idea that it could be perhaps possible to test these predictions and reliability of the respective models in urban heat islands as practical models of the desert and of the contemplated solar installations therein.
And, to make the test more convincing, I suggested to test in parallel also the opposite hypothesis that asserts that making the desert even hotter brings hardly more precipitation thereto. This dissent hypothesis asserts, instead, that we should restore the small water cycle in dry arid areas first. This hypothesis assumes that if we succed with creating sufficiently strong local water cycle on the land, it becomes self-sustaining, because it will re-start also the broken long range water transport from the ocean.
The second, parallel branch of the proposed urban experiment should therefore test this alternative hypothesis, by collecting precipitation in cities and using the collected water for irrigation and spray-cooling of streets, roofs, etc.. That could include also evaporative cooling of the installed solar panels.
Large-scale solar energy production could be then designed properly depending on the results. Honestly, I do not dare to predict which of the both opposite approaches will be more successful in bringing more precipitation into treated urban heat islands, and would be very curious which models will correctly predict the outcome of the urban experiments.
The idea with sea water is nothing else than a logical extension of the proposed experiment (in case that it confirms the “wet” alternative as the right one) to arid areas, wherein we do not have enough water for restarting the water cycle. Of course it would not be good to just spray the salt water on the ground, as Piotr objects. We should just allow the salt water concentrate, not evaporate to dryness. The resulting brine could be then either deposited in already existing salt lakes, or brought back into the ocean (provided that it would have not be harmful e g. for sea streams).
I do not think that any of the people discussing the importance of water cycle herein is an agent of evil represented by fossil fuel industry. We have just a concern that proposed climate repair by decarbonization may fail if we do not repair the broken water cycle in parallel.
We think so because we assume, contrary to you, that 130 000 km3 annual precipitation does represent huge neat cooling effect in the global climate, and because we afraid that the land-ocean heat exchange has been strongly deteriorated by human activities in the past, with the result that present latent heat flow on land may be significantly lower in comparison with the past.
I do not know if it is true – maybe the global warming will make Sahara green automatically without my ridiculous proposals. There are some predictions of this kind as well. From my perspective of former chemical technologist, making an experiment in a significantly smaller scale and then upscaling step-by-step is a good practice, much more reliable than directly designing an industrial plant or establishing a policy merely on basis of a theoretical model, irrespective how impressive the model may look like.
Greetings
Tom
Note the climatologically-effective albedo of a solar panel, arguably, should include the efficiency. If a 20% eff. panel replaces a surface of 20% albedo, there would be no net change (aside from aging, derating (reductions in actual efficiency)… and evapotranspiration, although shade-grown crops are a thing but they wouldn’t need as much H2O, presumably…) – except for the heat from the use of the electricity, which I am taking as a given here. Of course, solar panels are (at least generally, AFAIK) more efficient when they are cooler (makes since given they are effectively heat engines wherein the charge carriers are the working fluid and the crystal lattice (or amorphous structure) of atoms is the heat sink (which extracts a portion of the energy along with the bulk of their entropy, leaving the potential to do work (electrochemical potential – difference between quasi-fermi levels? in the two bands), if I understand it correctly) – but it may be better to do this through water preheating in a rooftop or perhaps community-based setting?
Tomáš Kalisz
“We have just a concern that proposed climate repair by decarbonization may fail if we do not repair the broken water cycle in parallel.”
Humans have indeed disrupted the water cycle. For example deforestation reduces evaporatative cooling locally, but this is not a reason to dream up experiments to spray water everywhere at massive scale to combat global warming as a whole. This is not a sensible way to repair the water cycle for reasons stated above. Instead deforerstation is a reason to plant more trees, which has multiple benefits including a bit of local cooling.
And clearly planting gardens and watering them is a good thing. And spraying water to combat a heat weave might make sense. Your comments on solar panels may have validity. The IPCC does say irrigation causes a local cooling effect – but I recall they say not to rely on it as a major climate mitigation tool.
“We think so because we assume, contrary to you, that 130 000 km3 annual precipitation does represent huge neat cooling effect in the global climate.
It’s very difficult to understand how rainfall would cause a net climate cooling effect when 1) the cooling of the air near ground level is balanced by warming due to condensation higher up and 2) it only rains a small percentage of the time (places like Norway excepted) . Either way a strategy to cool the climate by increasing the rainfall would clearly and obviously require massive resources for very minimal effect and risk causing flooding.
Or perhaps you mean water vapour has a net cooling effect on the climate? Increasing the level of water vapour has a net warming effect according to the IPCC. This is not an assumption, it is calculated. Also read Piotrs related comments and maths above June 10 “Nigel, Mr. Shurly is subtracting apples from oranges….” So deliberately increasing the water vapour by irrigation and evaporation at large scale as a major mitigation tool to cool the climate doesn’t make much sense. You have got quite a few scientists telling you that in various ways. I’m not a scientist, but its fairly obvious to me.
@nigelj says:
– ” Humans have indeed disrupted the water cycle.
– The IPCC does say irrigation causes a local cooling effect ”
ms: — nigelj – it is not a local effect, but a global cooling effect of ~ -0.15°C shown in the IPCC graph, which is of course caused by the many local irrigation events.
In comparison, we currently have a global warming trend of +0.22°C per decade.
To declare -0,15°C as a minor effect is a great, historical stupidity of Piotr, Zebra, Bpl, Carbomontanus… and some other desert lurkers here in the forum. With just 1025km³/y additional evaporation we could stop global warming and turn it back by years. At the same time, however, you should see that the man-made loss of evaporative landscapes and disrupted water cycles is meanwhile happily spreading, as you yourself attest.
– The current annual evaporation from global irrigation with ~ 2560km³ is ~ 1025km³ and is therefore only ~ 38% efficient for the plants. Simply increasing efficiency and switching to more efficient irrigation of 76% (drip irrigation / Israel is world champion) could bring about this cooling effect. What can it cost? you always ask first…just ask the Israelis.
A little-recognized effect of effective irrigation is the miraculous increase in evaporation, which consists of evaporation, clouds, and precipitation from irrigation striking a land surface again, thereby amplifying the cooling effect of the small water cycles through repetition.
We see the great water cycle in the GEB (land only) by Wild et al :
https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s00382-014-2430-z/figures/2
~ 19W/m² (~ 46200km³) net are imported from the oceans and a bit more flows back into the sea via the rivers, since the continents have been drained by about 100km³/y for many decades. The small water cycles (38W/m²) correspond to the amounts of water that circulate over the land areas and which we increase by ~ 2% = ~ 0.7W/m² by irrigating 1025km³/y.
Since Aristotle ~ 2% more clouds are formed due to 2% more evaporation. So the cloud albedo over the land area increases by ~ 0.94W/m² (2% * -47W/m²) according to the graphic below by M. Wild et al.
The GHE generated by additional clouds is ~ +0.56W/m², – resulting in a net cooling effect of ~ 0.38W/m² – a radiative forcing that then also goes well with the IPCC graph and the stated cooling of -0 .05°C to 0.15°C .
The problem with the IPCC, and yours, is that you cannot quantify the warming potential of human-induced evaporative losses. I calculate them at least
6800km³/y, which have accumulated since ~1850.
Macias Shurly
“it is not a local effect, (irrigating the worlds crops causing cooling) but a global cooling effect of ~ -0.15°C shown in the IPCC graph, which is of course caused by the many local irrigation events.”
OK, although that cooling is experienced most strongly near the irrigation. Whether it is a significant number depends on perspective. You say its significant compared to a decade of warming (0.22 degrees). Its fairly insignificant given we have already had one degree of warming and could have about 4 degrees of warming. So you will have to put me in the same box as the other desert walkers, (BPL, Piotr, etc, ect)
“With just 1025km³/y additional evaporation we could stop global warming and turn it back by years…..The current annual evaporation from global irrigation with ~ 2560km³ is ~ 1025km³ and is therefore only…”
This is not stopping global warming. It is only countering the warming effect near ground level, not the additional energy in the system, and it is only countering just one decades worth of global warming approximately (0.22 degrees). Global warming will then march on unless we stop emissions.
And this is a huge amount of water. Its not clear how making use of irrigation more efficient (less irrigation for same outcome for the crops) helps because this would reduce the quantity of water used. It just doesn’t look very practical from any angle. Just because the maths says it can be done in theory doesnt make it practical.
To cancel a degree of warming would need about seven times more global irrigation! Even less practical and definitely in the crank science category. Plenty of people have noted the numerous practical difficulties and deficiencies so no need to repeat them (Piotr, BPL, Zebra, RL, etc)
“A little-recognized effect of effective irrigation is the miraculous increase in evaporation”
How much does the evaporation increase and please provide copy and paste and a link. Im a bit suspicious of miracles. .
IMO the way to look at the issues is to be holistic. So how do we shift things in a more positive direction environmentally that has multiple benefits and minimal downsides, and works well as a whole, and is likely to gain traction with the public ? ,Plant crops for food as required and minimise non sustainable industrial inputs, water the crops, plant forests, water the young forests, restore wetlands, conserve water, and yes make irrigation more efficient. This all improves a range of outcomes, and has some cooling as a side effect without adding to the GHE significantly.
ms: The problem with the IPCC, and yours, is that you cannot quantify the warming potential of human-induced evaporative losses. I calculate them at least
6800km³/y, which have accumulated since ~1850.
BPL: Then write up your thesis as a paper and submit it to a peer-reviewed journal. Pontificating about it on an internet blog won’t get you anywhere.
Hr Scürle
Here you are deeply misconsceived and uneducated again.
It aint not recommended just to paint that and then expect people to buy it, they will feel cheated and sue you for fraud, and you will have to pay your lawyers also.
Honesty is the best policy Genosse Schürle.
Aristoteles did not discuss Nephelai. That was Aristophanes, do not mix up those two.
When one bitty of water goes up…. anything but one bitty of clouds will be formed
I consult my painters and tell them and teach them, and they are doing the work for me and they thank me for it, serve me, defend me, and protect me.
. Surrealism is also quite a style and an art and I am quite good at that also, genosse.
But I once said to a seeminhgly quite decadent, chronically intoxicaded personality from India, who was out after Isopropanol in the lab for more efficient burst, that “Art must stand on Knowledge!”
“No!” he replied.
I never heard or saw from him since.
His ” fameous” paintings were hardly more than dark obscure figureless smearings.
How to shake up and scare the world with paint and to make them pay and even come on the national Museum for it,….. that is quite an art.
There is a history of Till Eulenspiegel & al having performed Des Keisers neuen Kleider as Painters in Bohemia for the high nosed noblesse there fahionable political court and ballroom decorations, ,……. earnt Dalers Wines, Beer, Ham, Sausseages, Schwarzbrot, and Materials for it for several weeks, and having got away with it also.
Art, not even Comedian art, liberates you from knowing how and from knowing what.
The Schürlers seem to be lacking BACCALAVREVS 1 and ARTES LIBERALES TRIVIVM & QVADRIVIVM, together EXAMEN ARTIVM , so they hardly keep up, not even with Eulenspiegel in the disputes, and in the climate.
In Re to nigelj,
https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2023/06/unforced-variations-jun-2023/#comment-812294
Dear nigelj,
Thank you very much for your questions and have my apologies for the delayed reply that I still owe to you.
Let me go through the arguments I presented in an earlier post
https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2023/06/unforced-variations-jun-2023/#comment-812320
and amend them slightly therein.
1) A crucial point that I strive to clarify is the still widespread belief that latent heat flux may cool Earth surface but cannot have a global importance because the respective condensation heat released in the troposphere “remains in the system”. In my opinion, this view is entirely false and misleading, because the released heat in fact does not “heat” troposphere. Actually, it drives weather phenomena across the globe and, in annual average, it escapes to the space in form of infrared radiation, wherein the corresponding mean energy flow about 80 W/m2 must in its annual sum over the globe quite exactly correspond to the condensation heat of water corresponding to the global annual precipitation.
This assumption will be fulfilled almost exactly in case that the average global temperature remains stable, then also absolute water vapour content (according to macias about 13 000 km3) remains constant. Nevertheless, even in case that, according to various estimations, a global mean temperature rise 1 K brings a 1 % (130 km3) increase in the average absolute humidity, this additional 130 km3 is a negligible amount in comparison with global annual sum of precipitation which is about 500 000 000 km3.
In other words, it is from my point of view a very reasonable assumption that any change in global annual precipitation does quite exactly represent a corresponding change in the latent heat flow that cools the Earth surface – the more accurately, the less the mean annual temperature changes.
The energy flow about 80 W/m2 transported in the atmosphere by latent energy (LE) flux is thus a neat cooling effect, very important for the actual difference between the average surface temperature (about 15 °C) and average emission temperature of the Earth (about – 18 °C) which we used to call the “greenhouse effect”.
2) The above described cooling effect does no way disprove the fact that a substantial part of the RADIATIVE greenhouse effect, caused by absorption of the infrared radiation released from Earth surface and described as a downwelling radiation from the atmosphere that HEATS the surface, is caused by water vapour in the atmosphere. It is my understanding that, due to the circumstance that water condenses and precipitates and its content in the atmosphere is thus almost independent from the water cycle intensity, the cooling effect of water cycle is basically decoupled from the heating effect of the water vapour in the atmosphere – the more precisely the accurately the average global temperature remains stable.
3) I see as quite unfortunate that in popular discussions about climate, it is often assumed that the “observed” greenhouse effect (in terms of temperature difference between mean global surface temperature and average emission temperature) is basically identical with the radiative greenhouse effect. In the present debate, many colleagues still seem to assume that it must be so because “it is scientifically proven that the greenhouse effect is caused by greenhouse gases”. Nevertheless, the average global surface temperature is in fact a result of an actual balance between cooling effect of energy flows from the surface (wherein the LE seems to still play a decisive role) and energy flows towards the surface (that are definitely influenced by the increasing radiative greenhouse effect).
4) If any change of the global mean temperature must be caused by a change in this balance between “heating” and “cooling”, it seems reasonable to ask questions in which extent an observed change was caused by a change in cooling and in which extent by a change in heating, what factors may cause a coupling / feedback between cooling and heating, and in which extent we can manage one or another part of this balance artificially, by human intervence.
Greetings
Tom
Tomas Kalisz
Thanks for your comments.
Unfortunately you are back with your notion that evaporation can somehow cool the atmosphere near the ground, and also remove heat from the earths system with the heat of condensation all escaping to space. But its basic climate science that most of that heat does not escape. You have been told this many times by the experts.
You are also back claiming water vapour has a net cooling effect. Your fancy words, evidence free assertions, feelings and unsubstantiated opinions dont convince me. The IPCC review the peer reviewed science that shows water vapour has a net warming effect. Piotr responded to MS showing water vapour has a net warming effect by doing the maths. (Piotr 10 June above thread). Until you prove them all wrong mathematically in neatly tabulated form you are not remotely convincing to me. I’m sure other casual readers of this website would concur with me.
Nobody here has claimed the observed temperature is not a result of a mixing of warming and cooling effects. So your claim is a strawman.
You probably genuinely believe your ideas but they are wrong and clearly belong in the crank science category. I do suspect you are essentially trolling, and work for a climate denialist agency of some sort. Your style indicates you have had some schooling in public relations techniques by some agency.
TK: A crucial point that I strive to clarify is the still widespread belief that latent heat flux may cool Earth surface but cannot have a global importance because the respective condensation heat released in the troposphere “remains in the system”. In my opinion, this view is entirely false and misleading, because the released heat in fact does not “heat” troposphere. Actually, it drives weather phenomena across the globe and, in annual average, it escapes to the space in form of infrared radiation, wherein the corresponding mean energy flow about 80 W/m2 must in its annual sum over the globe quite exactly correspond to the condensation heat of water corresponding to the global annual precipitation.
BPL: The latent heat flux from the surface, of perhaps 80 watts per square meter, is an energy output from the surface but an energy input to the atmosphere. It cools the surface but warms the air.
1 m * 500 *10^12 m^2 = 500 E12 m^3 = 500 E3 km^3 = 500,000 km^3 (U.S. usage of comma); – I think you left an extra factor of 1000 in your conversions.
Did you see my series of comments starting here:
https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2023/06/unforced-variations-jun-2023/#comment-812388
Yes, take away the latent heat part of convection, and the surface would be warmer. Remover the greenhouse effect, leaving everything else the same, and aside from a few caveats …
(imperfect surface LW emissivity would raise the equilibrium Temperature, the nonlinearity of the Planck function over temperature combined with horizontal-temporal temperature variability would lower the equilibrium Temperature)
…, the surface temp ~255 K, regardless of convection – in fact it would be difficult to sustain convection in that case (direct solar heating of the atmosphere would actually make the whole atmosphere like a stratosphere-thermosphere hybrid; a non-radiative flux would be necessary to bring this heat down to the surface; it’s hard to get convection to do that, so it would tend to be largely conduction/diffusion(?)). The convective lapse rate modulates the temperature effect of the greenhouse effect. Convection is assumed to be allowed, according to the applicable physics, when the greenhouse effect is stated as ~33 K.
Thomas, you say:
This, as they say, is clear as mud. Let’s break it down.
What about the radiant energy passing through the atmosphere in both directions? Don’t those fluxes also drive weather phenomena? How could they fail to do so?
Wait, how is that possible if it “does not “heat” troposphere?”
OK, that at least makes some sense; if the heat fluxes resulting from evaporation and condensation didn’t balance over time, we’d presumably have been in big, big, BIG climate change trouble eons ago. But if they balance over, say, multi-annual time scales, then where’s the energy coming from to “[drive] weather phenomena across the globe?”
My familiarity with thermodynamics is quite superficial, but that doesn’t seem right.
Of course, if you truly remove all the greenhouse effect and keep solar heating as is, I’m guessing that much of the atmosphere would get so hot it would start to glow in the same parts of the spectrum in which it absorbs solar energy. This would reduce the equilibrium surface temp.
And actually, O2 and N2 do have a little bit of a greenhouse effect – small compared to CO2, H2O, clouds …?, and much more so on a per mole basis of course (neither O2 nor N2 has a built in electric dipole (like H2O) or a vibrationally-induced electric dipole (eg. CO2 bending and antisymmetric stretching modes), but there are magnetic and quadrupole… stuff (See “rotational-vibrational spectroscopy” at Wikipedia, also “rotational spectroscopy”)
But anyway…
(Using a globally-representative 1-D column perspective:) Introducing latent heat fluxes to convection reduces the temp. of the surface and some lowest part of the troposphere and raises the temp higher in the troposphere, by changing the tropospheric (convective) lapse rate(s) – while holding the greenhouse effect and solar heating steady. In this case, the total net LW (radiant) flux + net convective fluxes remains the same (in climatological equilibrium) as they must to balance solar heating. This would also be true even if the greenhouse effect changed, so long as solar heating is held fixed. In the case of surface wetting to allow evaporation and the latent heat flux, the general reduction in the vertical temperature gradient (at least near the surface) would tend to reduce the net upward LW flux (near the surface), and I imagine the net upward SH flux as well (near the surface), with increased LH flux taking up the slack. Enhancing the greenhouse effect would tend to reduce the net upward LW flux even more, and require some increase in the combination of LH and SH net upward fluxes (so as to balance solar heating).
As to whether the combination of adding H2O vapor and clouds, along with the energy fluxes of the water cycle, has a net reduction of surface temperature, I don’t know offhand. I’m not sure if Piotr’s method will lead to the correct conclusion – the fluxes that sustain an equilibrium are not always the best guide to what happens in a change (eg. greenhouse gases+clouds allow net radiant cooling of the atmosphere wherever solar or convective heating occurs. Increasing the greenhouse effect does not tend to cool the troposphere, although it does tend to cool the solar heated parts of the approx. non-convecting layers above – specifics depending on spectra; some cooling can occur there even without solar heating, etc.). The Manabe and Strickler article did not present a dry-convective adjustment for CO2+O3 gases by themselves; that could be compared to the 6.5 K/km lapse rate adjustment for H2O+clouds+CO2+O3.
But the conclusions therein wouldn’t necessarily apply to the totality of the effects of forced surface wetting such as by irrigation, relative to the baseline that already has a lot of wet surface area, in particular given the particular space-time-weather distribution.
It could also be different from the lapse rate+H2O+cloud feedback to global warming (PS the feedbacks are entwined as the lapse rate affects the distribution of H2O and clouds), wherein the RH, at least in a global sense, doesn’t change much, and the lapse rate change is due to the (Clausius-Clapeyron) H2O saturation vapor pressure’s temperature dependence. With forced (as opposed to climate-maintained) surface wetting, you would tend to increase the RH near the surface in various locations and times.
PS the IPCC https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar6/wg1/ – see https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar6/wg1/chapter/chapter-7/ , section 7.4.2 about feedbacks (7.4.2.2 covers the lapse rate and water vapor feedbacks)
… I was going to say some other things but Barton Paul Levenson and Kevin McKinney beat me to it.
Well, I will just add – note that with the convective lapse rate change, surface cooling and upper-tropospheric warming that occur when LH flux is ‘turned on’:
As I said, the net upward LW (radiant) flux decreases. This is due to a combination of reduced emission from the surface and lower troposphere, and increased emission from the upper troposphere. Thus, Piotr is qualitatively correct – some of the upward LH flux causes an increased downward radiant flux – and reduced upward radiant flux, thus an additional net radiant radiant heating of the surface (the same is true for ‘turning on’ SH flux, relative to the pure radiative equilibrium case). Aside from the H2O+cloud radiant effects, this heating can only be < 100%, of the LH flux, because a decreased SH flux can make up the difference – the combined net upward convective + LW radiant fluxes have to balance net downward solar flux (and the total net LW cooling of the whole column (sfc+air) = OLR = solar heating; the warming and cooling have opposing effects on OLR which balance). So the fraction of downward radiation caused by water-cycle heating of the air is probably not determined by LH heating as a fraction of total heating of the air… but anyway, it does change the temperature distribution.
And then there is some warming + cooling acting on the whole troposphere+surface caused by H2O+cloud radiative effects.(with shifts in convection to balance the vertical distribution of radiant effects while maintaining the convective lapse rate, with all the complexities noted about the 4+D system…
But I do accept the finding that irrigation may be causing an average surface cooling (though so far I'm not sure about SSTs) – very uneven, but not entirely limited to just the locations where irrigation enhances evapotranspiration, and enhanced precipitation downwind, etc., but with at least one case of drying the irrigated area ('repelling' the monsoon rain), and maybe other cases of warming and drying…
(Carbomontanus got carried away with the drying example I mentioned – it doesn’t generalize so much. Of course it makes sense that a source of moisture could locally enhance precipitation – e.g. lake effect (or enhanced) snow – although temperature is a factor there… But it’s like being near the coast vs far inland, possibly in a rain shadow. Common sense suggests a seaway cutting through the high planes of North America ought to generally enhance precipitation in the center of the continent; then again, common sense has limits – My guess is monsoonal rains should respond differently than frontal cyclone rains/snow.)
– and reduce hot extremes.
And maybe with lower clouds having some additional cooling effect such that there doesn’t need to be much warming in the upper troposphere? (is it possible to have such an albedo effect so as to cool the whole troposphere depth (global annual average) this way?) Vs. enhanced greenhouse effect would it be possible to completely undo the surface cooling that way?)
Of course there is the surface emissivity/albedo effects, other complications I’ve previously mentioned, and the heat index (must be considered. And this will presumably depend on the location and timing of irrigation, the plant species, etc.
2 more quick points:
Of course, in an equilibrium climate state, there is no net heating or cooling within the system, in total, as the fluxes are balanced, and nothing changes that; it is when a change is made (to the boundary conditions, ie. a (change in) forcing), there is a change in equilibrium, and so there is a disequilibrium, ie, a net imbalance in fluxes (of energy and/or other things) that decays over time as the climate responds to approach the new equilibrium. It is during this change when there is an unbalanced, generally decaying but otherwise sustained/persistent (time-average), net heating or cooling (or net acceleration, net divergence of mass, etc., depending on the type of change) in various parts of the system. The resulting changes in temperature, momentum, etc., cause other flux changes that tend to restore the balance.
2.
Yes, convective and conduction/molecular diffusion fluxes (generally when we speak of convection from the surface, it is implicit that we are including the initial step of conduction/diffusion through the surface and thin layer of air in immediate contact with the surface (PS this leads to a potential for a significant drop in T from the surface to the air a short height above; evapotranspiration reduces this; I expect enhanced surface area (eg. leaves, sea spray) would also help (including with SH transfer). But a hot surface (other things being =) will emit more radiation, some of which may get through the atmospheric window, and that can actually have a cooling effect for the atmosphere, in equilibrium terms) are treated differently from radiant fluxes, but I believe for good reason.
Photons can generally traverse macroscopic distances, even in the most strongly absorbing parts of the spectrum, except perhaps for within dense clouds(?). This means the net radiant LW flux is not tied to the local temperature gradient; it depends on spatial differences in temperature, but this may be temperatures some cm to m to km to 10s of km distant. It helps to be aware of where both the upward and downward fluxes are coming from, then. (The greenhouse effect basically works by limiting how far you can see in heat vision.)
In contrast, net SH and LH fluxes depend on the enthalpy in the air that is moving, and so depend on the local temperature and H2O concentration (relative to air, ie. specific humidity or mixing ratio).
In fact, the SH and LW fluxes stated are commonly net fluxes; in typical Earthly conditions, decending air is not completely devoid of H2O, nor is it at 0 K. So there is a significant downward flux; the upward flux is just larger. And that’s just convection/advection strictly speaking. Imagine the upward and downward fluxes of molecular energy and H2O molecules through molecular collisions and diffusion. I’m guessing these values are enormous at most heights. But they are generally very, very, very close to equal, except very near the surface, and a very thin (by mass) layer at TOA (upper thermosphere) – due to the long mean free paths there (but perhaps not much H2O at all to work with at that level) (the other instances where molecular diffusion and conduction are important (AFAIK) involve cloud microphysics (growth and evaporation of cloud droplets and ice crystals, while keeping temperature of the air and condensed water similar) and other aerosols.
I just remembered the other points I wanted to share:
Yes, atmospheric H2O amount and the rate of H2O cycling are not simply proportional. There could be ways, I believe, to have one fixed while the other changes. For example, I’m guessing a sufficient combination of solar brightening (increased solar heating) and reduced greenhouse effect might keep the same amount of H2O in the air while increasing the rate of cycling (evap. and precip. (+dew+frost)) (?? I might be wrong about this?) – in the global time average.
Remember that (changes caused by) UHI have been edited out of the temperature records used to assess large-scale climate change for the purposes of being able to attribute changes to other causes, eg. CO2, CH4, aerosols, etc. UHI may have local indirect effects (downwind precip. enhancement? – could be used to farmer’s advantages?), but …
In addition to evapotranspiration changes, there is a urban greenhouse effect at street-level due to the surrounding buildings (they can block radiation) (Related – mountain-valley breeze diurnal cycle).
Also, runoff could enhance evapotranspiration in the places it ends up, if it doesn’t simply go into rivers, etc. (assuming river surface area, etc., and surrounding water table are not changed much…) – in a climate with dry periods, such places could remain cooler for longer after the last rains/etc. I’ve suggested runoff from solar power plants (the kind that would have runoff – ie., as opposed to providing shade for crops) could be used to boost production of neighboring land.
But obviously, it benefits the people in urban areas to reduce UHI.
Which reminds me, I forgot about solar panel LW emissivity when I commented on their effective albedo earlier. I’ve read there are way(s?) to increase the emissivity to help the panels cool a bit.
@ Thomas Kalisz
” I do not think that any of the people discussing the importance ofv water cycle herin is an agent of evil represented by fossil industry….. repair by decarbonization may fail …. better repair the broken water cycle in parallel.”
I cannot see that “the water cycle” is any kind of broken.
And “If it aint broken, dont mend it!”
The land ocean water cycle is an old mysterium..
A certain Athanasius Kirchner did even suggest that the oceans are drained by a fameous Turbo , the “Maelstrom” outside of Lofoten known by the Hansa from medeival time and is re-cycled throught tunnels and convectional tubes underground and out again as water- wells at the top of the Alps.
Meant for serious.
in order to clear up the mysterious water- cycle.
Published in finest luxurious Vatican print and press, issued with golden swine leather for everyman everyone.to believe in.
Moral: if there is anything broken or changing by the water cyclus, then look to the flow of the worlds freshwater rivers first. It is called hydrology. And then try and explain how that can go on and on and on even with Turbo.
I learnt it in public school how that cycle is sustained. and thus how we can turbo sustainable
turboconvectional electricity from it even from latent flux flow of energy..
There must be limits and Kircher went beyond the limits and is labeled the man of misconsceptions by Scientific American.
Tomas Kalisz: “I do not think that any of the people discussing the importance of water cycle herein is an agent of evil represented by fossil fuel industry.”
If they are not paid by the fossil fuel lobby, then they are what Lenin’ called: “useful idiots”
of the fossil fuel interests.
If somebody promotes manipulating global water cycle INSTEAD of dealing with root cause of climate change, and persist in promoting it despite being shown again and again that it can’t possibly work – then the difference between a paid denialist and a useful idiot who does it for his ideology or ego gratification – no longer matters. By their fruits you shall know them.
@piotr says: – ” By their fruits you shall know them. ”
ms: — The transpiration of 1025km³/y of irrigation via photosynthesis absorbs about 3.7 to 7.4Gt CO2 – (10-20% of annual man-made CO2 emissions) – more than the decarbonization strategists will achieve in the next few decades.
If I develop water-cooled PV-T modules with similar specifications as the datasheet below…-
https://sunmaxx-pvt.com/wp-content/uploads/Vers-2.7-Sunmaxx_PX-1-PVT-Modul_Deu_inwork-1_a4.pdf
…then certainly to promote decarbonization. So where is the problem to drive both strategies, to mitigate the consequences for future generations.
Your role here in the forum seems more like that of a brake pad with an integrated puke bag.
” You shall recognize them by their fruit. “
Piotr: “If somebody promotes manipulating global water cycle INSTEAD of dealing with root cause of climate change, and persist in promoting it despite being shown again and again that it can’t possibly work – then the difference between a paid denialist and a useful idiot who does it for his ideology or ego gratification – no longer matters. By their fruits you shall know them”
macias shurly: “If I develop water-cooled PV-T module then certainly to promote decarbonization”
Then what are you still doing here? Don’t talk, go and develop it, INSTEAD of what you
have been doing so far – playing into the hands of the fossil fuel lobby by implying that we don’t need to decarbonize, because we take care of GW … by evaporating enough water – see the Kalisz’s proposal supported by you and JCM.
By their fruits you shall know them. Matt. 7:16-20
Yep. Funny, I’ve been thinking the same thing. Another one,
James 3:10-11
But again, I’m an agnostic.
Piotr, “playing into the hands of the fossil fuel lobby by implying that we don’t need to decarbonize, because we take care of GW … by evaporating enough water”
Exactly. What they are trying to accomplish, as far as I can tell, is analogous to being told by a doctor that one has life threatening lung cancer and he needs to immediately</b stop smoking. They will cut it out as best they can and give you chemotherapy, but the tobacco companies that you’ve been giving a lot of money to whisper in your ear, “Nah. You can keep on smoking. Just take the chemo or you can go to this fancy European health spa for one of their fancy treatments”. Who logically would you trust and what should you do?
Come on, why all these backflips just so we can continue a bad habit? It’s not that hard.
@ Tom says: –
” The possible disadvantage may be that the “waste” heat caused by low albedo of solar cells in combination with their low efficiency may worsen the “urban heat island effect. ”
ms: — Somewhere at some point I suggested to you to heat the winter with the warmth of summer and cool the summer with the cold of winter. However, this requires a powerful heat generator such as PV-T modules, which BTW I develop myself and which feed the heat into larger, seasonal heat storage and thus quadruple the energy efficiency of PV panels.
The right heat pump converts this heat store into an ice store in winter, which can also be charged with heat on milder winter days (> 0°C). I consider air conditioners to be inefficient power guzzlers and ultimately they heat up cities even more (UHI). My carbon footprint consists at least mostly of heating and hot water needs.
Tom says: – ” Interestingly, some climate models predicted that massive solar installations should bring more precipitation into deserts e.g. in Saudi Arabia. ”
ms: — Somewhere I pointed out to you that in many deserts between the equator and 23,5°, very dry air flows in from ABOVE and significantly reduces the chance of convective cells with subsequent precipitation.
But I don’t want to destroy a well-intentioned but not very promising vision without naming an alternative. —
Invest part of your PV electricity in desalination plants and thus combine to AGRO-PV. Or build your PV systems over freshwater lakes, e.g. Lake Victoria (>60000km²). Each m² of swimming PV can reduce evaporation by ~1000-2000mm/y and still keep the lake water cooler. The cooler water remaining in the lake increases the output of hydroelectric power plants downstream and can be used for agricultural irrigation along the Nile to Egypt.
This only increases total evaporation over the course of many years, because it allows vegetation in the desert to spread out more easily without damaging the tropical, water-rich region around Lake Victoria.
PV over freshwater lakes between 50°S and 50°N can make a huge contribution to increasing or maintaining water availability.
Tomas,
I think that perhaps part of the problem you have is that your language is imprecise. While it is true that modulating the water cycle can have significant effects on local climate, it will not significantly affect the global climate. This is because the hydrological cycle is confined to the lower troposphere. It will not significantly affect either the solar energy coming in or the LWIR escaping the planet (except perhaps for a small effect due to clouds–which, depending on the type of cloud can either warm or cool the planet. An IR photon is either outside the absorption bands of the GHGs (in which case, it will escape), or it is (in which case there is plenty of CO2 above cloud tops to absorb it before it escapes. Earth ain’t a swamp cooler.
In re to Ray Ladbury,
https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2023/06/unforced-variations-jun-2023/#comment-812329
Dear Ray,
Thank you very much for comment. It appears that we have not clarified yet whether or not the Earth atmosphere acts as the “closed room” with respect to heat released by water vapour condensation in the troposphere.
Let me return to my doubts about your opinion that I expressed in my earlier posts
https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2023/06/unforced-variations-jun-2023/#comment-812139
and
https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2023/05/unforced-variations-may-2023/comment-page-2/#comment-811920.
As you have not explained the objected discrepancies in your opinion, and as further contributions by Patrick o twentyseven
https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2023/06/unforced-variations-jun-2023/#comment-812164
and JCM
https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2023/06/unforced-variations-jun-2023/#comment-812161
contradict your opinion (and from my point of view sound convincingly), I must respectfully disagree with your assertion that Earth surface cooling by latent heat flux (LE) cannot play a role in global energy budget (GEB).
I think that my view is supported also by the circumstance that LE is a standard part of various GEB schemes discussed on this forum, and that its present value about 80 W/m2 seems to fit very well with mean total annual precipitation (about 990 mm), in accordance with the simple assumption that if the evaporated water should release its latent heat, it must condense and return back on the Earth surface in form of precipitation.
See also another short explanation of the direct relationship between the LE and mean global annual precipitation in my post https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2023/06/unforced-variations-jun-2023/#comment-812320.
Please note that in Trenberth’s diagrams showing the GEB, neat value of the upwelling infrared radiation from the Earth surface diminishes as the opaqueness of the atmosphere towards IR rises. According to these ubiquitous GEB schemes, non-radiative heat transport mechanisms prevail, and LE is the most important one.
Please consider these arguments and, in case that you still find your view in accordance with standard climatology represented by the above mentioned GEB schemes, explain in more detail why do you think so.
Greetings
Tomáš
Tomas,
The basic problem is this: More evaporation does not move the heat high enough into the atmosphere that it escapes the planet. More water vapor also absorbs more heat. Near cloud tops, the atmosphere is a lot cooler, and so it emits a lot less energy (Stefan-Boltzmann Law). If an outgoing IR photon is outside of the absorption bands of the greenhouse gasses, it escapes to space, regardless of where it is emitted. If it is within those bands, it only escapes if it is emitted high enough in the atmosphere that the probability of being re-absorbed is negligible. This altitude is referred to as Top of Atmosphere (TOA).
So, your proposal fails to remove heat due to increased IR, because it doesn’t move the heat high enough in the atmosphere AND because at those altitudes, the lower temperatures mean less heat is being emitted.
The proposed mechanism of clouds blocking incoming sunlight is not as easily dismissed. However, the atmosphere only holds so much water vapor, and clouds can both heat as well as cool. At most, it is likely to be a small feedback.
This is not to say that we should not be managing water, soil etc. better. It just isn’t going to be the game changer you seem to think it will be. There are no easy solutions. Plenty of very smart people have been looking for them for nearly half a century.
re Ray Ladbury – While I mainly agree with your policy recommendations, I think you’re looking at the spectrum in a too ‘black-and-white’ manner – optical depth spans a range from small to very large values over the spectrum. H2O vapor in particular provides a large bandwidth in which the emission weighting function, as seen from Space (or from TOA looking down), is largely in the troposphere. CO2 provides some such bandwidth as well, presumably all the GHGs do in various amounts. Clouds do as well.
An increased convective flux from the surface could heat the troposphere, including the upper troposphere (depending on the effective convective lapse rate or changes to it), so as to increase the temperature there, so as to increase net LW radiant cooling, to balance the reduction in net LW cooling at the surface and in the lowermost troposphere due to their decreased temperatures, so that the total OLR remains unchanged. Studies have been done which suggest irrigation may have a surface average cooling effect. (Perhaps it particularly enhances the coverage of lower, warmer clouds??) See my other comments above and below.
Kalisz
I have further elements to your irrigation argument.
First, a deciliter of hot water contains way less heat energy than 100 grams of hot steam, Proof, Espresso coffee machines.
Thus by steaming the water by solar on the ground and let it lift up to the clouds, you lift up solar warmth from the grounde to the clouds simply by free convection that takes no energty, rather delivers energy.
And you change it from dry to moist lapserate,…. by solar. You will cool the ground and heat up the middle troposphere. But from there you will have dry lapserate again up to the isoterm layer. That cannot change temperature.
Now , how is this possible?
I believe either it will become warmer elsewhere on the ground because of your spraying of water somewhere to cool it. the isotermj layer being steadily repaired by horizontal laminar convection….. ……. or….. the Isoterm layer will have to travel higher up.
And then you will have an overallo warmer global situation due to overall lapserate.
I even believe that this is a set of recent conventional IPCC theories that they have conscidered.
Wherefore they also explain it the easier way by constant solar and increasing CO2 in combination with constant cloudiness due to self- balancing water.
No water cyclus seems to be broken on an average globally.
Less cloudy in recent decades seems explained rather as the effect of still another element, Sulophur and transcision from oil and coal to gas, and shrubbing of the combustion exhausts.
Shrubbing reduces the white- cloud- parasol- effect for cooling. Sulophur and sulphates in the atmosphere cools the earth. That is also the main effect of the volcanic eruption global chill reaction. Maybe even the fameous little ice age. .
Yes, more rain may fall from less clouds. For rain to fall, there must be cloudy, and the clouds even solidly below the freezing points on the top.
All in all keep the isoterm layer and the lapserates and the conservation of energy in mind first, then thoughts get easier.
Else, you will run into collision with many real things and not just some participants on this website.
If you drain water from the colorado river to cool peoples lawns and living in southern california, you will have more evapotranspiration there , but get it hotter in Utah and Las Vegas. where you will have to run aircondition on fossile fuels. And Mexicans will blame you for stealing their water.
Maybe They Can’t/Don’t Read?
I actually did read the paper presented as Absolute Proof That Irrigation Works!!!!
https://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/docs/2009/2009_Sacks_sa02200i.pdf
And here’s what it says: (my bold)
And since even actually reducing GMST by itself doesn’t actually solve the energy imbalance, shall we call this stuff “absurdity^2” ?
My quick take on the deforestation/evaporation loss and the irrigation “solution” debate (if I’m understanding it right) is this: Yes, deforestation does reduce the transpiration losses from the pores of plants (though keep in mind that some of the hottest places on earth – the tropics – are also some of the wettest and most humid). And it’s true that evaporation (eg, sweating) does temporarily increase cooling (a reason why kangaroos lick their arms and stand in the shade when it’s hot out https://youtu.be/bbaX1yeSatQ ), but to, one, imagine that this would be a permanent solution to global warming, just keep irrigating the land (again, if I’m reading that right), and conveniently ignore Co2, a proven greenhouse gas,
https://www.nature.com/articles/nature06949/figures/2
would be pretty biasedly short-sighted.
https://www.carbonbrief.org/explainer-how-the-rise-and-fall-of-co2-levels-influenced-the-ice-ages/
Instead, can we stop deforestation ASAP please, plant a lot more trees, AND reduce Co2. While we are at it, let’s reduce the human population growth, which is at it’s root.
The irrigation solution advocates should know, btw, that temperatures are increasing, not just over land, but over oceans as well, and there’s all the water in the world and lots of evaporation happening there:
https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Parham-Habibzadeh/publication/342118086/figure/fig1/AS:904147901620224@1592577066373/World-Temperature-Map-November-2018-to-March-2019.ppm
Remember that the world is covered in 70% water, and so far, it’s staying here (TIKO). Yet the globe as a whole is warming. So is it just because of deforestation? I don’t think so.
The resulting brine could be then either deposited in already existing salt lakes, or brought back into the ocean (provided that it would have not be harmful e g. for sea streams).
Think about it. You remove massive amounts of seawater (and keep removing it for centuries?) put the salt back in the oceans, They get progressively saltier and saltier. Yes, of course, that’s definitely going to have an effect on the life there (and possibly the AMOC?)! Right now there are lakes with high salt content with little to no life in them. Think the Dead Sea for example. Flamingos like it, but not much else can live there. Sadly sometimes the chicks are entrapped and die in high concentrate salt lakes when salt becomes hardened around their legs.
https://www.thesun.co.uk/tvandshowbiz/8803317/netflix-our-planet-viewers-sob-flamingo/
I know you were just throwing that idea out there, but maybe we should just throw it all the way out, period.
But I’m wondering, is the plan in essence to empty the oceans by taking great quantities of water out, because that’s what it would take (and fresh water is rather limited), for as long as global warming continues? A geo-engineering trick that’s really, I’m sorry, a lame solution. It’s like the “solution” I read about one time of “solving” the problem of global warming by having people just buy air conditioners. It’s like continually buying dental pain gel rather than just fixing the source of the tooth directly. It’s treating the symptoms rather than the cause just so that we can selfishly keep up this fossil fueled way of life.
If I misunderstood it, let me know.
Dear Ron,
Thank you very much for your questions.
There is lot of misunderstandings in the present debate, partly because it spreads already over third month and is fragmented into many threads.
The example with covering Sahara with solar panels and evaporating sea water thereon had to show that
(i) latent heat flux is an integral part of climate regulation,
(ii) water transpiration shall be treated as an independent “forcing”, acting parallel with greenhouse effect caused by non-condensing greenhouse gases and partly mitigating the warming effect thereof,
(iii) actively managing this forcing in certain range may be technically possible and can be considered as an additional option to management of greenhouse gases,
(iv) there are hints that this artificial evaporation management might be powerful enought to cause substantial changes in global air and water circulation and thus in the global climate,
(v) for all these reasons, water cycle and options for its management, yet neglected topics in the climate debate, should be considered and treated seriously.
What I acually proposed is an urban experiment that should practically test hypotheses and computational models related to the active evaporation management in urban heat islands that might be, in my opinion, perhaps taken as a good hydrological model for dry hot deserts.
Greetings
Tom
P.S.
An interactive dynamic scheme of this proposal, together with a track of previous discussion on this website (except the oldest and newest contributions that I have not managed to introduce yet) is available on my public orgpage which is easily accessible under following link:
https://orgpad.com/s/7zfynb_y5o7
If you are not familiar with OrgPad yet:
Zooming with mouse wheel, clicking (with left mouse button) on closed cells (those having a fine shadow around) opens hidden contents; through Ctrl A + click on the double arrow in the pop-up window that appears, you can open all closed cells at once.
Tomáš, “What I acually proposed is an urban experiment that should practically test hypotheses and computational models related to the active evaporation management in urban heat islands that might be, in my opinion, perhaps taken as a good hydrological model for dry hot deserts”.
Thanks for your reply. The experiment is fine. Irrigating the world’s deserts, if I understand you correctly, the Sahara for instance, would take a vast and a continuous amount of water. Bad idea, in my estimation.
My reply hasn’t shown up. Anyway, perhaps you’re talking about cooling the solar panels with water because they are black? That makes a bit more sense . Especially if the water is recycled. I was imagining that you wanted to irrigate the desert itself. Still, the sand, while not as white as snow, I think does provide some albedo. And you’d be covering that (and eliminating an ecosystem. But still. It’s still a lot of desert and thus also a lot of water.
I’ll. tell you what I do with my little solar powered watering timer. I have a couple of layers of white gauze on the panel to protect it from the elements. The sun’s light can still get easily through. It’s diffused but ample. I know I’m losing some though. The actual panel is quite small. About 1″ square but quite impressive. The rest of the timer I have covered in foil. That protects it not only from sun, but also from rain. But I suppose the white gauze (or something like that) can cover the whole thing. It would theoretically simultaneously provide some reflectivity, or albedo, but also keep the heat in. It can also be painted white. With this timer I water about 35 plants, those are a bunch of trees and shrubs. If I want I can water them much more than I do.
Some people might question the foil, but nature does something similar.
https://youtu.be/mCaVvHeI8jU
I made a solar water heater once that worked very well. You can see it here,
https://www.builditsolar.com/Projects/WaterHeating/StockTankBatchHeater/StockTankBatchHeater.htm
And the updated version,
https://www.builditsolar.com/Projects/WaterHeating/StockTankBatchHeater/StockTankBatchHeaterV2.htm
I had to decommission it in the winter. It’s working time was April 1 to November 1. It’s crudeish compared to a commercially made solar water heater, I suspect, since it was homemade, but the owner of that site volunteered once that that was one of his more popular pages. :) You could also cover yours at night to keep the heat in. I did that too, though it would be different with commercial solar panels. You might also play around with the idea of having a reverse polarized glass over it – something that gets dark at night but lightens when the sun comes up. You might also have two sheets of glass, one almost on top of the other, and a water filled layer between them to cool and prevent evaporation.
But another point is though that these are only mitigation measures. Treating the symptoms. They are NOT a substitute for addressing the cause, the burning of fossil fuels.
Dear Ron,
Indeed I spoke about solar cell cooling by their designing for water transpiration. As there is not enough available water in deserts, such cooling would have required sea water pumping and transport for this purpose..
Should the global warming be solely the result of increased greenhouse gas concentration, I agree that forced evaporative surface cooling would be a mere treatment of symptoms. Should changes in clouds and warming resulting therefrom be at least partly results of land drainage, soil degradation, deforestation and of changes in water cycle corresponding thereto, then the discussed efforts to restore evaporation could be seen also as attempts to deal with all relevant causes of the observed warming, not ONLY with carbon dioxide.
Greetings
Tom
@Tom says:
– ” such cooling would have required sea water pumping and transport for this purpose..”
– ” Should the global warming be solely the result of increased greenhouse gas concentration,… ”
ms: — As a painter, I can tell you that sometimes it’s much better to completely paint over a large canvas – or just crumple a small piece of paper.
Large-scale power generation in the desert usually takes place via CSP (concentrated solar power) in mirror power plants.
Basically, in addition to electricity and heat, the CSP can also supply cooling and solar fuels. It is also used to purify water.
CSP & thermal storage enable base load solar energy.
Solar thermal power plants combined with photovoltaics has unbeatable advantages. During the day, PV provides electricity while CSP charges thermal storage. This interaction allows a particularly economical use of solar energy. Inexpensive photovoltaics are combined with solar thermal storage technology, which is more economical than batteries. The resulting waste heat can then be used for thermal seawater desalination plants.
The optimum in the desert would then also be PV-T modules that are only water-cooled on the back side, because on the one hand they increase the electricity yield and can produce fresh water with the collected heat.
Modern thermal desalination plants (where evaporation naturally also takes place) have a thermal energy requirement of 180 kWh/m³ of distillate.
You can produce 200Wp electrically and 600Wp thermally per m² PV-T module – on a good day in the desert, about 2KWh electrically and 6KWh heat.
With 30m² of module area you can now irrigate ~1000m² of agriculture. This has the unbeatable advantage that you only have to set up approx. 300,000 km² of solar panels in order to transform 10 million km² of desert into evaporative landscapes and productive agriculture.
You can then use this water to do additional agriculture and, in addition to the desired additional evaporation, you have the opportunity to improve your drinking water and food security, to build up organic soils, vegetation and water reservoirs in the desert, and thus to extract additional CO2 from the atmosphere (3.7 – 7.4Kg / m³) – and finally you earn money with it and create work – modules sprayed with salt water are in no time —> electrical and investment scrap.
Why even expensive projects to increase evaporation ?
On agricultural land that has the greatest global potential for evaporation, soil improvement to store CO2 & water is not an expensive affair (e.g. a winter crop plowed under in spring) and is rather beneficial for the landowner as they save on fertilizer and have more water available.
It costs little for a city to pass a building code that requires buildings to have a water butt or cistern. If it’s recycled from plastic waste – so much the better. Even large, sealed areas such as parking lots etc. should be separated from the sewage system and drain and filtered and connected to the groundwater.
Globally, these areas alone have a potential of around 600km³/y of rain and water retention over land areas.
Together with increases in efficiency in agricultural irrigation (~ 1000km³/y), mankind would have contained the volume of annual sea level rise and thus stopped the SLR.
ms: Together with increases in efficiency in agricultural irrigation (~ 1000km³/y), mankind would have contained the volume of annual sea level rise and thus stopped the SLR.
BPL: Not physically possible.
@bpl says: – ” Not physically possible ”
ms: — RAIN AND WATER RETENTION:
Putting up a rain barrel, working humus into the soil and improving the efficiency of irrigation (among many other retention measures) has been known for thousands of years and are practiced every day.
Only sheep & idiots can’t understand that.
Who do you actually belong to ? Maybe a mix ??
bpl says: – ” Not physically possible ”
ms: — RAIN AND WATER RETENTION:
Putting up a rain barrel, working humus into the soil and improving the efficiency of irrigation (among many other retention measures) has been known for thousands of years and are practiced every day.
BPL: No kidding, but that wasn’t what I was saying was impossible. Read for context. I said containing sea level rise that way was impossible, which it is. We’re due for a meter of sea level rise by 2100. Containing all that with your methods is impossible. We simply don’t have the technology to do it.
ms: Only sheep & idiots can’t understand that.
Who do you actually belong to ? Maybe a mix ??
BPL: I’m a scientist. You’re not. Thus our different takes on science.
@bpl says: – ” We simply don’t have the technology to do it. I’m a scientist.”
ms: — Wait, Levenson – not every sheep that looks through a telescope is a scientist.
And you claim that in your miserable sheep pen there are no rain barrels, no humus and no water hoses as “necessary technology”???
Are you doing your science in the Stone Age???
Observing, thinking, knowing and acting are the basics of a scientist.
Posing as a master here while simultaneously preaching strange, unscientific presbyt. fairy tales of creation and the Deluge on Sunday morning—that suits you.
What you don’t seem to understand about “decreasing sea level, earth temperature and CO2 concentration” is this:
– You ignore the IPCC with its statement that with the irrigation of ~1050km³ and the resulting cloud albedo a global cooling effect of -0.05-0.15°C is connected.
– You ignore NASA, CERES and Dr. Norman Loeb, who estimate the warming caused by the falling cloud albedo to be greater than the effect of rising greenhouse gases.
https://ceres.larc.nasa.gov/documents/STM/2022-10/Loeb_contributed_presentation.pdf
– You ignore the fact that sea level was more than 130m lower 20,000 years ago, proving that 1m more storage on land areas is physically and technically not a problem at all.
Also, +1m SLR by 2100 assumes the earth is getting warmer – but I would like to cool it down by 0.2°C with additional watering of 1600km³/year, which means an immediate 4mm drop in SL.
https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1029/2012GL053055
So far I have not heard any fact-based reasons from you why rain and water retention with improved cloud albedo should not represent a sensible and, above all, quick and cost-effective climate protection.
Macias Shurly
“You ignore the fact that sea level was more than 130m lower 20,000 years ago, proving that 1m more storage on land areas is physically and technically not a problem at all.”
The ice sheets were a natural process over thousands of years. I assume you understand that just because a natural process achieves something, doesn’t mean humans could do so at large scale and in a small fraction of the time.
Your plan is storing one metre of SLR in rain barrels. Or half a metre. Whatever.
From someones calculations of water volume of 1 metre of SLR: “To raise the surface by one meter, you would have to add 3.6E+11 cubic m of water. 1 cubic m of water contains 1,000 liters of water.”
Lets assume one of your rain barrels is about 1000 litres for the sake of argument. You would need 3.6E+11 rain barrels. Thats rather a lot of rain barrels, plus supporting infrastructure. Do you seriously think that is a practical plan for one metre of SLR, or even just quarter of a metre?
Or perhaps you mean something else by rain barrels. Who would know. All you water cycle people write so badly its hard to know what you mean.
I think your ideas are completely crazy. But entertaining. I wonder if you are taking stimulant drugs like methampphetamine or LSD.
@nigelj says: – ” Your plan is storing one metre of SLR in rain barrels. Or half a metre. Whatever. ”
ms: — So you dumbhead want to tell me what my own plans are ???
After 2 years and 100 explanations, you pathetic idiot still haven’t understood how a water butt with an overflow on an unsealed surface affects the water reservoir. The roof area and annual rainfall determine the potential of a water butt – not its volume. The storage takes place in the ground water (~400km³/y).
It is unbelievable – save the world with such staff like you – forget it.
Travelers to the desert should not be stopped. Just keep taking your sleeping pills and you won’t feel a thing.
@macias,
catchment conservation and restoration, by any means, is to commence AFTER net zero. Perhaps within the lifetime of my grandchildren. Most likely next century or two at the earliest. any assertion otherwise is in the realm of cranks and quacks. You may be allowed to install trees, however, in rare circumstances.
For all these years the proclamations that we can walk and chew gum at the same time, the pleading that every fraction of a degree matters, and the use of meme: “what if it’s a hoax and we create a better world for nothing” has all been a sham and a lie.
The focus is streamlined and myopic. There is to be no hedging of risk; not even a voluntary request to landowners at no cost.
The ritual is to meet the notions of hydrological restoration with derision, ridicule, accusations of bad-faith, and scorn.
Macias Shurly
I am not an idiot. I had forgotten your plan. . Perhaps you should read the moderation policy about no insults and personal abuse. if that’s not too much trouble for you.
“The roof area and annual rainfall determine the potential of a water butt – not its volume. The storage takes place in the ground water (~400km³/y).”
How many roofs and associated rain barrels .would be required to deal with one metre of SLR? (For example) Show people that maths in nicely set out format that people can follow. I ask because it intuitively looks like the numbers would be massive and impractical.
How do you convince huge numbers of people to buy these water barrels and modify how the storm water drainage works? Its going to cost significant money, and its difficult getting people to support renewable energy policies, stop flying, and buy EVs and you are asking them to spend MORE money to have an insignificant impact on SLR on an individual basis,
Getting the water to suitable half empty aquifers would presumably require substantial pipe instillations. Have you thought about who would do that and how you would persuade them? The costs would be massive.
Or are you suggesting the water just be directed into soak holes adjacent to the houses? And just hope that works?
You need to do a better job of explaining things to convince anyone here. WE will all end up paying for your scheme one way or the other, so we need to see proof it is a practical and sensible use of scarce resources. Havent seen any reasonable proof so far. Sorry about that.
Thomas Kalisz
I( tend to believe that you are basically misconsceived and comitting Adulterare, Goldmaking to cheat the kings and politicians, when advocating irrigation to get more rural and national moisture and percipitation worldwide.
It is a fundamental principle of bio and of physical chemistery that you probably failed to learn in your special professional political school, that if you add the product or the result of the process artificially to speed up the natural cycle or process, then you will rather counter- act it and inhibit it. But as the whole processes also take time, the full weight of the result may also be a bit delayed in time..
Pissing in your pants in winter to get warmer … will soon have rather the opposite effect.
But it is a question of positive and negative feedbacks and of phase- shift.
If this is not studied understood and clear to you in all connections, you should not advocate either. .
Patrick o twentyseven has now referred to a finding of http://www.Downtoearth.org.in along with which, artificial irrigation in large scale in the Indus and Ganges area using riverwater and groundwater is summa summarum reducing the moisture by using up the available aquifers and…. actually counter- acting, delaying and reducing the natural monsune in the area.
I shall not believe it until I have it also from an independent source, …. but it is to be expected as a quite common natural negative feedback in a complex quasi- eqvilibrium dynamic system.
There is another example the drying up of the Aral sea and desertification of those regional landscapes due to progressive, logical and scientific political and evident “knowitalls” namely Stalin interference with it as recommendet by the late soviet scientific academy. Largescale irrigation did cause largescale desertification of that area, not the opposite as foreseen by the experts..
Moral: Quit that scientific and logical academy.
The religious and supersticious belief among desert walkers, flat earthers and blind believers is that you will cause more normal rain in addition to it by artificial irrigation in large industrial scale, draining on the natural aquifers. Which is the progressive Partys very logical argument.
But, you often cause quite the opposite due to the nature of natural cyclings, that were never learnt in those progressive and scientific Partisan – training camps. .
Dear Carbomontanus,
Your example with irrigation in a monsoon area does definitely represent a useful warning that the idea should be examined carefully and, if applicable, implemented stepwise.
I would like to repeat that the most pronounced effect might be expected primarily in dry areas, not in a monsoon climate with a quite high air humidity.
Greetings
Tom
Kalisz
As I understood the Indians at http://www.downtoearth.org.in
They were discussing the Indus and Ganges area with a large dry desert in between, and that artifricial irrigation for agricultural and traditional reasons updated by modern industrial techniques….. did cause less monsune rain nextby, and that was some of the very point.
Luxurious politically progressive “scientific” necessary, obvious and elementary irrigation in that large scale may o0press the poors in Rajastan nextby. Who only have their archaic deep wells and their camels.
Do not phatacize and construct further on this or try and get away from it.
I learnt it in p0ublic school allready here where I live, as we were not flat earthers occupied by Moscovia …………why air is lifting with vertical convection… so that the more moist and cool sea- winds will come in….. alltogether lift and make Cumulus. upp to Cumulonimbus.
In the nnight, do not hide the the decline…. the wind goes around the other way. This is not provincial misconsceived, it is global also.
You cannot irrigate and watering upm the regional and global hghn aqnd low pressure and belts. Ever heard of, the Barometer…. a National remedy he4re where I live and I am no nidgger. Ever heart o9f Torricelli? a pupil of Gallileo Gallilei. Why do the Polacs of our time follow Moscovia and Mao tse tung instead of Copernicus?
and later Dalotons law and the molar weight proportion of H2O/ Air = 5/8.
If you cool your desert enough with water spray, the air will not lift either and give solar breeze and monune- rains. Dia- lectic contradictions are unqualified. Daltons law Gay Lussacs law, and solar wind sea breeze first.
I saw you discussing bringing saltwater to Sahara to cool it.
Think of bringing seawater very long distancdes to cool the centralo continents and bring more rain and freshwater there.
Saltwater to death walley and Las Vegas Utah and Sahara , to Salton sea and Salt lake city to cool it.
Are you Chineese and learnt it from the Hoang Ho situation how to poison and conquer
So basically you’d have to dig a gigantic hole in the ground to store the. salt.
Yes, those holes are allready there quite centrally in the continents where the landcrabs and flat earthers were bathed and baptized in church and to publoic school and joined the unions and the Party with P..
And they widen………. Death walley and Las Vegas and the Aral Sea disaster is being purchased and propagated, and is spreading out.
We are having the sales agents of it among us, here at the Real Climate
I have recommended home- made pepperspray also against it.
The succulent Cactus vegetation has developed long spikes against politics and sales promotion of that kind , and is saving its water for inner and vital purposes and do not spread it around for “cooling”
Become a Cactus against such sales and political commercialo propaganda in the climate.
.
June 12 it’s Hug a Climate Scientist Day! Thank you all at RealClimate for your work, perseverance in a not rational enough, science-based context and for your generous knowledge sharing. Hugs!
https://i.pinimg.com/originals/57/f6/2f/57f62fd97b4eda51f032c7bf79a5c74c.png
(A very belated) yay!
Having a moment of dejection. Let’s face it. It seems we are talking to ourselves here. Preaching to the choir (for the most part). Even if we know what the problem is with the climate (and other pressing ecological issues) we cannot seem to (and many won’t because they simply don’t want to) unite on a solution(s). We are as if in a rowboat with but one paddle. Yeah, it’s possible, but it’s very hard to steer a straight course.
First there are all the trolls and hooligans who like to disrupt the discussions just for the hell of it. Then there are the committed deniers and obfuscators who quietly seek to preserve the destructive status quo for their own financial reasons. All the logic in the world won’t convince them.
https://slate.com/technology/2015/12/exxonmobil-koch-family-have-powered-climate-change-denial-for-decades.html
https://midmiocene.wordpress.com/2016/11/09/hot/
Then are all the fundamentalists who believe that the earth is destined to be destroyed soon by God anyway – so why the heck not use it up?
https://www.express.co.uk/news/weird/1342393/end-of-the-world-preacher-bible-earth-fire-burn-prophecy-jesus-second-coming
Then there’s the East/West divide, a giant chunk of humanity, wherein the East, as a majority, is simply not listening. Think differently! Not even aware of CC. Have other, more immediate priorities. Believe that CC is a Western conspiracy.“European and North American countries held the highest overall scores, while Asian and African countries saw the lowest, globally.” “Many Muslim majority countries bear the brunt of climate change, but their cultural awareness of it and climate action are often staggeringly limited.”
https://www.statista.com/chart/20500/european-countries-healthiest-environments/
https://www.aljazeera.com/opinions/2020/8/12/what-does-islam-say-about-climate-change-and-climate-action/
Update: While researching for this post, it looks like some in the East are getting it. Hopefully they’ll get it as a result of the evidence, not just a knee-jerk response due to politics.
Oh about the adaptationists who want to find a way to just mitigate the heat while keeping up using FF, I though this analogy was pretty good,
“If the Earth’s climate were a car, right now we’re already driving dangerously fast and accelerating. Carbon pollution cuts would be the brakes, and geoengineering would be the airbags. Kahan’s experiment tells people that we don’t need to use the brakes because the airbags will protect us, and we can have fun going fast in the meantime.”
Oh about the adaptationists who want to find a way to just mitigate the heat while keeping up using FF, I though this analogy was pretty good,
“If the Earth’s climate were a car, right now we’re already driving dangerously fast and accelerating. Carbon pollution cuts would be the brakes, and geoengineering would be the airbags. Kahan’s experiment tells people that we don’t need to use the brakes because the airbags will protect us, and we can have fun going fast in the meantime.”
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/climate-consensus-97-per-cent/2015/mar/10/consensus-and-geoengineering-how-to-convince-people-about-global-warming
Yes!
There are some problems here, but the strawberries, Fragaria vesca L., are coming and soon there will be St.Hans. There are to few Cumulus, and Cumulonimbus has not shown up yet.,
Sorry to be obtuse, Carbomontanus, but I’m not sure how this applies…
Hr.R.
I am writing such aesoteric formulas now and then in order to tell whoever ought to know it, that I am hardly owned by the Party with P,
Fragaria vesca L coming at St Hans together with cumulus and cumulunimbus tells rather exacty where I am living.
Ok, Carbomontanus.
Hr.R.
I am writing such aesoteric formulas now and then in order to tell whoever ought to know it, that I am hardly owned by the Party with P,
Fragaria vesca L coming at St Hans together with cumulus and cumulunimbus tells rather exacty where I am living and who I am.
Whereas the alternatives, the Pioneering Puttlers and their full, scientific support will not get it.
Perhaps “Marine Cloud Brightening” in the Atlantic off the coast of Africa could get more water vapour and perhaps droplets into the Sahel & Sahara Desert. I haven’t studied it at all, I don’t know the prevailing wind, perhaps I mean the Indian Ocean.
The GISTEMP LOTI numbers have been posted for May with the anomaly at +0.94ºC, down on April’s +1.00ºC and the second lowest monthly anomaly of the year.
May 2023 is the third warmest May in the GISTEMP record (also 3rd in ERA5 SAT re-analysis, 4th in UAH TLT, in GISTEMP SAT behind 2020 (+1.02ºC) & 2016 (+0.95ºC) while ahead of 2017 (+0.92ºC), 2014 (+0.86ºC), 2019, 2022, 2018, 2015 & 2021 (+0.79ºC), these the ten most recent years.
The Jan-May average remains at 4th warmest start-to-year (5th in ERA5 SAT, 7th in UAH TLT) and, with the predicted El Niño still on track, 2023 looks like it will be challenging 2020 for the ‘warmest year on record’ title.
…….. Jan-May Ave … Annual Ave ..Annual ranking
2016 .. +1.19ºC … … … +1.02ºC … … … 2nd
2020 .. +1.15ºC … … … +1.02ºC … … … 1st
2017 .. +1.04ºC … … … +0.92ºC … … … 4th
2023 .. +1.00ºC
2019 .. +0.98ºC … … … +0.98ºC … … … 3rd
2022 .. +0.91ºC … … … +0.90ºC … … … 6th
2015 .. +0.86ºC … … … +0.90ºC … … … 5th
2018 .. +0.85ºC … … … +0.85ºC … … … 7th
2010 .. +0.83ºC … … … +0.73ºC … … … 10th
2007 .. +0.78ºC … … … +0.67ºC … … … 13th
2021 .. +0.78ºC … … … +0.85ºC … … … 8th
@ all and everyone
On the disrupted water cycle or at least the disrupted sea to land water cycle transport, and the fameous desertification in central continental areas due to deforestation: and urban heat islands
All in all, forget it!
The fameous drying up and desertification of the Aral sea and Lop Noor in central asia is obvious consequenses of artificial irrigation and spraying of available freshwater for higher “Evapo- transpirational cooling” in those areas, and I am allmost able to bet also that the same is true for Lake Mead, Las Vegas, Southern California, and Salt Lake city and even for the dead sea.
“What the hell are we/ they fighting for?”
Potencial and scarce freshwater resouces of course and for our / their traditional right to misuse it wildly. .
Thus also denialism and surrealism to it all the way.
Question: is Donbas and Krim/Kryim a semi- arid steppe with very scarce and allready intensely even militarily administered critical freshwater resources for “evapo- transpirations and industrialized turbo- convectional systems , or aint it not?
Comrade Stalin labeled Donbas the heart of the soviet union due to its huge Stali- Steel and Stali Coalsmoke- resouces. Thus so traditionally vital to them further in our time.
Comrade Stalin committed large scale industrial etnical racialm entreprises to secure those vital resources to his progressive, scientific system.
And what about the freshwater resources for the holy land system in the middle east, its use and eventual mis- use? Are there any etnical bloody racial national entreprises going on also there?
Water cycle, land surface, irrigation: this might have some info; Chapter 2 in particular (haven’t gone through it yet) https://www.ipcc.ch/srccl/
PS urban heat islands – they try to ‘edit that out’ (or changes over time caused by that) to get global and regional temperature trends, so localized changes in evapotranspiration associated with urbanization presumably wouldn’t show up in many graphs, etc.
“I suppose that the observed value characterizing the greenhouse effect would have been, actually, significantly higher than observed 33 K if there were no non-radiative heat fluxes at all. Thus, the non-radiative flows are already subtracted from the actual greenhouse effect. In other words, Gavin et all simplify the real situation by assuming that there is radiative energy transfer ONLY, and then formally ascribe the observed temperature difference to real “greenhouse agents”.”
First part – yes. But 2nd part – no.
The climate tends toward an equilibrium climate in which fluxes in and out of a volume (accounting for conversions where necessary) are all balanced in the time average. Globally there is no horizontal in and out, so in the Global time average, vertical fluxes must balance. Specifically, approximating the role of kinetic energy/ work transfered vertically as 0, the net downward solar radiative (~ SW) flux , which is the total solar heating below a level, must be balanced by net upward convective fluxes and a net upward LW (terrestrial) radiant flux.
In the simplest version, a 1-dimension vertical column representative of the Earth’s climate system, a pure radiative equilibrium will occur if there are no convective fluxes. This can produce a layer that is unstable to convection. Now allow convective adjustment, where convection is assumed to maintain a convectively-neutral lapse rate wherever radiation would tend to destabilize the air – now we have a troposphere. Start with only SH (no latent heat flux) and then allow LH (latent heat flux). For an Earthlike case (From a graph in “Global Physical Climatology” by Hartmann…), pure radiative equilibrium produces the highest surface temperature and the coldest 1st cold-spot above. Allowing only SH convection, and the surface temp drops, and the tropopause is warmer than that earlier cold spot. Allow LH along with, and the convective lapse rate is reduced, the surface cools farther, and the tropopause rises and warms.
The potential for SH and LH fluxes (based on surface characteristics) may be regarded as boundary conditions (along with Earth’s rotation (Coriolis effect, length of day) and tilt, orbital characteristics (distribution of incident solar radiation at TOA over day, year, latitude), gravity, specific heat capacity and molar mass of air, size of Earth, mass of atmosphere, geography and topography, ocean depths, evolved species, etc… and the optical properties of the atmosphere, including the greenhouse effect (the amounts and spectra of gases, clouds, etc.)).
For the sake of understanding just the greenhouse effect, a model may be constructed which leaves everything else fixed. But this may mean the potential for SH and LH fluxes, not their actual values. Ie., they adjust to the radiation. – take away the greenhouse effect and the convective fluxes pretty much disappear automatically.
Note that in such a model, the optical effects of H2O and clouds may be separated from their roles in convective heat fluxes, and the LW effects separated from the SW (solar heating) effects, and the LW effects may be prescribed as if they did not respond to climate itself, as it does in reality. Likewise with ozone. Ice sheets and vegetation may be treated as boundary conditions, or as interactive components of the climate system, depending on the purpose of the study/model, etc. What effectively counts as the climate system is time-scale dependent – slower-responding parts (extreme example: it takes a while to erode geological topography) may be approximated as boundary conditions for short periods of time.
In the case of surface wetting, the forcing acts on the potential for LH fluxes, and so the convective flux may change, for all other boundary conditions held constant. I expect this would tend to cool the surface and warm the upper part of the troposphere, and raise the tropopause height. This does not include the radiant effects (solar and greenhouse) of the effects of surface wetting on clouds and H2O.
(That was re Tomáš Kalisz @ https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2023/06/unforced-variations-jun-2023/#comment-812320 )…
Also, while I started with a 1-d model, this all generalizes to the full 4+d climate system (vertical, horizontal(2), time of day, time of year, phases of various modes of internal variability… eg. thunderstorms, frontal cyclones, jet stream shifts, QBO, ENSO, …)
It’s a bit more complicated, then – the tropospheric lapse rate is effectively convective in a sense but the convection includes not just local vertical overturning but larger-scale overturning motions (Hadley cells, baroclinic waves), and extends to places, and times of day, where convection would otherwise not occur, and in some cases the troposphere is stabilized to local overturning by the larger-scale overturning, and moist convection does not automatically occur whenever it is energetically favorable, and of course kinetic energy is generated – and some work is converted back to heat via forcing colder air to rise above warmer air, etc… (and some of that occurs outside the troposphere).
But there is some equilibrium distribution of temperature variation over space and time within the troposphere for any given climatic state, and forced surface wetting (separate from climate-maintained surface wetting) will of course cause some shift in that.
PS some forcings are more idiosyncratic than others. Surface temperature is a
Robert Fajber finds that:
“Evaporation adds moisture to the atmosphere, while condensation removes it. Condensation also adds thermal energy to the atmosphere, which must be removed from the atmosphere by radiative cooling. As a result of these two processes, there is a net flow of energy driven by surface evaporation adding energy and radiative cooling removing energy from the atmosphere. Here, we calculate the implied heat transport of this process to find the atmospheric heat transport in balance with the surface evaporation.”
https://www.pnas.org/doi/10.1073/pnas.2217202120
If the atmospheric heat transport represents a net flow of energy from surface to space, and if the atmospheric heat transport is matching the magnitude of surface latent flux, then it stands to reason that the sensible heat cannot be included in the total atmospheric heat transport, nor in the net flow of energy. By simple logic then surface partitioning of heat flux is critical to earth energy balance.
“then it stands to reason that the sensible heat cannot be included in the total atmospheric heat transport, nor in the net flow of energy. ”
This really does not make much sense – yes, okay, latent heat flux from the surface is globally dominant, and the paper you cite seems to indicate (I could only read the significance+abstract) that horizontal heat transport is dominated by horizontal variation in latent heat flux from the surface, but your statement would seem to indicate that sensible heat flux (at the surface) must be 0.
From the aforementioned Fajber et. al.: “Atmospheric heat transport is governed by meridional gradients in surface evaporation in modern-day earth-like climates” abstract:
“In modern-day Earth-like climates, evaporation varies strongly between the equator and the poles, while the net radiative cooling in the atmosphere is nearly meridionally uniform, and as a consequence, the heat transport governed by evaporation is similar to the total poleward heat transport of the atmosphere. This analysis is free from cancellations between moist and dry static energy transports, which greatly simplifies the interpretation of atmospheric heat transport and its relationship to the diabatic heating and cooling that governs the atmospheric heat transport. ”
Moist static energy refers to the sum of gravitational potential energy (approx.= g*z), (dry) enthalpy (cp*T), and latent heat (latent enthalpy); the dry static energy being the sum of the 1st and 2nd terms only, AFAIK. I posted a question on this concept back in Unforced Var. April, because I’ve encountered the idea before and it’s long perplexed me, because: d(dry enthalpy) = cp*dT = cv*dT + p*d(specific volume), the last term being to the work of thermal expansion at pressure, which is the work of lifting up the overlying weight of atmosphere. Ie., enthalpy includes the graviational potential energy of the overlying air. So it seems like double counting … What am I missing??
It is described in excruciating detail in Fajber’s recent PHD thesis submission
https://dam-oclc.bac-lac.gc.ca/download?is_thesis=1&oclc_number=1334506469&id=bcac6748-c6a5-4a0e-b94f-b5edfc147eb4&fileName=Fajber_Robert_202011_PhD_thesis.pdf
And the observation seems to be discussed similarly By Zhang and Rossow in 1997
https://journals.ametsoc.org/view/journals/clim/10/9/1520-0442_1997_010_2358_emetbt_2.0.co_2.xml
Fajber’s recent publication shows in the supplemental almost identical plots as Zhang and Rossow’s 1997 report.
https://www.pnas.org/doi/suppl/10.1073/pnas.2217202120/suppl_file/pnas.2217202120.sapp.pdf
The atmospheric IR Q net (negative) is distributed pretty evenly whether at equator or closer to the poles. Here is the effect of atmospheric heat transport in steady-state configuration. While the solar insolation and latent heating is strongest towards the tropics, the associated outgoing radiative flux “heat tag” is occurring remotely.
The net radiative cooling poleward is balanced by an import of diabatic heating of the lower-latitude free troposphere. This latent heating and radiative cooling is the mechanism of steady-state thermodynamic atmospheric heat transport.
The poleward flux in atmospheric transport of magnitude 6PW is sourced from latent heating of the free troposphere, whereas the surface sensible heating is limited to the boundary layer. Unnaturally limiting surface latent flux and therefore latent heating aloft surely has far-reaching impacts and must perturb the steady state energy balance configuration. I should note, however, In all these papers I see an insufficient emphasis on the fact that condensation is the only mechanism for heat to be delivered to the free troposphere from the surface. Surface sensible heat flux does no such thing. https://www.eoas.ubc.ca/courses/atsc113/flying/met_concepts/03-met_concepts/03f-BL_obstacle_wake/images-03f/abl-color.png
In Fajber’s words from PHD thises section 4.8:
“These results have highlighted the important role that the hydrological cycle plays in determining heat
transport in the atmosphere. There are two ways to look at this. The first is the dry, or θ perspective:
the large amounts of latent heating in the atmosphere, particularly in the tropics, creates warm airmasses
that need to be redistributed to the subtropics and poles where there are large amounts of longwave
cooling. The transport of these air masses away from the tropics dominates the heat transport through
the low and mid latitudes, and dominates the variability of θ in the midlatitude midtroposphere. This is
the perspective from analysing the atmospheric heat transport in terms of HTconv + HTcond. The second is the moist static energy, or θe perspective: evaporation adds large amounts of energy to the atmosphere that must be first condensed and then balanced by longwave cooling. Latent heating does not change the total θe of an air parcel, but it will transfer it from latent energy to thermal energy. The total heat transport primarily balances the heat being added by evaporation with a fraction of the total cooling in the atmosphere.
Dear JCM,
Thank you very much for this reference, it appears to be very relevant indeed. Let me study it in detail for a while.
Best regards
Tom
Well, I am very familiar with potential temperature θ. It is of course the temperature an air parcel would have if adiabatically (isentropically; no net heating/cooling at any point in the process) brought to a reference pressure (correspongindly, there is potential density). In a well-mixed layer (of constant composition), wherein θ is constant over some depth, the pressure variation over height is such that cp*T + g*z = dry static energy (if I remember correctly) is also constant over height and preserved in dry adiabatic processes. Hence the dry adiabatic lapse rate is roughly 10 K/km (a little less, g ~= 9.81 m/s2, and cp is ?… 1004 J/K kg, correct? (**from memory).
But the relation is different when the lapse rate is not = *the* dry adiabatic lapse rate; the actual lapse rate depends on pressure and so will vary with the environmental lapse rate.
Generally, an adiabatic lapse rate may include the latent heat release, assuming thermodynamic equilibrium (for whatever reactions are allowed) is maintained (it is generally delayed a bit due to the need for molecular and thermal diffusion (which generate entropy, and thus are not adiabatic, though this is a minor point here) to and from growing phases, and the activation energy of nucleation of new phases (aside from any chemical reactions, which don’t really apply for Earth’s atmosphere) (PS this generally applies to the ocean, mantle, core…); the later is a significant delay for ice crystal formation, allowing an abundance of supercooled droplets; fortunately the latent heat release for this step is relatively small (but not insignificant) compared to condensation).
Anyway, θe (and I’m not clear offhand if there is a distinction between equivalent potential T and … well, anyway…) if I recall correctly, this is the potential temperature attained when an air parcel is sufficiently depressurized (adiabatically) that all latent heat has been released.
The part (other than phase change delays and diffusive processes in phase changes) that is not adiabatic is when the water precipitates, or when cloud air mixes with dry air, resulting in evaporation (any mixing or unmixing, really).
Given the occurence of moist convection with precipitation, air can dry out as it descends before reaching the cloud base level in ascent, and so must radiantly cool in order to continue descending along a moist adiabat (pushing down a dry adiabat would generate available potential energy (APE) in a horizontal temperature gradient between regions of moist ascent and dry descent such that the dry air would tend to bounce back up, etc.)
And maybe you knew all that but I just wanted to go over it for others’ sakes, + it’s interesting.
Anyway, I’ve not seen or gone over the mathematical relationship between θe and moist static energy cp*T + g*z + latent heat (per unit H2O * H2O amount, etc.) (technically it’s an integration over g*dz as g varies slightly…)
One interesting thing I’ve seen is that if all atmospheric motion (I think) is plotted on a graph of θe over latitude, it looks like the Hadley cells fill both hemispheres.
Corrections/clarifications:
But the relation is different when the lapse rate is not = *the* dry adiabatic lapse rate; the actual adiabaticlapse rate depends on pressure and so will vary with the environmental lapse rate.
Generally, an adiabatic lapse rate may include the latent heat release, assuming thermodynamic equilibrium (for whatever reactions are allowed) is maintained (PS this generally applies to the ocean, mantle, core…)
(the state is generally delayed a bit relative to equilibrium due to the need for molecular and thermal diffusion (which generate entropy, and thus are not adiabatic, though this is a minor point here) to and from growing phases, and the activation energy of nucleation of new phases (and delays in reaching chemical equilibria –
– which doesn’t really apply for Earth’s atmosphere, as chemical reations in the air are generally too slow (or otherwise minor) to have a significant direct impact on convection in such a way (**AFAIK**)) –
-; difficulty in nucleation produces a significant delay for ice crystal formation, allowing an abundance of supercooled droplets; fortunately the latent heat release for this step is relatively small (but not insignificant) compared to condensation).
…
@ pat
“””But the relation is different when the lapse rate is not = *the* dry adiabatic lapse rate; the actual lapse rate depends on pressure and so will vary with the environmental lapse rate.””””
My interpretation has been with unlimited moisture supply the moist adiabatic lapse rate can be computed by temperature and pressure alone.
From https://hogback.atmos.colostate.edu/group/dave/pdf/Moist_adiabatic_lapse_rate.pdf
“For example, with a pressure of 1000 mb and a temperature of 288 K, we find that Γ m = 4.67 K km-1 (see Fig. 1). As the temperature increases, the moist adiabatic lapse rate decreases.”
The difference between the moist adiabatic lapse rate and dry lapse rate controls the upward heat transport. And we know the average relation is always causing an upward atmospheric heat transport, from the surface to the free troposphere.
However, in reality the actual moist adiabatic lapse rate (environmental lapse rate) is limited by moisture availability (evapotranspiration). It is not following an idealized case.
So it is reasonable to suggest that unnaturally limiting moisture in space and duration must unnaturally limit upward heat transport. A smaller average difference between the environmental lapse rate and dry adiabatic one must have a relative warming influence near the surface, and a relative cooling influence in the free troposphere.
Figure in Hartmann from p 69, was originally from
Manabe and Strickler, 1964
Thermal Equilibrium of the Atmosphere with a Convective Adjustment
https://journals.ametsoc.org/view/journals/atsc/21/4/1520-0469_1964_021_0361_teotaw_2_0_co_2.xml , https://climate-dynamics.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/06/manabe64a.pdf
fig.4, explained p.9/25 – (no clouds)
I should note that the inclusion of moist convection was parameterized implicitly by using a representative tropospheric lapse rate. But in principle the effect is as described.
In general, net radiant heating and cooling try to drive the temperature profile toward a pure radiative equilibrium state; in so doing, they create potential energy and instabilities that can help shape and drive various motions which convectively cool and heat parts of the atmosphere, maintaining a temperature distribution that causes net radiant heating and cooling to occur.
@ Thomas Kalisz again
Here you have it again. “First part- Yes. But second part -No!” he gives you.
Being consequently wrong and repeating that all the time may entail that you are heavily misconsceived on a vital and central basic point. And shuld ask yourself: ” What can be wrong with my opinion and personal learnings- beliefs- methods and feelings on such a central, primary point?”
I would recommend that you separate and isolate some elements that add up or multiply, superpose- work together in the same wholeness. It is called partial derivation or analysis.
you have
1, the action of CO2
2, The action of H2O gas in the air, that is another invisible, oligo- atomic natural gas
3, white clouds with proper ice on the top. .
1& 2 are proportionally following and work together, 2 is a positive feedback of 1 , not a climate driver but a feedback.
But 3 is known to work both ways, depending, I have suggested the fameos thermo- static effect and function of water in the climate, and added contra surrealists that the earth is not a water- cooled planet, but a water- thermostated planet.
Water in all its aggregational states together is efficiently damping all the global temperature swings and extremes and in many ways. .
The one- eyed and all those who “hide the declines” are forgetting or hiding the whole- ness, calling themselves “Holistic” probably racial ideological and political reasons. For instance , they are obliged by deep comission to deny or at least reduce the climatic function of the special CO2 gas best they can. Even on the cost of elementary personal scientific credibility.
Keep that danger in mind also.
What you can do to try and save your argument is not to fight Gavin Scdhidt and NASA GISS, but to look after the proportion 1&2 weight / 3 weight. And see if that proportion is rather stable constant at globally changing temperature,…. (which I believe is Gavins opinion. ) Or whether that proportion curves solidly down at rising temperatures.
That is also my intuitive hope for the climate, ,namely that water will save us. But Claussius Clappeyron and Aristoteles should not be politically rinsed out then. to defend ones silliness..
If you can discduss 1 & 2/3 Then you have tried a so called multi variable analysis of a complex system.
And not teach that Gavin has subtracted or should not have fortgotten namely the non radiative fluxes. . Who can work both ways and rather work as a thermostat. As has been suggested here by severals.
My first meeting with the climate dispute was at the University exhibition, That told of CO2 My first spontaneous reaction as a very experienced summer bather in a rather chill climate was:;
“BUT, WHAT ABOUT THE CLOUDS?”
So I have thought of that before anyone else of you here, as an experienced summer bather in a fameously chill climate.
Where clouds yes or no can decide wether you dare to go to swim yes or no.
The answer I shall never forget: ” No… the clouds are something else…. according to the IPCC. ”
What else, she could not tell, so I had to wonder and find out for myselfr. And have found point 3 above.
That is not subtracted or forgotten by NASA.
============000
today we had a first summer Cumulonimbus shower that did save the the grass, berries, vegetables, trees, and potatoes.
We are having strict water restrictions and high danger of wildfires at the moment..
It is 30 C swinging 13 deg day and night at sealevel which is normal here . , and I felt it at once, Warm gloomy tense weather near 100% relative moisture. (Air moisture even smell of it is felt by our especiallyn high IR- sense in our faces) Then the rain and thunder came, with pools on the asphalt also for the birds, rushing water in the cisternes. .
It “refreshes”, cleans everything even thoughts, and clearly cools down the situation,
It was a long desired gentle gift from BIG BANG coming especially to us.
.
If there is any especially vital gas then it must be Hydrogen. Venus is Hell due to lack of it. .
I should caution that the only environmental holist on this page is nigelj.
it is a widely held taboo among practical conservation specialists to resort to this ideology. It is in the realm of environmental spiritualists, hippies, and Shamans. Their “harmony” and vibrations. Such personnel are to be avoided.
However, the holists are welcome into the lay volunteer conservation corps. It is good for fresh air and for a renewed sense of purpose. Staff will guide them towards quite specific and actionable items in addressing the circumstances at hand.
JCM
Holists, there you must specify better. There are many of them, as many philosophies have used that populoar label, It seems to be a universal and natural human religious instinct rather than any specific system or ideology.
I can be consciously holistic in some respects and surely specific & secteric & provincial in other respects. That depends, and is normal human arsenal of mentalities forms of opinions and behaviours I believe.
Meaning, one does not need to be holistic all the time. One can also resign on it and be more specific when necessary. All in the same political party, Society, , Website, Free market, , and Tavern / pub / discussion. .
the terms Conservationist vs Environmentalist/holist are distinct for a purpose. Discussion of environmental-holism is to be avoided in many critical contexts. Conservationists are traditionally among the progressive anglers / hunters / farmers / foresters /herdsman / naturalists / stewards.
Environmentalist/holists generally do not operate effectively in the vast rural-conservative context of disturbed landscape. It is quite sensitive culturally and politically.
In consideration that the vast majority of the lands in need of stewardship are rural in nature, the urban environmentalist ideologues are generally to be avoided for such roles, naturally. It seems also the modern environmentalists need a great deal of coaching. It is a cultural phenomenon and people can spot the difference straight away.
Weather, and daily and seasonal cycles, are of course associated with temporary flux imbalances (including not just energy but momentum, angular momentum, masses of various substances); these obviously tend to average to 0 over sufficient time; one way to think of it is that there are fluxes through time that balance the other fluxes (now you’re ready for the stress-energy(?) tensor!)
The troposphere, through heat capacity, and through horizontally-significant overturning motions, extends into times and places where otherwise there would be none (eg., night).
when the air rises and cools to reach saturation, it starts to follow a moist adiabat. Moist adiabatic lapse rates are smaller than a dry adiabatic lapse rate, but approach a dry adiabatic lapse rate as the temperature decreases (because there is less H2O vapor left) …
(and also depends on pressure (more air for the same saturation vapor pressure means less latent heat per unit heat capacity per unit temperature drop))
… which basically means there is a tendency for the convective lapse rate to decrease with global warming – except not everywhere, given the complexity of the 4+D climate system; some places and times will experience the opposite tendency. But the decreased lapse rate tends to win-out globally, at least for near-present conditions, at least for the anthropogenically-enhanced greenhouse effect – this is the negative lapse rate feedback, as it allows a smaller temperature change at the surface (global time average) to equilibrate with the forcing. Other than that and changes in horizontal temperature distribution, etc., the troposphere and surface tend** to warm or cool together in response to radiative forcing of both together (such as measured at the tropopause as a forced change in net flux), with convective fluxes responding to shifting vertical distributions of net radiant heating/cooling. ** except, again, for the complexities absent in a simplified 1-d model – well that may have been implied in the lapse rate and horizontal redistribution of variations just mentioned… anyway…
cont. from my: “some forcings are more idiosyncratic than others. [global time average] Surface temperature is a”…
convenient way to gauge the magnitude (size) of climate responses to some types of forcings. But different forcing mechanisms have different (4+dimensional) ‘shapes’, and the same is true of the climate responses (whose shapes won’t exactly match those of the forcings because the feedbacks have their own shapes). And global average surface temperature, though it is an average of one part of what we (ought to) care about, is not the entirety of what matters. The water cylcle, and Atmospheric circulation – for it’s role in shaping precipitation and temperature distributions, clouds, etc. – for ecosystems and their services to us, also for us directly, our (hopefully becoming clean) energy infrastructure, farms, buildings, roads, etc.
Even among well-mixed GHGs – ie., CO2, CH4, N2O, CFCs…
(PS AFAIK, CO2 is the only truly well-mixed (outside/above forest canopies n’ such – ie., the free troposphere and above, AFAIK) – CH4 and N2O decrease going up through the stratosphere; I think this is true of CFCs as well – they get chemically reactive up there – I’m guessing in part because of UV exposure)
… there are at least some subtle differences in shape. I expect a subsequent doubling of CO2 has a slightly different shape than the prior doubling (band widening reduces net radiant cooling of H2O in different parts of it’s spectrum, corresponding to different heights).
Solar forcing is certainly different in shape from CO2 forcing – notably it’s my understanding they have different effects on convection (also stratospheric temperature, other stuff) – hence solar-based geoengineering that is not carefully ‘shaped’ (ie, a particular latitudinal/temporal shading plan, or spectrally-selective shading – IMO the ideal would be to block those parts of solar IR which would be absorbed by H2O and other gases in the atmosphere).
And so an irrigation or desert-greening solution is potentially problematic, for this as well as other reasons (CO2 ocean acidification – and also remember CO2 directly can reduce transpiration, although one may view that as a benefit).
Protecting and restoring wetlands, etc, reducing UHI (which is not generally included in the measured global average surface temp response, at least not directly), etc. are good ideas, certainly. But bringing back the Sahara grasslands? That was selected by nature for extinction (Milankovitch cycles – wait long enough, it’ll come back). Now we’re talking about bringing together two ecological-climatological systems, separated by thousands of years. Who knows what we’ll happen? (I hope people appreciate the Jurassic Park allusions).
https://www.earthobservatory.nasa.gov/global-maps#:~:text=Net%20radiation%20is%20the%20balance%20between%20incoming%20and,reflected%2C%20absorbed%2C%20or%20emitted%20by%20clouds%20and%20land.
see
net radiation
https://www.earthobservatory.nasa.gov/global-maps/CERES_NETFLUX_M
notice the Sahara region tends to be a net radiator of heat to Space, relative to it’s latitude in particular.
The Hartmann book I mentioned shows something similar in a figure in Chapter 2 – Shahara – Arabian Peninsula region.
I didn’t finish a though above – solar geoengineering based on just shading the Earth all over (eg., a non-spectrally selective object at the Lagrange point (1st one?) – the shape of the response is such that it can’t completely undo the effects of CO2.
We need clean energy and energy efficiency (not that you said otherwise); besides that I think mining basalt and perhaps anorthosite and other such rocks to sequester CO2 is perhaps a promising option. There’s also biochar. And ocean fertilization – I’ve read one account which made it sound like a win-win-win-win (whales, seafood for people, CO2 sequestration … forgot the other win but anyway…) although I’ve also read it may not work so well…
From the links here https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2023/06/unforced-variations-jun-2023/#comment-812163:
Puma and Cook, 2010
“Effects of irrigation on global climate during the 20th century”
https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1029/2010JD014122
Table 1 compares their results with 3 others; 1 finds a small net land av. sfc.* warming (*?surface air warming, I think), the others find cooling – one found 1.310 K cooling using ~100 times the irrigation water (there were some other distinctions among the studies), this study found 0.095 K cooling. The cooling that did occur was certainly unevenly distributed, and there was some warming in places and times. In particular, there was a little warming in JJA on Greenland – that is not what we want to see! (But this is presumably irrigation for food production, so we can’t just stop – well, how much is for livestock feed? (but not everyone can tolerate nuts…)) Of course, this study did not have an interactive ocean (did any?), so…anyway.
Irrigation and other surface water management are very idiosyncratic – by which I mean the shape of the forcing (which is not entirely characterizable in terms of an energy flux per unit area) is complex compared to CO2 or solar brightenning (some day-night variation, annual, latitudinal and geographic variation, weather-dependent stuff). Although there is the possibility of tuning the space-time distribution to maximize benefits and minimize side-effects. But how does that work out for food production and ecosystem needs.
Milankovitch cycles are also rather idiosyncratic – they can cause ice ages with essentially no global time average forcing (it’s pretty much all in the latitude-season dependence and the feedbacks, AFAIK).
Solar geoengineering – maybe just shade Greenland and Antarctic ice sheets?
PS to be clear, those were all averages over global land area.
Tomas, I’m not expert, but clouds have a dual effect on the weather. Day time cooling, but night time warming. Can you evaporate those day time clouds in time at night in time to keep it cooler?
https://cleantechnica.com/2022/07/22/with-climate-change-nights-are-warming-faster-than-days-why/
“Production of non-condensing greenhouse gases is no way the sole geoengineering experiment the humankind is running. In the industrial era, we can mention e.g. production of sulfate aerosols or production of compounds depleting the ozone layer.”
Two wrongs don’t make a right.
“I would like to add that neither macias, nor JCM, nor me proposed to deal with water cycle repair INSTEAD of mitigation of the greenhouse effect, as incorrectly assumed by Piotr”
You said mitigation, that’s treating the symptom. Is that the point of this, to treat the symptom so that we can continue to emit? Let’s treat the cause please before we start messing around with an evolved, fine-tuned planet like a boy with a toy.
Dear Ron,
So far, my understanding was that there are mitigation strategies and adaptation strategies for dealing with global warming.
Mitigation strives to milder or stop the warming, adaptation means efforts to find out how to live in the warmer climate. In this sense, it was my understanding that “decarbonization” of the world economy belongs to mitigation strategies as well. Am I wrong?
Greetings
Tom
Your right, in that, AFAIK, adaptation strategies, as commonly understood, involve how we as humans can hopefully adapt to a future of GW, while mitigation involves various strategies on how to stop the planet itself from warming so that we, and the other 10 million species on that share this planet with us, don’t have to adapt or in non human’s case, go extinct – YET reducing Co2, the number one and by far most important item on that list, is being frustratingly IGNORED in favor of various non-carbon reducing, after-the-fact geoengineering mitigation strategies (treating the symptoms rather than the cause) for the globe. That is my understanding. Cut carbon now and you may not need those other expensive mitigation measures later.
In other words, why not emphasize first and most importantly stopping smoking (e.g. switching to a new energy source (or should we keep driving Model Ts indefinitely and dying from it (just an analogy) simply because it makes a few Model T makers rich?) rather than just only treating the symptoms of cancer so that we can continue smoking a while longer (and the Model T makers can keep getting rich)? Do you see how backward that is? Obviously the first and most important thing to do to “stop the warming”, as you say, is to cut the carbon – to stop smoking. That’s what all these climate scientists, who are actually the world’s doctors, and have studied the issue in minute detail have told us we have to do.
If I’m wrong on my definition someone can correct me.
Dear Ron,
The urban experiment that I have proposed
https://orgpad.com/s/VhvfDd5uRIP
should, as a side-effect of human adaptation on global warming and, specifically, on summer heat waves in cities, improve our understanding to two aspects of the present global change:
(i) if the global change has a single cause in rising concentration of non-condensing greenhouse gases, as assumed by majority of participants in this discussion forum, or if it is rather a multicausal phenomenon as suspected by me, macias and JCM, and, more specifically,
(ii) if one of the causes enhancing the observed global warming might be less effective Earth cooling due to “land use” changes caused by human activities.
If the possibility of combining decarbonization by solar energy use with surface cooling and (possible) precipitation increase due to artificially enhanced evaporation shall be named rather adaptation or rather mitigation, it is for me a quite secondary issue, to be honest.
I think it can be both, but I believe that we should test its feasibility and possible drawbacks step-by-step first and assess its applicability iteratively.
Greetings
Tomáš
Tomas, It’s still a little unclear to me whether you are wanting to experiment on an adaptation or mitigation scheme. An experiment of the former kind I think is ok AFAIK, of the latter kind is not. I think you would need to do it on paper and peer review publish the results first before you go messing with something major.
“(i) if the global change has a single cause in rising concentration of non-condensing greenhouse gases, as assumed by majority of participants in this discussion forum…”
No, you’re mistaken. No one, not the IPCC, nor any one else here except the three you mention is claiming that there is only one reason for the rising temperatures. They all say that obviously deforestation is involved in that plants take up Co2, and thus massively reducing trees are reducing this ability. For example:
“From 1750–2011, CO2 emissions from fossil fuel combustion have released an estimated 375 [345–405] GtC to the atmosphere, while deforestation and other land use change have released an estimated 180 [100–260] GtC”
That’s from, https://www.ipcc.ch/srccl/
Please also see,
https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-59088498
But the main concern is our massive addition of extra carbon to the atmosphere, especially since the Industrial Revolution (beginning around 1750) at the same time that we are cutting down trees that filter the air (or killing off plankton https://climate.nasa.gov/news/2621/tiny-organisms-giant-impact/). You are in doubt about that. Here you will find lots of arguments from deniers against Co2 as the cause and their answers.
https://skepticalscience.com/argument.php
The worry is that the purpose of all these diversions and a failure to address the main cause (smoking, to use this analogy) is ultimately another trick intended to stall action and to keep us hooked on oil. You are acknowledging that GW is real, but it’s not, mainly, if at all, caused by the carbon we are pouring into the atmosphere (if I understand you correctly) even though that’s what climate scientists have clearly stated. Even though Co2 is clearly correlated with temperatures.
https://midmiocene.files.wordpress.com/2023/05/fullsizeoutput_1c16.jpeg
Again. by working on after-the-fact GW mitigation schemes while avoiding the main issue causing GW is treating the symptoms while avoiding the cause, cause you want to keep smoking. It makes no sense. But If you, as a cancer patient, want to argue with the doctor, okay I suppose.
I’ve gone too far into this and really hate continuing to argue whether the earth is round or the moon landing was faked.
—
“Gridlock is the greatest friend a global warming skeptic has, cause that’s all you really want…. We’re the negative force. We’re just trying to stop stuff.” Marc Morano, climate change denier, in Merchants of Doubt
@ Ron R
“purpose of all these diversions”
it is not a diversion nor a threat at all to CO2 mitigation programs. Please try to understand. Sometimes a focus in the misunderstood and dismissed subjects is necessary for understanding. This is true for all societal issues. There always runs the risk of majority attitudes overwhelming and bulldozing less popular subjects. For the all-powerful CO2 mitigation perspective has all but displaced environmental reason on many levels. Do not fear the space carved out for hydrological consideration by a small minority.
ms: — The most important thing you and Tom should correct – stop talking about irrigating 10 million km² of desert with sea water. All the gardeners and electricians in the world laugh themselves to death and think you’re complete idiots.
I have described here what additional evaporation can look like in the desert:
https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2023/06/unforced-variations-jun-2023/#comment-812459
If you have made the quantum leap between salt and fresh water, you can think about how much additional CO2 can be assimilated by how much additional irrigation & photosynthesis (3.7-7.4 kg CO2 / m³) and whether (e.g. by more organic humus in the agricultural soils) it can further improve water and carbon storage.
A volume of 1250km³ corresponds to the current, annual SLR/y = 3.5mm (= 8.5mm over land) and can compensate 25% of the annual, man-made CO2 emissions (~37Gt CO2) and produce ~ 1250 Gt of clouds at the same time. This increases evaporation and cloud albedo over land by about 1.8%.
Before you start discussing mitigation and adaptation, you should know what you want to mitigate or adapt to. Anyone who wants to slow down, stop or even reverse global warming must reduce or reverse the Earth Energy Imbalance EEI @ TOA.
The trends of the last 2 decades of climate development:
https://ceres.larc.nasa.gov/documents/STM/2022-10/Loeb_contributed_presentation.pdf
https://climateprotectionhardware.files.wordpress.com/2023/03/geb_2000-2020finish.png?w=1024
In the GEB 2000-2020 ( a combination of climate model & observed satellite data) you can see at the bottom right that evaporation (LH) has decreased by -0.86W/m².
This increased sensible heat SH by 0.17W/m² and LW up surface by 0.69W/m².
Less evaporation —> less cloud albedo —> less GHE.
The ice and snow albedo, which is also decreasing, has a very similar effect. The underlying sea and land surfaces can radiate their heat better.
The radiative forcing through the GHE (W/m²) is defined by the difference of LW up surface – OLR. It has increased by 1.43W/m² over the past 20 years, although the radiative forcing due to CO2 is only calculated at approx. 0.58W/m² / 20y.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radiative_forcing
The high increase in LW up surface of +2W/m² and imbalance (+0.77W/m²) is mainly explained by:
– increased, short-wave, absorbed radiation (+1.54W/m²),
– the warming due to less evaporation (+0.69W /m²) and only
– +0.54W/m² due to higher LW down surface (as is typical for higher climate gas concentrations)
2 + 0.77 = 1.54 + 0.69 + 0.54
Whether you call it mitigation or adaptation, increasing evaporation and cloud albedo seems to me to be a much faster, cheaper, and more promising strategy. But please don’t stop (trying) to reduce CO2 emissions.
IOW, If by irrigating you are talking about cooling desert solar panels which you tell me you are talking about, that would be adaptation. If you mean irrigating the desert itself that would be mitigation. And a very, very water intensive, problem fraught geoengineering strategy it would be to boot. I’m not sure which you mean.
Again, if I’m wrong I’m open to correction.
@ Ron R. says: – ” if I’m wrong I’m open to correction ”
ms: — The problem with the IPCC and yours is that you reduce yourself to well-measured greenhouse gas concentrations – but cannot quantify the warming potential of man-made evaporation losses.
I count them at least 6800 km³/year – accumulated since about 1850.
Relative humidity (RH), which has been falling globally for decades (~ -0.2% per decade), is quantitative evidence of these evaporation losses. It is also sinking over the oceans – a great paradox for the IPCC, but also for all other Clausius-Clapeyron defenders.
https://climateprotectionhardware.files.wordpress.com/2022/09/a2.png
https://www.mdpi.com/atmosphere/atmosphere-12-01297/article_deploy/html/images/atmosphere-12-01297-g004-550.jpg
Deforestation and land use change not only lead to CO2 emissions and reduced CO2 absorption, but also to less evaporation and thus to fewer clouds.
Compare the curve of the RH with that of the EEI and you will find that as the RH increases, the warming imbalance decreases towards zero – and vice versa. Good to see in the years 2008-2012.
Thus the discussion revolves around H2O, the water cycles and how they are connected to the global energy balance. None of the so-called water cycle advocates present here deny the GHE of CO2 –
…and how GHE !!! AND !!! evaporation losses have affected the GEB over the past 20 years is still best seen in the following graphic. Short-wavelength albedo losses have a stronger forcing than the long-wavelength forcing by GHE.
https://climateprotectionhardware.files.wordpress.com/2023/03/geb_2000-2020finish.png?w=1024
Your argument about water losses is fine and understood, of course, MS. I don’t dispute it. The answer to deforestation and other human caused losses of water in the soil then is to halt that deforestation, plant the trees back en masse, leave them alone, and stop and reverse the other causes of human-caused soil water losses (development, whether that’s farming or asphalt and concrete – related to increasing population growth). Address this while cutting our major input of FF and we will be responsibly mitigating.
IOW, restore the eco-systems as they were before us.
It is not, however, to geo-engineer a giant, radically experimental, expensive (and I mean “expensive” in more ways than just money) and temporary (meaning it must be continual), fix (while strangely avoiding the primary cause of FF increase). On this we disagree.
None of the so-called water cycle advocates present here deny the GHE of CO2
They just doubt it.
Macias Shurly
You talk about deforestation since 1850 causing a strong warming effect due to CO2 released and reduction in evaporative landscapes.
Of course deforestation must be causing some significant warming effect. I’ m just not convinced its huge., and any larger than the IPCC suggest.
Global deforestation goes back well before 1850, with substantial quantities before 1850. Deforestation also peaked around 1950 and has been falling since then.
https://rainforests.mongabay.com/general_tables.htm
However over the four centuries up to 1850 temperatures were roughly flat on average, and the most intense warming period has been after the 1950s, when deforestation reduced. This doesn’t do much to support your ideas.
You mention RL falling in recent decades and suggest its loss of evaporative landscapes. Here is an alternative explanation by a climate scientist.
“Guest post: Investigating climate change’s ‘humidity paradox’ carbon Brief.”
https://www.carbonbrief.org/guest-post-investigating-climate-changes-humidity-paradox/
@nigelj says: –
” This doesn’t do much to support your ideas. ”
” You mention RH falling in recent decades and suggest its loss of evaporative landscapes. Here is an alternative explanation by a climate scientist. ”
ms: — The loss of evaporative landscapes and man-made CO2 emissions primarily correlate with global population growth, which was 2.5 billion in 1950, but also with technological development.
I tweeted last year with Kate Willet, the author of the paper you linked, on the very subject.
I would classify her answer (an answer after all) as short and stupid.
I don’t think she has understood to this day that falling relative humidity and evaporation losses can be quantified.
https://twitter.com/Kate_M_Willett/status/1574747606231777280
@ Ron R. says: – “None of the so-called water cycle advocates present here deny the GHE of CO2 ”
I have already explained 20 times here in the forum that 1000km³/y of efficient irrigation can take up to 7.4Gt/y of CO2 via photosynthesis. This offsets ~20% of annual human emissions.
??? How far are you with your decarbonization strategies ???
BTW – the radiative forcing (RF) from climate gases was ~0.6W/m² between 2000 and 2020.
The warming loss of cloud albedo was ~0.8W/m² over the same period.
I have never denied the GHE.
Hr Kalisz
Mitigation and adaption,…
For both, it ought to be obvious that it ought not to be misconsceived and silly. for which we have a lot of criteria.
Mitigation and adaption must be choisest., and several methods can also be used in combination, like for blending of wines and of spirituosa, but it must all be apellation controlle.
Cheating is not permitted..
Marketing of mitigation and adaption, are under EU/EØS- rules, that must be strictly kept. Sales for Russia without Royal conscession and Papal dispensatione is forbidden in our days .
I just found a furter marketing of the Zeller-Nicolov- model, where we have Roy Spencers method for control at hand
“Tribute to Willis Eschenbach for setting the Zeller-Nicolov- silliness straight!”
On Spencers own website and on the WUWT.
See also Hans Jelbrings “Atmosfäriska effekten” from 2000, and “Dipl.Ing.” Heinz Thiemes further blendings and sales of that, on Thiemes own website, obviously sponsored.
Thime is Technischer Assessor Emeritus from Upstairs at the Railways in old Leipzig,
That must have been Eastern line in old Leipzig
Pleace watch your steps especially in that direction. .
Jelbring, Thieme and Zeller-Nicolov have all set on non- radiative mitigation and adaptive strategies and they all did score very higth as political magicians and stuff- dealers for the denier and surrealists industries on the black market where it could be purchased and furthered from..,
Then you have a lot of material for critical comparision , for easy control of blatant cheating, and for critical proofs of fusel and Metanol- content in the climate dispute. .
Cheating, fusel, metanol and irregular labeling, has been banned and forbidden and to be avoided and warned against on the free market..
As for Donald Trumps interests also,………..- they must now be cleared out by the supreme court first. Avoid them all until that is in order .
If you watch this, you can hardly be wrong.
@Tom
Their condescension is revealing. Superficial consumers of landscape on the weekends; hikers and picture takers. A fine bunch, with deep feelings and a sense of passion. Generally harmless and make a good volunteer corps if you can manage to herd them.
Tomas Kalisz: “I would like to add that neither macias, nor JCM, nor me proposed to deal with water cycle repair INSTEAD of mitigation of the greenhouse effect, as incorrectly assumed by Piotr”
Too bad for you that your earlier posts are still available – e.g.:
TK on Jun 5:
“ Dear Piotr. I proposed to check if an articifial evaporative cooling on 10 mil km2 of present hot deserts could “neutralize” 2 W/m2 of additional energy flow [which] roughly corresponds to the sum of various “forcings” driving the warming observed in the last two decades.”
If you succeeded in “neutralizing 2 W/m2″, then there would be no need to reduce GHG emissions – meaning you did propose increasing evaporation INSTEAD of mitigation (= reduction of GHG emissions).
That now you claim, with a straight face, the opposite:
“neither macias, nor JCM, nor me proposed to deal with water cycle INSTEAD of mitigation of the greenhouse effect, as incorrectly assumed by Piotr”
tells all one needs to know about your integrity and credibility.
Dear Piotr,
I merely wrote that the cooling effect of a technically feasible (and, possibly, economically advantageous) mode of solar energy exploitation roughly corresponds to the sum of “forcings” that likely drove the global warming in the last two decades. I assumed that it may be a useful comparison for showing that the effect is not negligible and that it shall be taken into account seriously.
I think that from this comparison, it is also quite obvious that mitigating potential of the active surface cooling is limited and certainly could not compensate further greenhouse effect enhancement if the content of long-living non-condensing greenhouse gases will continue.
I basically do agree with Carbomontanus’ opinion that Earth climate shall be rather seen as “water dampened” than “water cooled” or “water heated”. I just call for investigating the range in which we can exploit the active water cycle management as a further tool for dealing with the climate, with particular focus on precipitation/ drought management on the land.
It is my feeling that this aspect may be even more important for human society and civilization than global average temperature. It is my feeling that if decarbonization bring the expected effect and stops further warming, this stabilization may be insufficient if we will meanwhile desertify further land.
I am afraid that without finding out in which extent the mankind indeed changed the water balance of continents, we may take a risk of hardly reparable damages that could be comparable with the risk of neglecting the changes in the greenhouse effect. In other words, I am not sure that Carbomontanus is right in that the above mentioned climate dampening mechanism still does work undisturbed by human activities and that we do not have to care about it.
Greetings
Tom
@ Dr.Tom
Carbomontanus is a pioneering first one to understand and to teach around that Nature and its normally swinging rushing splashing and even sounding and lighting radiating activities is being disturbed by human activities in our days.
I repeat…..
But we cannot have flat earthers, desert walkers, blind believers and any further rabid entrepreneurs and false propets and their logical full support and applaud from the bloody masses to teach and to correct and to guide us us on such elements.
Looki up “Binnenschiffart” and “Flussbegradigung” also in Polen if there is any. Progressive
scientific logical water and river aqvaduct and water management. Thus why have you got such problems with water rather than with people?
Try and wake up and grasp that the facultary chemists and biologuists and meteorologists and electricians are above you in the grades on earths airs waters radiations interactions systemjs and on energies, systems, and climates.
Human political Spraying with holy water is quite misconsceived and perverse in the taverns, on the websites, and on the free market.
Turn off that cock.
.
Hr Kalisz
Whether Carbumontanus is right in….
Remain un- sure about that.
Watering and moistening of a landscape by artificial irrigation does hardly cause more rain and percipitation in the same landscape.
I repeat,……….
On the contrary, it can rather delay and inhibit the natural rains that would else have come in larger quantities.
Aspirands have not yet learnt this, and dia- lectic matetrialists will contra- dict it.
But, the overall situation is that Nature has its balances and negative feedbacks- maybe only delayed a bit in time because the processes are slow. and take time.
, and you are at the same time draining and maybe disturbing and violating- destroying the
scarce and critical natural aquifers in the same landscape. .
Further, if you are responsible scientific logical and clever and start spraying available drinkwater riverwarer even rainbarrel water on your tomatoes and potatoes in the spring because of drought, you may rather inhibit their normal natural development of longer and deeper roots during such weathers, and will have to irrigate intensely the whole summer, for which you have no water or cannot pay. . You are producing http/www.addiction to unnatural stimulants that else would not have been needed.
Moral:
Quit political ideological logical qvasi- scientific speculations and phantacies and sales promotion of the same.
Rather ask the agricultural highschool or the University of Biology and environment and landscape, if you have any, for advice on such things.
And if young trees are dying and leaves are falling much too early, and your English “Lawn” in Hollywood shows hardly sustainable,…..maybe let it remain so
I repeat……..
Elsewhere, It maybe grew up as pioneering vegetation after a bushfire or after a too wet year or after pioneering progressive rabid entrepreneurs warfare to the local økosystem……….
………….and is to vanish in any case , to help rather the mushroms, the ants, and the “bugs” and the Humus reservoirs & potencially fossile fuels..
There are many effects of that kind in Nature.
Aint that not so also, Killian?
Ron: “ The best and brightest [scientists] are humble about what they know, and don’t know”
JCM: “ ja ja. the double standard is noted”
Double standard? Wouldn’t that require you and your friends (T. Kalisz, M. Shurly, Victor, KIA) to be … “scientists”, “best” and “brightest” ? ;-)
Tomáš Kalisz Jun 18: “I merely wrote that the cooling effect of a technically feasible (and, possibly, economically advantageous) mode of solar energy exploitation roughly corresponds to the sum of “forcings” that likely drove the global warming in the last two decades.
Actually – your post from May30 proves the opposite:
TK. May 30: “ 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.
Ergo the opposite to what you claim now – that you arrived at your 13 000 km3 of evaporation as feasible first, and then only by happy coincidence it turned out to “neutralize” the net 2W/m2 of global warming from GHG emissions.
So much for your intellectual integrity of owning up to your earlier words. To the question
whether you are “useful idiot” of Russia, Saudi Arabia and other fossil fuel beneficiaries
it doesn’t even matter how you arrived at your conclusion, only the conclusion itself:
by claiming that there exists “ technically feasible (and, possibly, economically advantageous” ALTERNATIVE to reduction of the root cause of the climate change – GHG emissions – you do precisely what they need both their paid trolls and the useful idiots like you to accomplish – make the need for decarbonization questionable and/or much less urgent.
To all and everyone
We have discussede for a while whether the earth is a water- cooled or a water- warmed planet.
Some, apparently grandchildren of the old revolutionary pioneering ultraleftists and surrealists who are still among us a 100 years later by the Mendels beans effect
( see also the 10 commandments § 2 in original with penal provisions)
are telling us for some pioneering progressive missionary reason that the earth is a water- cooled planet.
To check u0 this , take a look also to the poles, Arktis and Antarktis.
Arktis is an ocean, with dry land around it, and Antarktis is a continent with open sea around it Antarktis is even quite extreemly dry.
Which of the poles on earth is then the coldest and the warmest?,…. and why?.
Then, for comparishion and reference look also too the moon and to Mars. They are lacking earthly atmosphere but they are also lacking liquid water, sea oceans. And what that means first of all for the temperature swings and extreemes.
I would say the earth is neither a water cooled nor a water heated planet but obviously a water- damped planet.
If our surrealists and younger political pioneers could rather get that in mind, they might improove.
and rather stop hiding the decine and smash blindly around them with a defect cycle and a bro0ken hockeystick, . on request from Big Coal and Big Oil, on the free market.
@ all water vaporers and broken cyclers
Which includes Matthias Schürle, Thomas Kalisz , and JCM & al at least.
I have very good news for you all.
Even I….. (your pupil , aspirand and class enemy from the alians who never would understand logics….) ……suddenly came to think of my own ideal and royal thoughts, about climate history and paleo- climatology.
Very important and due lectures for me and for you all, is the world situation if the temperature suddenly becomes 5- 8 deg higher,
And there we have a fameous recent example,………
………that I believe also has been conscidered inicially in the climate dispute, namely the Pliocene period formerly called “Tertiær”.
It follows after the cretacious pliocen catastrophic K-T- event. 66 million years ago. The biosphaere seems to have recovered by new species after that fameous Asteroide impact and extinction of the dinosaurs.
But then about 55 millionn years ago, the mid atlantic atlantic ocean broke up, and there was a sudden very fast temperature jump during maybe for one million years.
Why?
It can have been volcanic CO2 connected to it, but I more believe enormeous oil and gasfield leaks and fires when all the continental shelf broke up by all that midatlantic volcanic activity..
What followed then is the worlds very fameous brown coal lignite sediment formations on high latitudes.
There must have been quite enormeous growth of trees and “weeds” in that weather. The Watery damp moist photosynthesis carbon sink took over.
And next evidence of the same is fameous kaolin sediments also worldwide at high latitudes.
Kao- lin, I repeat….
Kaolin formation takes 10 million years of piss- raining on it at rather tropical temperatures.. Chinaware and Delft, even Meissner Porcellain from Sachsen prooves it..
Lignit and Kaolin together entails tropical rainforest climate.. In China , In Böhmen & Sachsen, even Höganäs southern Sweden and…….. mighty early pliocene coal sediments in the high arctic on Svalbard and Bjørnøya.
I have tried that special, rather recent, early pliocene coal. It is heavy and tight enough and it smells of fashionable chimney upstairs in London / The smell of socialism in East Berlin. It ignites easily, it bakes, and burns with very sooty flame. Then gives a quite good coke….that can be blasted up further into white hot.
The German Nazi drove cars and enven tanks on the distillates, and called it Benzin and Benzol after Carl & Berta Benz.
Never forget Mecedes Benz.
Kalisz may know it.
I have seen purchased a special coal from Slovakia that was announced as “neither coal nor lignite but something in between” It stands out with low sulphur and quite bitumenous. It contains Clay minerals bul low salt.
All together a quite progressive and fashionable coal.
The russians are digging it in their Barentsburg on Spitzbergen and call it very splendid coal. Not the best for ironwork but the best for domestic heating and chemical industries. On its best, it is typical early pliocene coal from the sub- and high arctic. .
There we have it, a warm rainforest situation on high latitudes worldwide , and then. with-……. Megafauna…. that came up and ate all that weed down again. All the large horses, Rhinos, and Mastodonts. .and the apes grew larger and larger also.
All until the CO2 was settled down again from the atmosphere and glaciers and ice- ages came back and we have holocene with Milancovic- cycles. .
In this, Ye water vapourers and broken cyclers will have a better and more enlighted realistic, political argument.
The fameous pliocene history and situation is rather my vision of what CO2-AGW is bringing back over the earth and seas. Namely away with the glaciers and rather a new rainforest situation in Canada and northern Eurasia and away with the Antarctic glaciation. With higher sealevels also of course, but who does not rather like sea- bathing when the temperatures get high enough?
Can we adapt to that? Will we like it? Should we better look forward to and appreciate that global warming and climate change instead?
Or should we try and stop it?
Will we be able to live with it?
I think ye flat earthers blind believers and desert walkers have totally lost your orientation due to wrong beliefs in False prophets, along with your grand old Party Congregational catechisms and memerships / ownerships under your elderlies and sins of their grandparents in recent time..
You lost orientation because you never had one due to the sins of your bacground grandparents ,, In all your thriving for holy water, in your slamming around you with a broken hockeystick hoping for a restored cycle. hoping and running after Fata Morgana in your flat, dusty, earthly horizons.
Do not leave it to Puttler alone to resolve and decide over this.
Max pliocene with all its characteristics is what we are facing now if not Puttler goes nuclear. .
Rajendra Pachauri, a typical rather Indian He- man and Maharayah from Uphill, has been set free again by the supreme indian colonial court. (King Charles still have them under his control).
We hope for the d/o US supremje court, that King Donald Grosny will better be chained for lifetime. and that Puttler will go to Den Haag following Milosevic.
Pachauri:
“No one shall have to reduce their living standard. We must only learn to chose other values”
SANN!
Aint that not so Killian?
Even Drunken sailors along with the King and the Queen and all the People were adressed to by Rajendra Pachauri. in Oslo City at the Nobel price festival to high applaud..
Aint he not an autentic Maharayah from Uphill India? whereas the flat earthers desert walkers and blind believers down there…….
You and Pauchauri can’t do simple math, let alone complex math.
But he’s right for the wrong reason: We don’t need to reduce standard of living: 1. Clean ecosystem. 2. Stable ecosystem. 3. Community. 4. Economic equality, 5. One person, one vote, for real. 6. Gender equality. 7. Individual autonomy. 8. Equal access to resources. 9. Living by First Principles thinking.
Etc.
Shush. You’re rambling like a drunk on a bender, as usual.
( Believe it or not, I managed to wake up the drunken sailor again.)
Who earlier published about him / herselfr that he/ she is immune and dyslectic to numbers..
Now he/ she is suddenly above me and Pachauri in complex maths.
Pachauri is said to have graduated on Diesel for the Victorian imperial Indian Railways, .that were coal- heated.
Even I have had to learn diesel at last, Volvo Penta md 7A and Yanmar 2 GM 20.
But it show to be simply what I learnt in public school after all.. Simply red/ox awith adiabatic ignition.
I was expert on sparkplug gasoline 2 and 4 stroke from before, There aint no VW 1200 or Renault 4L or 1 cyl lawnmoover or Motorsaw so wrong that it does not explode under my hands.
Simply reallize that air,spark and Gas is explosive. And If it does not explode, it is because you lack air Gaqs or spark or more of them. And if you wake up in the hospital fully bandaged it is still because of the same; Air, Spark and Gas is explosive!
.At low temperature start rather try butane- gas. Eter startgas dissolves water frost that may may shortcut the plug.
Diesel breathes in and is fueled independently without any kind of choke, and ignites rather by rapid adiabatic high compression.
on 6, Gender equality:
,
Pachauri showed right also there, as a very typical indian Maharajah from Uphill able to reallize a certain human di-morphy. that he was – able to respect on its natural premises. along with Killians §9, – first principles thinking.
So for what is wrong with Pachauri Dr. D. Sailor?. . Only that he is from India Uphill?
He was here, I give him my best notes
§1, India on its very best the way I have learnt to know them namely
§2, polite,
§3, matter-of-fact- and
§4, strict!
§5, Really worthy of the Nobel peace price
Al Gore is much more dubious
First of all, I do not like his sloppy mannersl.
But here in Oslo he showed able to wrap himself together and become Pachauris obedient poodle.
“No one shall have to reduce their living standard. We must only learn to chose other values”
This is utter nonsense. If that needs to be explained to you, your knowledge is extremely limited. You cannot reduce per capita energy significantly without reducing work (in the thermodynamic sense) and consumption. The resources do not exist to maintain energy levels that we have with FFs. Period. The overall production would have to be much larger than with FFs because of the MUCH lower density.
These are simple things, drunken one.
Dear Carbomontanus,
Thank you for pointing to the paleoclimate in the central Europe 50 milion years ago. Actually, what do we know about the climate in lower latitudes at the same time? Was it still rainy e.g. in tropical Africa, or, perhaps, an opposite?
I have still zero knowledge about it, I must admit. Should you have some references or a short summary, please do not hesitate to share.
Greetings
Tom
@ Kalisz
I found Paleoclimatology on Wikipedia.
Quite good. Look there first, and they have further references better than I can give you.
I rather study peoples motivs for not knowing, and for fighting such things that you will need also for an open set of practical purposes different from climate dispute.
When denialists and surrealists deny and fight what entals todays common, including my kind of knowledge and opinions in the climate dispute,…. they fight and are at war also against that large and wide and open set of methods and knowledge that comes from other sources and horizons of research and experience , All that entails and that controls what we ought to know about climate and geophysics.
They are at war against our learning civilization in their way and by their snobbish or even mad manners.
They are at civil war against my, and a lot of other peoples cultural and vital professional identity. And I really do not like that.
.
@ Kalisz
For Holocene there are also other horizons to dig into for checking up.
1, The worlds large loess- sediment landscapes documenting extreeme drought and frequent enormeous “dust- bowls” are found rather on high latitudes north and south, next up to the polar glaciers and tundras. Verifying Clausius Clappeyrons law plus a next principle: Draught is a relation between percipitation and temperature. It rains less in the green sub- arctics with moscus and reindeers than in Sahara and in Utah & Arizonas. and in Uzbekistan.
2, the worlds large arid desert areas have rather dried up since max holocene 8-6000 years ago when they were green savannas and steppe. Dried up, on negative natural milancovic transcient, again sustaining the importance of dew point curve of water……..
……….And the reserves of water in the world that can evaporate seems rather to be the oceans and the greatest lakes., and brought to land by the worlds major wind systems, not by local “evapotranspiration” with local turboconvection and “latent” & cooling fluxes.
Alternative model- theories are to be disqualified and thought to be adjusted rather to basic principles of geophysics that rules globally and universally in the planetary atmospheres and eventual hydrospheres.
3, there I am not sure. But I saw once a TV- program from the Congo river and basin of stone- age findings of human settlements shown by broken pottery in the river- sands where there is thick jungle today They told that the Congo basin at stoneage was a more savanna- like landscape with human settlements and grazing animals.
Then examine Amazonas also of early human settlements and stoneage agriculture. The tropics may have been less rainy for some reason, . as Sahara and central asia and the middle east was more rainy at Max holocene. .
And here I try and show you some more sceptical elements and methods at least, for better looking your authorities and teachers of physical geography and geophysics into their chards and scriptures. So that you can better control them and perhaps make up your own mind instead.
the obstinate attachment to archaic prejudice is to be ridiculed.
the elders in my family were referred to as Bestefar and Bestemor, with ancestry traced to surname Almquist. Engineers imported to north america from Oslo and region contracted for setting up the mills / pulp & paper processing high up the ottawa River and of hiring staff labor. The shield bedrock landscape resembling that of their homeland. This was after the height of the fur-trade and so the ecology had already commenced its profound change.
For this I concede they probably lacked awareness and consideration of soil genesis and erosion, and any speculations of the geography of the indian subcontinent would have been mere uneducated guesswork. However I suspect they would not have engaged on such matters. For me, I have perused an entirely different type of work in a different geography.
The soil genesis having initiated in earnest in the order of millions of years BP in accumulation. Plotted against time a slow and steady accumulation of organics until very recently, and so very likely a linear graph resembling an upside down hockey stick or scythe in shape. The flood irrigation in Uttar Pradesh and Bihar is absolutely erosive, and so the hydrological and temperature extremes should be expected to intensify. I have witnessed farmers praying at Mahabodhi temple on such matters.
JCM: it is not a diversion nor a threat at all to CO2 mitigation programs.
Fine, then we agree that it’s carbon and that we need to reduce our input of it. So let’s do so, finally, and stop strangely avoiding this primary cause of GHE. Responsible mitigation measures are fine, if still necessary, after we have addressed the primary cause.
“after”
gimme a break.
Q:
Are you so in a hurry with your salt and brackish warer into the desertifications, Gavarish ?
there is a lack of comprehension happening here, purposeful ignorance. A defense mechanism of some sort, from accumulated emotional baggage on the issue of climate or something else. anyway, it’s weird. what is happening here? is everyone ok?
JCM
Do not aspire as a psychoanalyst after having boldly demonstrated that you hardly understand your own thoughts, your own and other peoples motives and words. .,
JCM
Your comprehension, your very percipiitation of the climate may be alian to molecular matter, to heat and to light and to waters, to silicates and to aluminates, and to photosynthesis, the green values. due to private political racial snobbish progressive alternative religious baggage where such conscepts were forbidden, ignored, ridiculed, and racially rinsed out..
Question
are you sure that you are perceiving normally, gommon physical and geographical matter different fom dia- lectic matter there where you are living?
@JCM says: – ” what is happening here? is everyone ok? ”
ms: — I suppose some older, conservatively paralyzed minds here have suffered some serious roof damage from the release of the IPCC chart (irrigation and albedo have a cooling global radiative forcing).
If you now tell these walking sleeping pills that the increasing EEI and the warming that has taken place in the last 20 years are mainly caused by albedo losses, they lose track completely or flee into their subconscious and remain silent.
Replying to
https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2023/06/unforced-variations-jun-2023/#comment-812401
and to
https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2023/06/unforced-variations-jun-2023/#comment-812482
Dear Piotr,
referring to your doubts that the latent heat fluxes (about 80 W/m2 as reported in various modifications of the global energy balance and the respective Trenberth’s diagrams) are “neat” fluxes and to your opinion that their values should be in fact divided by factor 3, I would like to ask two questions:
1) I do not see a reason why the authors of these schemes should make an exception and, while reporting other energy flows as “neat” values, choose an uncorrected, “raw” format just for the latent heat flow. Do you have an explanation?
2) Should your opinion be right, the fit of the mean global annual precipitation (990 mm water column) with the reported value of the latent heat flow about 80 W/m2 would have been purely accidental. Do you think so?
Dear Ron,
You object that in the available scientific literature hardly anybody claims that human-caused changes in water regime of continents might have been a parallel cause (“forcing”) of the global climate change, along with rising greenhouse effect.
In this respect, however, please note that there are hardly any reliable data about past* global water regime and/or about past water regime on most of the land that could enable a such claim. There are only indirect hints that (likely) may be quite difficult to quantify. Such uneasy subjects are not particularly suitable for a successful grant project on usual relatively short-term basis, I assume. That might be a rather simple explanation for absence of the respective studies.
Greetings
Tom
*during holocene
TK: You object that in the available scientific literature hardly anybody claims that human-caused changes in water regime of continents might have been a parallel cause (“forcing”) of the global climate change, along with rising greenhouse effect.
In this respect, however, please note that there are hardly any reliable data about past* global water regime and/or about past water regime on most of the land that could enable a such claim.
BPL: Uncertainty does not automatically work in your favor. It could just as easily work against it. If nobody knows, then the effect you want could have worked in the opposite direction as easily as in the expected direction.
Tomas Kalisz: “ 1) I do not see a reason why the authors [Trenberth?], make an exception and, while reporting other energy flows as “neat” values, choose an uncorrected, “raw” format just for the latent heat flow.”
The “exception” is only in your head – my ~ 1/3 value has come from dividing the outgoing radiation from the atmosphere (the only way the heat absorbed by the atmosphere can escape into space) = 199 W/m2 – by the TOTAL OF ALL energy sources heating the atmosphere: “531(= 78+80+17+356) W/m².
Hence no exception – the other fluxes obtained THE SAME treatment as your latent heat, if anything, undeservingly so – for instance SW absorbed by ozone in stratosphere has MUCH HIGHER probability to escape into space than your latent heat from troposphere.
TK “ 2) Should your opinion be right, the fit of the mean global annual precipitation (990 mm water column) with the reported value of the latent heat flow about 80 W/m2 would have been purely accidental. Do you think so??”
Apples to oranges – the fact that you put 80W/m2 of latent heat into troposphere DOES NOT mean that anywhere close to those 80W/m2 was emitted into space. After several weeks of various people explaining it to you one would think that something has landed. Apparently not.
And if you, and your little friend (Shurly) can’t wrap your heads around such a basic thing- then it does not bode well for anything else you say – if your foundation is crap, anything you build on it – would crumble. Garbage in, garbage out.
Dear Piotr,
Many thanks for your reply, I think that I have now a better understanding to your position.
Nevertheless, I still doubt that your interpretation of the GEB diagrams is correct.
I think that the 62.5 % of the energy input absorbed by the atmosphere which, as assumed by you, are physically “returned” to the Earth surface, are in fact not retained therein.
I think that wherever we consider mean annual global balances, the entire huge downwelling radiation is effectively a virtual quantity, because it is practically cancelled by comparably huge upwelling radiation. What in my opinion really does play a role may be the difference between both radiation flows.
In case of the diagram shown in
https://skepticalscience.com/pics/Figure1.png ,
the mean annual global value of this difference is (356 – 333) W/m2 = 23 W/ m2
If we consider only this neat energy flow between the surface and the atmosphere, then the sum of all energy flows absorbed in the atmosphere (199 W/m2) is also completely emitted therefrom to the space.
I have to apologize for my incorrect assertion that all energy flows in the discussed diagram are “neat” flows in terms of an annual “budget” – I think that just all the depicted “internal” infrared radiation flows are rather virtual quantities and may become confusing, if taken the way you have applied.
Greetings
Tom
Tomáš Kalisz: I still doubt that your interpretation of the GEB diagrams is correct.
… based on you inability to understand how a (energy) budget works.
TK:” [the 324 W/m2 of back-radiation] assumed by you to be physically “returned” to the Earth surface, is in fact not retained therein [and therefore is] a virtual quantity, because is cancelled by comparably huge upwelling radiation
That’s like saying that in a (balanced) federal budget – government revenues are zero (i.e. “not real”, in your vernacular = “virtual“), because revenue is “not retained” in the treasury, but “practically cancelled” by government spending of equal size… Convinced by Nobel Prize winning economist T. Kalisz, the governments, in a hugely popular move, abandoned ALL TAXES, since they are not real, because they would be “cancelled” by the spending anyway. Tell us, Tomas, what happened next …
If 324 W/m2 of the back-radiation WERE “retained” by the Earth – the temps would have RAPIDLY increased – imagine the rate of global warming if it was driven by the imbalance of 324W/m2 instead of 2W/m2.
For a climate CHANGE- only matters the imbalance between radiation in and out at the top of the atmosphere. Of the heat put INTO the atmosphere: 531(= 78+80+17+356) W/m², only 195W/m2, or slightly above 1/3, escapes from atmosphere into space.
So AT BEST- only 1/3 of your 80 W/m2 of latent heat escapes – thus providing cooling. This is more than offset by GH effect of water vapour and clouds minus cloud albedo. That’s why, based on Gavin’s paper brought unwittingly by your friend Shurly, I have shown that the the net effect of water cycle is to WARM Earth:
Net GH of H2O cycle = +120 – 47 (cloud albedo) – (1/3)*80/m² = +46 W/m²
If you still can’t wrap your head around it, hit the books, or take some intro course. Functioning of this group is predicated on having a minimum understanding of the basics of climate, and willingness to learn from the answers by people who may know more than you.
So far you have shown neither.
re Piotr – see my https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2023/06/unforced-variations-jun-2023/#comment-812708 – Starting with dry convection only, and setting aside radiative effects of changes in the surface and atmosphere optical properties (clouds, H2O), when LH flux is initially allowed, there is net cooling at the surface and net heating of some portion of the troposphere; the OLR doesn’t change immediately, nor do any LW fluxes within the atmosphere. This results in the temperature changes over time, as the disequilibrium decays. In the new equilibrium, the addition of the LH flux is completely balanced by changes in net upward LW flux and net upward SH flux; ie, 0% escapes to space **in this sense**. But the new equilibrium has a new convective lapse rate, a cooler surface and lowermost troposphere and warmer upper troposphere; net LW radiant cooling is redistributed but the column total (sfc+atm) is the same (=OLR). Now add in the H2O+clouds albedo and greenhouse effects…
(0% of the change escapes to space when equilibrium is restored, as there is no change left.)
@ Tom Kalisz
Here I may help you again on things and practical principles that seem hardly learnt among the climate denialists- surrealists namely classical chemistery.. The matgerial and microchosmic sciences. different from militant political dialectic materialism and propagandism.
Traditional forms of thought old folkloric supersticion you see, that may be leaking out and shining through.
“… global balances, the entire huge downwelling radiation is effectively a virtual quantity, because it is practically cancelled by comparably huge upwelling radiation. What in my opinion really does play a role may be the difference between both radiation flows.”
This only shows your special and maybe abnormal political conscepts of words.
That huge downwelling radiation is not virtual. It is real and physical.
The one radio beam or light beam in one direction does not virtuallize or anihilate and push back the other beam in the opposite direction That would deny the very axiom of permanence of energy.
It superposes of course and without physical interference to each other.
It is not like solid state military broad showel bulldozers on larvae feet meeting each other and the strongest will push back and anihilate the weaker, or armies lined up in fronts shoulder by shoulder against each other in the field under strong command.
That is not the nature of light and electromagnetic waves and radiation, It is a fameous false model conscept of the same..
Immagine rather an ant- road with traffic both ways between a main and a satelite red- ant hill in the polish forests if you still have any. Only at war, they stop each others traffic and anihilate, – virtuallize each other on the road.
Immagine rather a main anthill and an oak tree. They sleep at home in the night and go out in the morning and up the tree for sugar and home in several turns both ways all the day, and then home again for evening. There is hardly any pushing and collisions and anihilations and virtualization denying the 1.st law on that road.
It is the main universal sitgualion in the air and in the chemical glasses and on the car windows when things dissolve or evaporate and then re- condense and cristallize again.
It goes both ways all the time, not only out in the morning and back again in closed order in the evening to avoid collisions.
Both ways all the time but at varying speed and currents both ways depending on temperature and field conductivity. And that is for particles, molecular matter, the nonradiative currents and material reserves and potencials interests affinities.
I did not learn this in highschool, but got it inicially as a first principle of chemistery at the University that is to be understood and kept with you all the way, , the law of mass action. Or the universal law of the 2 polish anthills and the lousy oak tree.
You see even obvious brownian moovement on that hill at daylight.
That is not “virtual” in any detail. Microcosmos is not virtual either.
The Voice of America in Munic transmitting in Polish did rattle fully in the jamming contra- transmitting antennas in the east, even into their strong transmjitter red hot high watt transmitter tubes in the east. Gomulkas electronics was shivering and tranmitting the same that they took in on the frequencies of Voice of America in Munich. .
You can easily show it optically by incadescent lamps and reflectors.
The strong lamps shine up and shine even stronger out, by reflected own light back on them. Wherefore that diffuse reflection back radiation necessarily also will heat up the ground even a bit further.,
Roy Spencer has corrected the contrarians on this.
Contrarians have propagated that it is against the 2nd law. But it is easily shown real. Nothing real can be against the 2nd law
Denying it however, is denial of the 1.st law.
And if this was not so, barometric pressure hydrauloic pressure and osmotic pressure would not be equal in all drections.
This is basics to be known first, of electromagnetism and of moleculkar matter and of energy. To be known for sceptical control and correctures of ones speculations and phantacies, and control of ones teachers`s. . .
Tomas:
“You object that in the available scientific literature hardly anybody claims that human-caused changes in water regime of continents might have been a parallel cause (“forcing”) of the global climate change, along with rising greenhouse effect.”
Hmm, I don’t. remember saying that. Do you have a link? I do remember saying repeatedly that our addition of Co2 is the “main cause” of GW.
I think you are right that our changes in the water cycle have had negative effects on the atmosphere, obviously. Changing the course of rivers, for example. The addition of dams for another. Deforestation as another. But again, the main reason temps are going up is from our addition of FFs! It’s a long proven fact! As Harvard says regarding geoengineering, “the best way to slow climate change is to reduce greenhouse emissions”. The other ways are mostly after-the-fact and their (disguised) purpose is often to allow us to continue our addiction to FF! Cutting emissions (and switching energy sources – solar mostly) deals directly with the problem, head-on, addresses the main cause. It’s front-ended while the others are back-ended. Do you see what I mean?
https://sitn.hms.harvard.edu/flash/2022/reversing-climate-change-with-geoengineering/
We can mess around with the water cycle, add lakes in deserts, I guess. Whatever. Or something even more radical. I suppose we can put all of our nukes on one side of the planet in a remote location, set them off and try to knock the planet into a more favorable orbit for climate, or a more favorable tilt (obviously not a serious proposal). There are all kinds of mitigation schemes out there. Should we take them all seriously? No, of course not. Continually irrigating the deserts with vast amounts of seawater is one of them, IMO. But what do I know?
https://www.businessinsider.com/geoengineering-how-to-reverse-climate-change-2019-4?op=1
So yes, let’s work on fixing our broken water cycle, (responsibly). But first and foremost lets reduce our dependency on FF, something we should have and would have done long ago (but for all the FF industry’s shenanigans) and let’s stop deforestation. FF emissions have already been shown in excruciating detail to be the main reason why the planet is heating up.
And let’s finally move into a cleaner future.
@Ron R. says:
– ” But again, the main reason temps are going up is from our addition of FFs! It’s a long proven fact! ”
ms: — That’s just not true.
https://ceres.larc.nasa.gov/documents/STM/2022-10/Loeb_contributed_presentation.pdf
Ron: “the main reason temps are going up is from our addition of FFs! It’s a long proven fact! ”
macias shurly : @1 JUN — “That’s just not true” and gives the link to slide presentation by Loeb that does not addresses the causes of global warming, but only mechanisms through which it is realized (i.e. feedbacks). That’s like saying Oswald didn’t kill JFK, because it was the bullet, not Oswald directly, that did the damage to JFK’s body.
To make it better – your own source identifies “increases in water vapor/i>” as one of the main culprits for … the planetary heat uptake. And you brought it up in support of your colleague T. Kalisz’s plan to …. massively increase the concentration of water vapour precisely over the very place that currently has …. the lowest relative humidity and, therefore, the most room to accommodate the additional water vapour – Sahara.
And that’s coming on the heels of Shurly’s previous attempt in this thread to gain “credibility by association” with a NASA source – when he used Gavin’s paper to claim that it proves that
“The earth is a water-cooled planet – whether you like it or not ”
-only to achieve … the opposite of the intended – after the correction for his error in assumption that ENTIRE latent heat flux is lost to space ( i.e. using instead a more realistic number of 1/3 based on the Trenberth’s energy budget – proportion of the energy emitted to space over energy absorbed by the atmosphere)
– the water cycle causing the Earth to be slightly cooler (Shurty = -13 W/m²), after the correction became: +44 W/m².
One has to hand it to Mr. Shurly – he certainly knows how to shoot himself, and his friends, in the foot.
This adds to his other admirable quality – knowing how to admit his errors in style:
MS to his opponents:
“[the mentioned above 1/3 is ] the idiot-piotr factor”,”The full-of-himself idiot is you”, “only sheep & idiots can’t understand that. Who do you actually belong to ?”. “you dumbhead”, “you pathetic idiot”, “you’re complete idiots”
RR: the main reason temps are going up is from our addition of FFs! It’s a long proven fact! ”
ms: — That’s just not true.
BPL: That is true. The correlation between airborne CO2 and temperature over the past 170 years accounts for 85% of the variance. That means all other influences, known and unknown, can only have accounted for 15%.
In Re to Ron R.
https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2023/06/unforced-variations-jun-2023/#comment-812517
and
https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2023/06/unforced-variations-jun-2023/#comment-812569 ,
macias shurly
https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2023/06/unforced-variations-jun-2023/#comment-812591 ,
and to others mentioned in my text below.
Dear colleagues,
1) As emphasized (I guess, by nigelj) some time ago, we all are human beings with various strengths and weaknesses. Fortunately, it is unlikely to kill an opponent in a remote discussion. I hope, however, that none of us would do so even if it were easily possible.
2) Nigelj
https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2023/06/unforced-variations-jun-2023/#comment-812622
suspects me of working for a climate denialist agency, and ascribes my style to a schooling in public relations techniques.
I would like to offer an alternative explanation. Please consider that the suspect writing might have arisen also as a creeping side effect of my full-time job as a patent engineer during the last 13 years of my professional career
https://www.linkedin.com/public-profile/settings?trk=d_flagship3_profile_self_view_public_profile&lipi=urn%3Ali%3Apage%3Ad_flagship3_profile_view_base%3BRfPpZNo2RAulqEXBIKVfXg%3D%3D .
I would like to add that repeating questions may look like trolling but it can be also a way how to reveal that seemingly simple and clear issues are in fact complex and may need a thorough analysis.
3) macias,
https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2023/06/unforced-variations-jun-2023/#comment-812459 ,
https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2023/06/unforced-variations-jun-2023/#comment-812484 ,
https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2023/06/unforced-variations-jun-2023/#comment-812562 ,
https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2023/06/unforced-variations-jun-2023/#comment-812593 ,
https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2023/06/unforced-variations-jun-2023/#comment-812570 ,
Barton Paul
https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2023/06/unforced-variations-jun-2023/#comment-812471 ,
https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2023/06/unforced-variations-jun-2023/#comment-812510 ,
and nigelj
https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2023/06/unforced-variations-jun-2023/#comment-812543 ,
https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2023/06/unforced-variations-jun-2023/#comment-812571 ,
https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2023/06/unforced-variations-jun-2023/#comment-812618
had a fierce argument around macias’ opinion that we can repair the weakened small water cycle on the land by restricting drainage and retaining more water for transpiration and evapotranspiration.
I would like to say that, on one hand, I fully agree with macias that the water cycle is a substantial element of the Earth climate. On the other hand, I fully agree also to nigelj who points to the fact that money have to be taken as a scarce limited source and shall be spent wisely.
I think that we have to be aware that silver bullets resolving a problem in all its aspects without any side effect are extremely rare. Even the seemingly straightforward assumption that if an increased land drainage in combination with deforestation, soil degradation etc. initiated continent drying, stopping these processes should reverse the drying and finally restore the original “unperturbed” state, may not be fulfilled universally.
4) An article by Makarieva et al.
https://arxiv.org/abs/2204.07409
suggests that the famous “tipping points” might exist also in hydrology, and that if a continent or a region once switches from a “wet” into a “dry” regime, reforestation, irrigation and/or increased water retention may not be helpful anymore. In this aspect, we have to take very seriously all contributions to the present discussion that emphasized deteriorating effects of unsuccessful attempts to plant trees into arid areas or expand irrigation from limited water sources available therein.
5) I think that a similar caution should apply also to another, even more generally accepted assumption that restoring low atmospheric content of non-condensing greenhouse gases will automatically restore previous “unperturbed” climate. This assumption may become particularly risky if the observed global climate change has in fact more than just this generally assumed single cause.
6) In this respect, I am sceptical about fighting with the radiative greenhouse effect as the highest human priority, simply because I do not believe that anyone can honestly promise that it indeed brings the asserted effect.
If we suspect that a criminal has an accomplice, it may be good to deal with both of them. Although there may be perhaps different interpretations of the evidence brought by macias (Loeb et al, etc, suggesting that contributions of the radiative greenhouse effect and of continent drying to the observed warming may be comparable), I would see putting this evidence aside (and dealing primarily with the assumed “main suspect” only) as an approach with a potentially higher failure risk in comparison with the proposed alternative – paying an comparable attention to both.
7) Returning to the “cost effectiveness”, or “risk analysis”, I am not sure that it is a prominent feature of the vast majority of publicly discussed climate policies.
In this respect, I think that my proposal of “urban heat island experiments” that should practically test various strategies on a relatively small scale, assuming step-by-step scale-up of those that will look cost-effective and give promising results, may not sound as a totally crazy alternative.
Basically, I assume that these urban experiments might perhaps indeed become a way towards a broad implementation of the strategy proposed by macias, provided that the experiment proves the expected advantages.
8) I tried to actualize the track of the present discussion on my public orgpage
https://orgpad.com/s/7zfynb_y5o7
If you would like to see the links between different threads of this discussion, you are invited to use this link.
Greetings
Tom
Thomas Kalisz
“5) I think that a similar caution should apply also to another, even more generally accepted assumption that restoring low atmospheric content of non-condensing greenhouse gases will automatically restore previous “unperturbed” climate. This assumption may become particularly risky if the observed global climate change has in fact more than just this generally assumed single cause.”
Can you please provide some EVIDENCE that getting back to preindustrial levels of atmospheric CO2 is a “generally accepted assumption” because I’m not aware that it is. Killian is the only person on these pages I’ve read suggesting we try to do that.
To say we shouldn’t attempt to get back to those pre-industrial CO2 levels because it wont perfectly restore some pre-existing condition seems a weak argument. The goal has its plusses and minuses. It might help stop long term melting of the ice. But some research suggests the increase of atmospheric CO2 over the last 100 years has already annulled or greatly diminished a future ice age a reason to leave CO2 levels about as they are.
However the generally accepted priority is stopping warming getting above 2 degrees by getting to net zero emissions by 2050. If we achieve this THEN we can consider if getting back to preindustrial levels of atmospheric CO2 makes sense and is achievable. Right now its not worth a detailed evaluation.
“6) In this respect, I am sceptical about fighting with the radiative greenhouse effect as the highest human priority, simply because I do not believe that anyone can honestly promise that it indeed brings the asserted effect.”
Now I’m confused. Because fighting the greenhouse effect – meaning stopping or reducing CO2 and methane emissions (mostly) – is not the same as sequestering carbon to get back to preindustrial levels of CO2. So what do you mean?
I have a simple question. Do you think humanity should aim to keep warming under 2 degrees? Please give a simple yes or no answer, and an explanation if your answer is no.
Do you think that we should stop or greatly reduce (by about 90%) burning fossil fuels? Please give a simple yes or no answer and explanation if its no. It is essential we have clarity on what you think on this.
Do you think we should plant trees as a carbon store? Because this also helps promote some evaporative cooling. It helps solve both the emissions issue and altered water cycle.
Macias Shurlys and your schemes intuitively sound to me like they wouldn’t achieve very much and could have unintended and problematic side effects and very high costs . But they could be trialed at small scale. Nobody should object to that.
“as the highest human priority, ”
I think the highest priority is to be good. From that follows love. From that follows wisdom. To appreciate and know the beauty and truth of the universe, including within each other and ourselves. Kindness; I believe all other moral values flow from these. For effectiveness, knowledge. Approach the unknown with open-minded skepticism, as opposed to willful ignorance.
So I would be reluctant to say any one such goal is the highest priority. In my mind, there is a secular version of the 10 Commandments – number 1 can be restated as keep your priorities strait, and don’t lose sight of the big picture while dealing with the details. There are evil and ignorance. Hunger and poverty. Pathogens and other diseases/conditions (including long-covid and MSUD). Climate change and other environmental problems. Etc.
… that being said, I believe the highest priority specific to climate change is decarbonization of economic activity – mainly, getting off fossil fuels, also limiting deforestation, and maybe reformulating cement production, and, … attaining net below 0 emissions.
(… As I lean towards thinking IPCC review of attribution is good quality work. Are there uncertainties left? Sure. We can keep studying the issue, and ecosystem protection from other factors is a good idea anyway, but … I haven’t gone through the whole thing thoroughly, but macias shurly’s reference https://ceres.larc.nasa.gov/documents/STM/2022-10/Loeb_contributed_presentation.pdf ( https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2023/06/unforced-variations-jun-2023/#comment-812591 ), while noting some difference between climate models and observations, does not attribute these differences to other human impacts on ecosystems. Could it be a deficit of the models? Note that the IPCC does account for the CO2 effect on stomata (AR6 WGI Ch7) as part of the effective forcing.)
Above, https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2023/06/unforced-variations-jun-2023/#comment-812559 , JCM expresses dismay at the idea that net 0 must come first. I would agree with JCM in so far as in the temporal sense. I am resigned to the likely case that will will overshoot reasonable targets, and per Ron R.’s analogy, there is something to be said for keeping the patient alive until the cure has been designed, ordered, sent through the mail, inspected for quality, injected or taken orally/etc., and given time to work. I doubt Ron R. was suggesting we wait until net 0 before planting trees, restoring wetlands, or encouraging green roofs, etc.
So I imagine… ballpark est.: 10 Gt C per year * 20 yr overshoot = 200 Gt C overshoot. rock with 10% wt CaO … ~ 12/56-ish? (from memory) * 10% … we’ll need ~ 50*200 Gt basalt = 10,000 Gt ~= 3,000 km^3 of basalt (or gabbro) to grind up for chemical weathering… Now MgO can also work but it has to be ‘forced’… whereas basalt (or gabbro) dust might also be good fertilizer?? You can get more CO2 sequestration for less using anorthosite (based on Ca content) but it’s not like the Earth makes more of that rock every day :) (as opposed to basalt – most of the ocean is underlain by MORB – not that I’m suggesting we source it from the oceanic crust.)
And biochar … and ocean fertilization because seafood might make people smarter and that might help??
Space-based solar geoengineering is expensive, and SLR is a delayed response (and a potentially quasi-irreversable tipping point), so I’m thinking maybe after net-0, when the economy can handle it (not being an opportunity cost), some structures might be placed into orbit specifically to shade Greenland and Anarctica and neighboring ocean water. How to design this, I’m not sure. Satellites orbiting too close to the Earth would block OLR as much as they shade solar radiation (generally more, actually, at high latitudes), unless they have certain spectral properties. Structures farther out could rotate in some synchronization to their orbital periods and shifts over the year… etc. (or they could have blinds that open and shut) But this may all be pi in the sky (pun intended; the sky is ~= 2*pi sr (less in valleys, more at high altitudes))
And yes there are tipping points.
nigelj: – “Can you please provide some EVIDENCE that getting back to preindustrial levels of atmospheric CO2 is a “generally accepted assumption” because I’m not aware that it is. Killian is the only person on these pages I’ve read suggesting we try to do that.”
It seems you missed me:
https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2023/06/unforced-variations-jun-2023/#comment-812222
You may wish to read the article headlined Three climate interventions: Reduce, remove, repair, published at Climate Code Red on Jun 21, beginning with:
http://www.climatecodered.org/2023/06/three-climate-interventions-reduce.html
Can you please provide some EVIDENCE that getting back to preindustrial levels of atmospheric CO2 is a “generally accepted assumption” because I’m not aware that it is. Killian is the only person on these pages I’ve read suggesting we try to do that.
I have never said that. Ever. Another Straw Man. Or is it lie? Can it still be considered an honest mistake after 7 years?
Crap. I did it again. You said I was the only one who suggested getting back to preindustrial. I read it as the other part he said about restoring to the same ecosystem. THAT I have never said. However, you are in error in saying I am the only person to suggest we need to do that, and you know I am not the only one. The others who have said it simply don’t post here anymore because of all the attacking by the rest of you.
Checking in. Hmm.
Nuance MS. I didn’t say that Co2 was the largest gas by quantity in the atmosphere, if that’s what you’re implying, it’s actually a small one. I said that it’s the most important gas as far as pushing us into our current hothouse condition is concerned. It’s rapidly knocking it out of balance. It’s unnecessary – one that we can and should do something about. For someone who claims to be concerned about our world I’d think you’d be emphasizing this as well as only after-the-fact mitigation strategies. Also, I never said that deforestation wasn’t involved in the increase in temperatures. Of course it is. Plant’s absorb C02. Cut down the Amazon (and other areas around the world) and the Co2 goes up.
Yet another thing to keep in mind is that our acidification of the oceans by adding Co2 is offing the phytoplankton which absorb a large percentage of it. Kind of like cutting down another Amazon rain forest. So gotta address the Co2.
https://news.mit.edu/2015/ocean-acidification-phytoplankton-0720
https://theconversation.com/acid-oceans-are-shrinking-plankton-fuelling-faster-climate-change-121443
With the roof on, irrigation wouldn’t let the heat out, only displace it.
https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2023/06/unforced-variations-jun-2023/#comment-812630
But if you want to keep sweating in that gorilla suit of yours (just an analogy), feel free. But some of us would like to take it off, especially when it starts to get really hot out.
https://bestsimilar.com/img/tag/thumb/2b/21832.jpg
Patrick O. Twentyseven:
“I doubt Ron R. was suggesting we wait until net 0 before planting trees, restoring wetlands, or encouraging green roofs, etc.
Right. I wasn’t. I meant that we need to prescribe priority to the cutting of our greenhouse gas emissions – stop doing it! Obviously we need to do the rest as well.
@ all and everyone
A certain argument keeps steadily coming back
Due to the lack of freshwatter and rain in too hot places, simply pour seawater into Sahara and let it evaporate there instead.
Just think of largescale political and industrial bringing and spraying of seawater against desertification.
in critically hot and arid landscapes.
Mammamia!
And some of theese deputees are further discussing our understandings.
I am getting more and more sure of who in H… (name and full adress,) is behind that.folklore.
So I warn him.
JCM: “Their condescension is revealing. Superficial consumers of landscape on the weekends; hikers and picture takers. A fine bunch, with deep feelings and a sense of passion. Generally harmless and make a good volunteer corps if you can manage to herd them.”
This patronizing lack of humility is kind of, well – wow!. Don’t know what to say to that…
But you know what they say about haughty spirits.
Ron R. Agreed. The water cycle people cant prove their case properly, so some of them resort to insults the refuge of the desperate. Also agree with your summation of the issues replying to Tom above 20 June 2.47.
Sorry Nigel, this is a waste of time. We’re not getting anywhere. Going to move on. Nice chatting with you.
Another one:
“it is a widely held taboo among practical conservation specialists to resort to this ideology. It is in the realm of environmental spiritualists, hippies, and Shamans. Their “harmony” and vibrations. Such personnel are to be avoided.
However, the holists are welcome into the lay volunteer conservation corps. It is good for fresh air and for a renewed sense of purpose. Staff will guide them towards quite specific and actionable items in addressing the circumstances at hand.”
I’ve known a lot of scientists in my life. The best and brightest are humble about what they know, and don’t know..
ja ja. the double standard is noted.
Ron: “ The best and brightest [scientists] are humble about what they know, and don’t know”
JCM: “ ja ja. the double standard is noted”
Double standard? Wouldn’t that require you and your friends (T. Kalisz, M. Shurly, Victor, KIA) to be … “scientists”, “best” and “brightest” ? ;-)
ja the general theme here of categorizing, othering, and marginalization here is frickin weird. a sociocultural behavioral phenomenon.
Ron: “ The best and brightest [scientists] are humble about what they know, and don’t know”
JCM – “ ja the general theme here of categorizing, othering, and marginalization here is frickin weird”
The fallacy of the claims by you and your denialists has been proven, with falsifiable arguments in this and many earlier threads. Unable to defend your claims against these arguments – you resort to portraying yourselves as victims of oppression – of “categorizing, othering, and marginalization“.
Everybody can have an opinion, but nobody has the right to have their opinion unchallenged, Particularly, when these opinions IMPLY that the climate scientists are either morons (if they were not able to notice glaring problems with their data an ignoramus without any scientific background could) or are a part of the global conspiracy of scientist trying to suppress the truth that, in the descending order:
1. there is no climate change
2. there is climate change, but it is natural so humans cannot change climate
3. yes, humans are causing climate change but perhaps it won’t be that bad, i.e. uncertainty will be our friend and things would be better than expected
4. yes, humans are causing climate change, but it can be “neutralized” WITHOUT decarbonization, not only feasibly, but actually providing benefits to agriculture (this thread)
5. or the industrial emissions of Co2 are … beneficial – see the categorized, othered, and marginalized, who defended the interests of Russia, Saudi Arabia and multinational fossil fuel lobby by implying that Co2 emissions are good – because plants cannot grow without CO2 … ;-)
Of course, the categorized, othered, and marginalized do not have to agree on which of the 5 points they believe. Put 3 deniers into a room, and they will have 5 contradictory reasons why the … climate science is wrong.
But using falsifiable argument to call spade a spade is … “categorization, othering, and marginalizing“. What a … snowflake. ;-)
P.S. And what is with your “ ja ja” when replying to Ron and me? Are you a German?
JCM
You do plenty of categorising, othering and marginilisation yourself, for example responding to Carbo. above ” Superficial consumers of landscape on the weekends; hikers and picture takers.” This is also not an accurate description, because its fairly clear Carbo was talking about making scientific observations of nature.
You also complain of their ‘condescension’ while being condescending yourself for example: ” Generally harmless and make a good volunteer corps if you can manage to herd them.” Wow talk about double standard!
No doubt you have plenty of skills and knowledge but the problem is all you water cycle people imply CO2 from fossil fuels is not the main underlying cause of recent climate change, and so you annoy people here. So you get labelled denialists.
Categorising people is a common human activity and its not always weird or wrong to have such categories: Men, women, liberals, conservative for example. If you don’t like being put in the denialist category, or the stubborn crank category, or the big ego category, the solution is up to you.
Dear Carbon Deprecators and Geo-engineering enthusiasts,
Aaaaaand…there it is. Grab up your bag of alt-Galileo gambits and dart into a nearby house of rhetorical mirrors!
Science works, but apparently all the decades and decades of physics and chemistry, rigor and vetting, all the endorsements and expertise represented by hundreds of different scientific institutions and organizations mean nothing unless you can cherry pick some of their research.
Gotta love the irony-challenged appropriation of liberal language, by the way. Very T****ian.
Well, fine. You can waste your time here. RealClimate is a fairly low profile site: relatively few people will be hearing what you say, and the distractions you hone here won’t gain much traction elsewhere either– not these days.
Or publish start publishing your work in top tier, peer reviewed journals. If you’ve really got the goods, just do it for pity’s sake.
@ Nigelj
Thank you for defending our lifestyle and interests against the political Beach police!
On St.Hans (23 Juni) we took out and anchered up and took land in Sandspollen, the sands- pool.
In the harbour allready there were 2 big swanes with grey chicken under the pier. I said “STEP BACK-WITH-DRAW they are hot headed!” . And Papa swane said ” HZZZZZZ!”
People have only seen doped wild animals on video film,
I learnt it from the university veterinarian. The first he does is to give them an injection of Metadone, and you can inspect any Rottweiler behind his wisdom- teeth and easily tap 1/2 liter blood also. That watchful dog will not be good for work in the next 48 hours. and it is routine in the popular wilderbeast moovies.
“Animals are so kind…. just keep them in your arms and kiss them, , smile smile…!”
They get doped fror unnatural even ridiculous performance.
On wild animals, step back, and tey wilol like you.
Then we saw 2 canada- geese in flight. Seabirds have flown off the nest now and are swimming around with chicken. Most of them are re- cycled, eaten. We also have sea- eagles above it all. They eat too stupid, quite large fishes. But the golden eagle on land may eat reindeer calves. But the ravens are quicker and more clever and tease the large eagles from behind away from their dinners.
I saw for the first time 2 tiny really old enough ` teenage boobs that I have waited and looking for so long and in vain., Naked and boldly bathing.
It would have been very unpolite and unconvemnient of me to have a camera.
Then I would hardly have been given any chanse to se it IN VIVO. Simply behave and stay polite and you will see what you ought to see in norder to understand it also, with your own naked eyes.
Then we could discuss the weathers also and the climate. The hot evapotranspiration due to the high summer sun at blue sky, and the somewhat maybe too small cumulus, but the solar breeze came at last at 6 PM “What did I say?”
And now the weather forecasts say black clouds with heavy rains and maybe thunder and flash for this midnight. Rain next weel.
We hate the alternatives, don`t we?
We do not like those weird, sociocultural behavioral phaenomemna. I have been carefully looking for weatherfronts and scirrus to see whether there is amny chanse for summer rain at all, and the alternatives have been discussing political spraying of freshwater, even saltwater in Sahara to cool the weathers down from the wrong side.
A-propos picture. takers,…
I grew up with silver bromide develpoer and fix and optics, and was lucky to learn a lot also from the professional photographers son who could instruct and show in the darkroom.
” use the camera, allways keep the camera ready, Look through the finder,… and half of the work is further done in the darkroom!” he said.
I shall never forget it.
I never felt the urgent need, and had too much else to do and then came COLOUR DIAS where you do not see the result the same evening and can corect next day. But then I got NIKON Colour CCD for birtday.
I like 50 mm lens on 35 mm film, but nicon has 25 mm lense. But I have an instrumental workshop and could make an adapter for any kind of lense, and tried a 150 mm acromatic binocular lense. That is Phaenomenal with NICON colour CCD, really Paparacci even at lamplight and candle light. You get silent close portaits of known faces, that everyone likes.
And even an old acromatic 1830 model 30 x300 millimeter Fraunhofer land teloescope lense, getting mooncraters handheld. The moon shines like a common grey stone in bright sunshine through one atmosphere, you see and at any time. aperture 10 and 1/30 sec exposure or less.
But I rather mount drawings poems and wise words about it in my photo- album, that is more documentary. .
========0000
About JCM & al:
When people shoot really disc- boom on your personality, then take it for what it is, namely a psychologicalo projection, A most honest self- confessment,
Then use it also for what it is..
Namely:
“Dear Sir/ Miss
Thanks fror your tax return. That will be taken to our conscideration and to our calulation of your correct equation and taxation!” Datum sign stamp.
That formula scratches.
Hope he reads it.
Now it is published about him at least.
@ Piotr
JCM seems to be Swedish, of swedish “Rallare” origin to Ontario 3rd generation for the paper pulp industries via Norway.
I hav conscidered telli9ng that story and see how he reacts.
They were 5th generation de- classed swedish noblesse from the mines/ factories imprisonments set free, chased westwards and paid for by King Oscar 2 the good and benevolent and put to work in his private garden.
They had their advanced blood identity feeling still in order, as the largest and redest flag in the 1.st of may parade on behald of tre railway workers They often became local organizing pioneers of the industrial labour. moovement.
Not liked by everyone because of snuff burst whore and gamble. They committed not only great worki but also vandalism or vice versa.
Some may have become frustrated also in Norway due to our cold shoulder to such manners, and lacks of understaqnding and submission, and migrated furter to over there in the stated, preferrably Canada for those noble swedes who better understood french from before..
Scandinavians especially Swedes and Norwegians in Dakota & Minesota (Cfr. the Bakken oilfield,) were known as “The squareheads!” over there.
JCMs grandmother”Bestemor” was probably Norwegian but hardly of Peasant or Burgeois origine , since he has not inherited the Linnaeus and Uppsala school of typical Dutch and Swedish nature and gardening wisdom and state religion. See, no binominal mentioning of flora and fauna in latin at all, from JCM. That entails demonstrative lack of higher frormjation from facultary side.
Carolinerna after King Carl VII… were conquered at Fredriksten in Norway at last, , and there his grand grand grand gandfather may have been put to work rather on the Factory Floor within bars and fences where the earth is flat enough for them. .
But most “Rallare” were well assimilated after all. But their class identification may still be quite strong.
Ladies and Gentlemen
There has been a fierce debate here about the presumably broken water cycle and propaganda for mending of the global warming situation with largely incrteased artificial irrigation even with rainbarrels.
As the only one it seems, I have fallen into thoughs about “Salzbittererde” and found the subject at last at Wikipedia labeled
Soil salinity Viki
and
Environmental effects of irrigation Wiki
Where everyone interested and responsible can read about it for him / herself.
It is especially dangerous there where it has been propagated and suggested here, in Sahara, maybe Spania, ( the rain in spain etc etcetc..) and in the wild west.
Large areas of fertile lands have been poisoned forever by progressive politically popular irrigation.
This is common knowledge , so I wonder more and more what kind of progressive types from which grand old party and from which peoples republic in which large union of peoples republics are actually with us here. , and who also seem more and more to make up the dialectic materialism denialist and climate surrealist group.
And whether they are quite common.
Race religion political opinion and gender, pleace. And ownership., mission and mandate. Think it over.
In all responsible taverns – pubs with open doorsw to tthe free world there are 3 doors or categories
1, Ladies
2, Gentlemen
3 Men only
Is it the Men only- gender, the fameously privileged Party Members?
Or maybe just aspiring for such mandates and privileges?
This post thread is contaminated, and ridiculously long. Why did the good hosting scientists suggest (in the recent past) limiting comments to two or three, and then apply no regulation? This seems to mirror decades of “we need to reduce emissions” with no enforcement, and consequent historically excessive emissions.
Solar Jim, There’s no enforcement on limiting ideas. Take the good with the bad. I will occasionally mention my take on forced variation of natural ocean cycles, as here https://geoenergymath.com/2023/06/17/canonical-cross-validation/
This is just begging for an independent machine language discovery — it won’t do as good but will promote some excitement. Did you see how high the north Atlantic sea surface temperatures are?
RE: “There’s no enforcement on limiting ideas.”
1. You should try reading some human history. 2. Your assertions, including the fear mongering from using “machine language discovery” reframes what I indicated, namely, limiting individual comments to two or three per post. This would eliminate interminable “he said she said” rhetoric. 3. In allowing this banter to continue RealClimate is degrading its own site (in my humble opinion).
Not sure that mentioning the potential of machine language is “fear mongering”. Is the fear that of a machine or AI making a discovery before a human does? The space of nonlinear solutions is essentially infinite in comparison to linear solutions, and that’s where ML excels. Sorry if I’ve mentioned that before.
Paul Pukite: “Solar Jim, There’s no enforcement on limiting ideas. Take the good with the bad.
You are misrepresenting Solar J. argument – he didn’t propose limiting ideas, he proposed curtailing the incessant rambling, with dozens and dozens of long posts about an idea that has been shown, already at the very beginning, to NOT WORK, and its proponents refusing to acknowledge it.
In fact, if anything, it is the lack of enforcing of this blog’s rules that limits the new ideas from being heard – by swamping them with the incessant denialist drivel, and thus discouraged potential readers from the site.
Disagree. I’ve been science blogging since 2004, There’s never been that keen an interest in developing models in a group or forum setting in the context of earth sciences. That differs from mathematics as an example — you can find quite a few popular forums on solving problems or proving theorems. This lack of open science forums is best illustrated by John Carlos Baez closing down (and deleting!) the Azimuth Project forum last month. That contained over 10 years worth of effort in trying to “solve El Nino”, which was deemed as the initial collaborative effort among forum participants. It started out with some enthusiasm but it got to the point that it was down to just a few of us. Baez explained that he was going to concentrate on pure math, which is no surprise.
A better question is to ask why that is — why certain scientific disciplines are more open to collaboration using social media.
Paul Pukite: “Disagree. I’ve been science blogging since 2004, There’s never been that keen an interest in developing models in a group or forum setting in the context of earth scienyces”
And you see the denialist production by Shurly, Kalisz, JCM, Victor, KnowitAll who can’t understand a simple energy budget, much less develop a model, as a … step in this direction?
I’m with solar jim though have no expectations of rational adjustments.
While I do have one humble request – no actually I beg you to please send all Carbomontanus comments to the Bore Hole or simply ban him.
I cannot fathom I need to provide any specific reasons as they should be abundantly obvious long long ago. I would have thought all ‘scientists’ associated with this forum would be ashamed of the content being published here by this verbose fool.
But I have long been left dumbfounded by the choices people make. All I can do is to beseech, implore and beg for a little respite from the agony!
@ Ned Kelly
So you feel qualified for administering the Borhole and furter etnical rinsing.
Am I so efficient?
Putin also feels the same. And what to chose and employ- install as his “big guns” his imperial high court of experts Teachers, Bishops, and Warlords. together with Useful Idiots.
i have had the same at the climate surrealist tavern meeting.. A somewhat snobbish person was teaching fameous supersticions at the table., I took the word and punctured some of vital, liturgic word formulas.
It showed to be their union chairmjan from “Gokk” and I did not know.
So he took me alone afterwards and spoke that I am disturbing the “conversations” at the tables and do not discuss climate, so I should not be here.
They shall have class monopoly on the dictionary, on “Def: Conversation…” on how to administer “The debate” also you see.
I happen to have learnt the same liturgy from the organized LENINmafia scientific classroom for the young pioneers..
That special Craft or Class expect it from the experts that they are aquainted to in their own liturgic dialect and scriptures. and blame mainstream science and facultary order as such for being “Perhaps a religion, smile smile?”
Which is routine DDR-GDR liturgy formula for “banned and excommunicated”.
Where have you learnt Dia- lectics and systematics from? In the Party with P, the fameous Grand old one?
LENIN probably studied and learnt his “Party- work” organizational worki, and “Scientific socialism” on tour abroad, from politically aspiring european Mafia of his time. Methods and works that have been re- cycled and updated. for use in any Grand Old Party with P.
I applied a ChatGPT rewrite to the above passage written by Carbo :
Is this less verbose, or any better? At some point could place a ChatGPT plugin to do auto-translation ;)
@ pukite
Really interesting If that is what a machine can do. The less aquainted readers should really try it in addition, if it is not cheated from your side.
But you loose a lot of information about autenticity, that may be quite important sometimes.
And it can obviously be misused for camouflage and smooth uniformation by crooky interests such as , Mafia, Racketeers, Burglarshops, Troll factories in Ljeningrad and so on.
I am aquainted to signalizing also through obvious grammatic and orthographic errors.
The crook and the cheater on the other hand is dependent of minutely cleaning out such fo0otprints, birhmarks and fingerprints by whichy he can be identified and kept responsible.
I give an example:
“Pressure is energy, therefore Vacuum is also energy. Thus the fameous Vacuum energy , smile smile……!”
Smooth and in order, convincing to the broad masses of readers, and plain wrong. In the first 3 words allready.
Pressure is force per area, whereas energy is force times length.
That statement was by an obviously unqualified engineer in editorial national immune and highly trusted , keye position.
And I have some 3even professional training on industrialized dilettantism in social and media keye- positions, such as SENSOR behind the iron curtain, who is known to be mad and drunk and lacking higher formation. Vaclav Havel and Umberto Eco published on it. Further, the fameous Andre Bjerke of Norway and Piet Hein from Deenmark. On how to trap him and skin him, tan his fur and selol his fur against hard cash on the free market.
Even I have had to do that sometimes.
I intensionally make it difficult for that bloodgroup / Class. The blodgroup P, the especially Pure one. Who is quite often performing through intensionally stupidifying litterature, like old Adolph and the frameous grand old Party with P.
They have had their Diploma on the Partry quote by industrialized exam cheating and documjent cheating.
My digging also into the state- religious roots of climate and virus denialism and surrealism converges down into that root origin. 3-4 generations ago.
They did clean up one such comment, and I thank the moderators for that. I would like to point them to these particularly problematic cases:
https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2023/06/unforced-variations-jun-2023/#comment-812085
https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2023/06/unforced-variations-jun-2023/#comment-812113
Thank you. (It may be good to mark as “Edited” so that there is still some context for the responses.)
(Of course, a person could be evil without ever using offensive language, but that doesn’t make gratuitously offensive language a virtue.)
@ p. o twentyseven
Say, are you really using virtual intelligenhce the freshly inaugurated way Hr. o twentyseven?
As you can clearly see, I do not,
Quite on the contrary, I do demonstrate quite consciously that I perform and work against uniformation and industrialization mechanization, datafication of mind and manners.
You see, if you can buy yourself a personality and immune set of manners and performance, then SATAN in Hell can also do that and soon sit on the throne and have you all with him in your closed society and quite hot peoples republic.
Automatic routine æsoteric reading hearing and seeing and judging and cleaning and recognitional programs in virtual reality is an old problem and even characteristic primary symptom of militarism, dictatorship, and thyranny.
Our major defence against virtual intelligence, its automatic & unwarranted and unofficial rules and regulations of procedure with keyewords and secret vocabulary,……….
……… is given in the UN declaration of Humanh Rights articles 19, 26, and 27.
That is signed to and aspired under by all autentic, responsible world leaders.
No science without it. No understanding without it. No united nations, not even sustainable United strates without it Hardly even any climate without it.
To all and everyone
About broken hockeystics and water cycles and evapotransirational coolers, tubers, and plumbers of the same:
Also on turbo-convection and progressive latent heat flux, presumably cycling and cooling Thermodynamics::
Your handicap then is that you only learnt scientific socialism and dia-lectic materialism then, in class, due to that closed society system.
Whereas I, above all that the grades, also had to grasp about water and Vodka and nitric acid scientific distillation, how and why, ,…… and of Claussius Clappeyron in the open situations also, at rather 1 bar atmospheric equal pressure all the way.
………and in addition to that, also of the doubble action tripple expansion steam engine with heater, boiler condensator feedback pump and centrifugal speed regulator, water level indicator, manometer and thermometer and about the qualified engineer with engine protocol who had to to understand all this. .
The tripple expansion doubble action engine is quasi 12 cyl as compared to 4 stroke inner combustion, by only 3 cylinders and works allmost as efficiently. if fully supplied and cunningly regulated.
Explain us how. Else you must graduate first for climate dispute with me.
It worked on the great western railways even with 24 cyl as there were 2 independent tripple expansion engines, on each side of the large locomotive, , that was , overwhelmingly strong. But without condenser so they had to re- fill purest scarce drinkwater all the way and not in Salt Lake city. .And with very low chimney, they used steam injector blast, And thus Thus the Chattanoga Chuh Chuh…sound that also could cost them scarce freshwater.
But it is Thermodynamics per definition and as such.
At the same time at sea, they were consequently short of freshwater for refill. But they had access to seawater cooling in a heat- exchanger, , a so called engine- condenser, so they did re- cycle the freshwater in a sea- water cooled condenser and pumped it back to the boiler in liquid form by a feed- water pump., that made the even better cool side of the thermodynamic engine. , That is just as important as the hot side for efficiency. .
Then with choisest and cheapest “fuel” they could go allmost smokeless over the atlantic, given a qualified engineer under a d/o captain and merchant, and not just a politically learnt, progressive denialist and surrealist flat earther landcrab from the Party with P on any of theese decisive posts.
The system was improoved further by steam Turbo during WW1 allready. with the very engine room under air turbo pressure for blasting the oil furnace flames and for driving the exhaust convections the desired way. .
Such were the pioneering big and fast battleships of WW1 allready..
A pitiful replica of this showed up quite recently, namely the bold Russian navy flagship Admiral Kuznetzov aircraft carrier , from Murmansk to Syria and back again, ……..with huge black smoke over the chimney all the way. . .
Which is due to mis- understood and mis- treated red / ox-proportions and turbulent convections in the burners….. that is easily healed or repaired by just giving it some more air, They had not even understood a kerosene lamp on how to make it more efficientb and smokeless.
Instead, they rather gave it a damn all the way. .
So they went on pure hydrogen , to the extent that they went at all, …. and resigned on all that fossile carbon that was simply blown out to the atmosphere in aerosol- form. . .
That wessel has burnt frequently and turbulently for them ever since, under and over deck, even in dock back in Murmansk for repair.. And all due to the Party with P in all keye- positions
The Party with P, exlains it all the time, you see., that Grand Old one that aint dead yet, not even in Russia.
So I hope even Thomas Kalisz from Polen can understand all this of elementary combustion heat turbo convection and thermodynamics, and take a better example. From Carol Vojtyla for instance and from Lech Valenza and Maria Sklodovska,, who could deliver more clean and efficient, understood results, the way we know Polish workers better.
Another ChatGPT rewrite of a Carbo comment:
@ Piotr
There were 2 Polacs with a mini excavator and showler out from my garden today, and typically clear minded. the best workers. They will come back in 2 weeks for another job and offered to dig and clean up the ditch for 3000 spenn = 300 dalers.
Tomas Kalisz could take a good example there also . I have been very kind enough not to confuse him with the grand old Party with P, and offered him my best service.
You see, when people dont have pure flour in the bag, they join, and ride on that grand old Party with P, and I do not have to mention which grand old party. Only with P,, only that it is grand and old and with P.
Paul Pukite (@whut) says
…. no better. It is garbage, endless garbage by Carbomontanus.
It’s useless, irrelevant, off topic, nonsense and gibberish of a drunken / dementia ridden fool.
This crap and Carbomontanus should be banned from the forum.
ChatGPT is not a solution.
Silence is!
Then again RC is nothing like it used to be, so perhaps Carbomontanus is exactly what it deserves now.
Carbomontanus: “So I hope even Tomáš Kalisz from Polen”
Hasn’t Poland suffered enough??? Getting at Poland by association with Tomáš? Talk about hitting under the belt. No Pole would spell his name: “Tomáš”. South of the border from Poland- that’s another story: he might just be the elusive Tomáš z Bažin ! :
“Řádí tam to strašidlo,
vystupuje z bažin (hence his interest in intensifying the hydrological cycle)
žere hlavně Gaviny,
jmenuje se Tomáš. ”
His never-ending posts have made grown men weep. In desperation – some resorted to Sidoli [1996]
(
Sidoli. M 1996, “Farting as a defence against unspeakable dread”, The Journal of Analytical Psychology 41(2), 165-178.).
Others went step further -to get Tomáš contained, Gavin made me an offer I couldn’t refuse:
“Živého či mrtvého
Tomaša kdo přivede,
Tomu já dám za ženu
dceru a půl JZD.”
Say no more, Gavin. I used Gavin’s 2010 JGR paper, and Trenberth’s energy budget, to paper Tomaš with data:
Ráno jsem se vznesl,
Na Tomasa z letadla
výzkumné práce klesl.
Tomaš Kalisz už je celý bílý,
Tomaš Kalisz z močálu ven pílí,
Tomaš Kalisz dostal se na kámen,
Tomaš Kalisz tady je s ním amen!
And ta-daaam:
Tomaša jsem dohnal, už ho držím, johohó,
Dobré každé lóvé, prodám já ho do ZOO^* !
^* where Zebra is already waiting for him, “Trenberth for Dummies” in his hoof. Ha!
And, everybody!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qCmRga2fIy0 :
Aha, Ceswkoslovensko.
I shall adapt. I know them.
I found Kalisz is a town in Polen.
I am Kolberg, Carbomontanus, not Kolobrezg but a common name in Norway and Sweden.
Hr. von Kolberg zu Sansoussi.
Dear Piotr,
Thank you for reminding me of the music of my youth with your remake of the original Czech text. You are right, I was born in Moravian city Zlín, quite near from Vizovice mentioned in the song. However, Carbomontanus is also right in some extent, because mother language of my grandfather was indeed Polish.
I highly appreciate the discussion with you. My understanding of the greenhouse effect and kf the role of non-radiative heat fluxes in Earth surface temperature regulation is based on the textbook Physical Climatology (Dennis Hartman, second edition, 2016).
I will be happy if you review my previous post
https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2023/06/unforced-variations-jun-2023/comment-page-2/#comment-812769
in which I strived to clarify the discrepancy between our interpretations of global energy budget and of the relationship between radiative and non-radiative heat transfer.
I am looking forward to your feedback.
Greetings
Tomáš
My article, “Pressure doesn’t make Venus hot: A computer exercise” has been accepted by the peer-reviewed journal, Physics Education. This will be my second article in PE.
@ Levenson
Phaenomenal.
I was at the oslo Climate- surrealist “Klimapizza” and asked Professor Emeritus of theoretical astrophysics Jan Erik Solheim: ” The groundtemperatures on Venus” I simply said. Just to check him up, knowing that this 8is an especially hot potatoe, namely James Hansens Royalo Thought.
“Oh yes, there is so high pressure there, smile smile…” he replied
Then I knew that he has a hole in his head., simply by knowing how to ask, you see.
I would be extreemly interested to have your article in PE on the subject
Well, if you let me have your email address, I’ll email you a copy of the manucript. You can contact me at levenson1960@gmail.com.
Congrats, Barton!
Thanks, Kevin-san.
Congratulations!
Thank you.
Cont. from https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2023/06/unforced-variations-jun-2023/#comment-812163 , https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2023/06/unforced-variations-jun-2023/#comment-812414 :
from Puma and Cook abstract (emphasis mine): “ Both ensembles are forced with transient climate forcings and observed sea surface temperatures from 1902 to 2000; one ensemble includes irrigation specified by a time-varying data set of irrigation water withdrawals. Early in the century, irrigation is primarily localized over southern and eastern Asia, leading to significant cooling in boreal summer (June–August) over these regions. This cooling spreads and intensifies by century’s end, following the rapid expansion of irrigation over North America, Europe, and Asia. Irrigation also leads to boreal winter (December–February) warming over parts of North America and Asia in the latter part of the century, due to enhanced downward longwave fluxes from increased near-surface humidity. Precipitation increases occur primarily downwind of the major irrigation areas, although precipitation in parts of India decreases due to a weaker summer monsoon. Irrigation begins to significantly reduce temperatures and temperature trends during boreal summer over the Northern Hemisphere midlatitudes and tropics beginning around 1950; significant increases in precipitation occur in these same latitude bands. These trends reveal the varying importance of irrigation-climate interactions and suggest that future climate studies should account for irrigation, especially in regions with unsustainable irrigation resources.” Table 1 lists global land area averaged increases in precipitation for this and another study (with 2 others marked n/a).
https://phys.org/news/2020-01-irrigation-alleviates-hot-extremes.html (I believe this refers to the nature article I linked to in the first link above)
https://phys.org/news/2017-04-cooling-effect-agricultural-irrigation.html :
“We find that irrigation has a large impact on temperature extremes, with a particularly strong cooling effect during the hottest day of the year (−0.78 Kelvin averaged over irrigated land, see figure).”
[…]
“There are two reasons why irrigation exerts a stronger influence on extremes than on mean climate. To start, farmers irrigate mostly when it is hot and dry, so obviously the effects during these periods will be larger. The second reason is more subtle: the regions in the world where humans irrigate are typically those where temperature fluctuations are very sensitive to the amount of water in the soil. These regions are neither dry nor wet, but somewhere in between (so called “transitional” regions). Systematically adding water to the soil through irrigation renders these regions less prone to the vagaries of climate.”
New study reveals irrigation’s mixed effects around the world
https://phys.org/news/2023-06-reveals-irrigation-effects-world.html
Sustainable irrigation can feed billions, make agriculture resilient to climate change
https://phys.org/news/2022-06-sustainable-irrigation-billions-agriculture-resilient.html
https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar6/wg1/chapter/chapter-7/ :
https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar6/wg1/chapter/chapter-7/#7.3.2.1 :
“The ΔFfsst includes any effects represented within the ESMs on tropospheric adjustments due to changes in evapotranspiration or leaf area (mainly affecting surface and boundary-layer temperature, low-cloud amount, and albedo) from the CO2 -physiological effects (Doutriaux-Boucher et al., 2009; Cao et al., 2010; T.B. Richardson et al., 2018). ”
https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar6/wg1/chapter/chapter-7/#7.3.4.1 : (emphasis mine)
“Land-use change also affects the amount of water transpired by vegetation (Devaraju et al., 2015). Irrigation of land directly affects evaporation (Sherwood et al., 2018), causing a global increase of 32,500 m3s−1due to human activity. Changes in evaporation and transpiration affect the latent heat budget, but do not directly affect the top-of-atmosphere (TOA) radiative fluxes. The lifetime of water vapour is so short that the effect of changes in evaporation on the greenhouse contribution of water vapour are negligible (Sherwood et al., 2018). However, evaporation can affect the ERF through adjustments, particularly through changes in low-cloud amounts. Land management affects the emissions or removal of GHGs from the atmosphere (such as CO2, CH4, N2O). These emissions changes have the greatest effect on climate (Ward et al., 2014), however they are already included in GHG inventories. ”
It would be great if RC did a post explaining the concept of ERF (and how direct effects of CO2 on plant stomata/etc. work in that framework). I’m more accustomed to instantaneous and SARF forcings, with forcing efficacies. IMO, it’s more direct to simply note that the different forcings have different ‘shapes’ (vertical, horizontal, diurnal-seasonal-weather-dependent) I think I read recently that CO2 in particular?? has an effect on marine subtropical stratocumulus…??
Also from section 7.3.4.1 (land use forcing): (emphasis mine)
“Using the definition of ERF from (Section 7.1, the adjustment in land-surface temperature is excluded from the definition of ERF, but changes in vegetation and snow cover (resulting from land-use change) are included (Boisier et al., 2013). Land-use change in the mid-latitudes induces a substantial amplifying adjustment in snow cover. Few climate model studies have attempted to quantify the ERF of land-use change. T. Andrews et al. (2017) calculated a very large surface albedo ERF (–0.47 W m–2) from 1860 to 2005 in the HadGEM2-ES model, although they did not separate out the surface albedo change from snow cover change. HadGEM2-ES is known to overestimate the amount of boreal trees and shrubs in the unperturbed state (Collins et al., 2011) so will tend to overestimate the ERF associated with land-use change. The increases in dust in HadGEM2-ES contributed an extra –0.25 W m–2, whereas cloud cover changes added a small positive adjustment (0.15 W m–2) consistent with a reduction in transpiration. A multi-model quantification of land-use forcing in CMIP6 models (excluding one outlier) (Smith et al., 2020b) found an IRF of –0.15 ± 0.12 W m–2(1850–2014), and an ERF (correcting for land-surface temperature change) of –0.11 ± 0.09 W m–2. This shows a small positive adjustment term (mainly from a reduction in cloud cover). CMIP5 models show an IRF of –0.11 [–0.16 to –0.04] W m–2(1850–2000) after excluding unrealistic models (Lejeune et al., 2020).”
The evidence seems to indicate/suggest that:
1.
JCM, (and to a lesser extent? macias shurly, and Tomáš Kalisz) – unless I misunderstood what they’re saying (I came into this conversation in the middle) – are not completely wrong:
land use/cover changes (excluding irrigation, I presume) may have had a warming effect via reduced transpiration via effect on cloud cover, and a comparable cooling effect (w/ significant contribution from cloud cover) from irrigation.
2.
The IPCC is aware of these things.
3.
the usual suspects – CO2, other GHGs, aerosols – are the dominant drivers of (large-scale?/global average) anthropogenic climate change ( https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar6/wg1/figures/chapter-7/figure-7-6 ) – although this figure only lists land use under albedo, so are evapotranspirative effects on clouds included in that? – and this is for global average effect. (It would be interesting to compare magnitudes of changes in precip, pressure and wind, etc. – ie./eg. if a regional cooling caused a change in wind of similar amplitude as CO2 et. al, (or just CO2) then this would impact the circulation and precipitation etc. I’m not saying I expect this is the case, but I’m curious.)
patrick “[The RC water cycle geoengineering proponents ] – are not completely wrong: are cooling effect (w/ significant contribution from cloud cover) from irrigation.”
Except that’s not what they claim – both Mr. Kalisz and Shurly talk not about cloud cover, but about latent heat – their calculations do not include any cloud change, ONLY the increase in latent heat AND the their assumption that 100% of latent heat escapes into space (Shurly adding 100% of latent heat to the model results of the effect of various factors on the radiation out at TOA).
What it does to JCM claims, I am not sure and, frankly, I don’t care – based on our previous encounters, the ratio of garbage to falsifiable claims in his posts does not warrant closer inspection of his posts: garbage in, ideologically motivated garbage out.
That said, since one climate change denier by default supports every other climate change denier – I’d assume he supports Kalisz and Shurly, particularly that he declared himself and his fellow proponents on concentrating on water cycle INSTEAD of reducing FF emissions – victims of “categorizing, othering, and marginalization“
https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar6/wg1/chapter/chapter-7/#7.3.5.2 – Table 8 says land use includes irrigation, same values given as in Fig. 7.6; see also https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar6/wg1/figures/chapter-7/figure-7-7 , https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar6/wg1/figures/chapter-7/figure-7-8/
(See also https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar6/wg1/figures/chapter-6/figure-6-12 )
re my https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2023/06/unforced-variations-jun-2023/#comment-812402 (and https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2023/06/unforced-variations-jun-2023/#comment-812658 ,
https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2023/06/unforced-variations-jun-2023/#comment-812738 )
Manabe and Strickler 1964:
https://climate-dynamics.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/06/manabe64a.pdf
I previously refered to fig. 4 (p. 370, see text right column of p.369) I noticed also fig. 6a (p.371, for which (est. from graph) CO2 only pure radiative equilibrium sfc temp is ~276 K. fig. 8a shows sfc temp with 6.5 K/km convective adjustment, H2O, CO2, O3, and cloud effects, sfc temp = 286.9 K (text p.374 upper left column; **I read through this quickly so hopefully I didn’t mess up**) Now, O3 doesn’t seem to have much effect on sfc T when H2O is in the baseline, but I wonder about what it would do absent H2O … assuming it would not cause warming greater than the cooling of the sfc with dry convective adjustment, the total effect of allowing a LH flux on the surface would be a warming of ~>= 10.9 K. (So Piotr is ~? correct). Of course, the dry convective lapse rate for a global troposphere could be < 9.81 K/km, because the overturning associated with baroclinic eddies in particular allows stabilization to local convection. Caveats – this is only H2O, CO2, O3, and clouds, using a 1-D model.
… Of course, that is holding surface optical properties fixed. To actually get rid of the water cycle, there would be no vegetation, snow, oceans…
Of course, does it really make sense to leave surface optical properties unchanged while having H2O presence in the atmosphere depend on the rate of cycling? To answer the question of whether the surface is water cooled or warmed in total (note – by temperature or by heat index**), one should consider all the effects. Otherwise, all I’ve shown here is that the combination of H2O and clouds in the atmosphere and the LH flux may be a net warming, whatever meaning this may have. As both Tomáš Kalisz and I (and others, in the context of response to global warming) have noted, the two (amount and cycling rate) are not simply linearly proportional to each other (and note spatial-temporal distribution of forced surface wetness could be a factor); however, changing one while holding the other fixed is a balancing act, and re https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2023/06/unforced-variations-jun-2023/#comment-812801 – that the amount in the air is much smaller than the amount cycled in a year really doesn’t say much about this – consider comparing it to the amount cycled in a day.
PS 32500 m3/s = 1025.622 km3/yr for 365.25 days/yr ; this is the increase in evapotranspiration due to irrigation cited by IPCC (see https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2023/06/unforced-variations-jun-2023/#comment-812741 above)
Patrick’s IPCC source: “ Irrigation causing a global increase of 32,500 m3/s due to human activity.
This translates to 1,000 km3 per year. For a comparison, Mr. Kalisz’s proposal demands evaporation of 13,000 km3. And that’s assuming 100% escape of latent heat into space.
If in great approximation we assume based on Trenberth radiative budget that including direct and indirect effects – about 1/3 of all the energy put into atmosphere escapes into space, if this applied to latent heat – then the 13,000km3 would need to become ~40,000 km3.
So Mr Kalisz’s modest proposal requires mere 40-FOLD increase in the evaporation comparing to that from the current global irrigation. And increase further , since after one of the symptoms of CC, global warming, is “taken care of” – there is no longer the urgency to reduce the increases in atm. GHGs
Of course this applies also to all other geo-engineering schemes that do not reduce GHGs – they discourage from mitigation too, And conversely – the other problems of geo-engineering projects – apply also to Mr. Kalisz’s scheme:
– any geoengineering scheme would have to be maintained forever, since the moment you stop – all the pent-up heating from GHGs would kick in. One one can easily how it could stop – geoengineering requires a massive international effort, agreement on who will bear the costs – and what if there are winner and losers – evaporation of ~40,000 km3 of water say over Sahara – not only would require the agreement from Saharan countries, but would cause destructive floods in many places (all these 40,000 km3 would have to rain back to the surface somewhere) – and by messing up with the atmospheric circulation – might actually cause droughts in others. And if your country is affected by either – you withdraw you support, the scheme collapses, and the ecosystems (and probably agriculture) collapse since they can’t adapt to the ABRUPT climate change.
And of course – as with all schemes addressing temperature only, it does nothing about the other side of CO2 emissions – acidification of the ocean. Which if anything – probably accelerates
since there is less urgency to reduce atm. CO2.
So the road to Climate Hell is paved with good geoengineering intentions.
I tend to agree about geoengineering – in particular that (as I like to put it) the shape of the solution doesn’t match the shape of the problem (hence, side effects) (except for ideas that actually sequester CO2). And you raised some other good points about dependency and international disputes, etc. Although I think we may end up doing both because we’ll probably overshoot reasonable targets – while geoengineering may be used as an excuse to keep emitting for longer, it doesn’t entirely make sense to say we shouldn’t do B because then we won’t do A, because we could commit to A regardless, at least in theory. I’m not against studying it (not that you said otherwise) because of the above and also, some country/group could take it upon themselves… etc.
However, I do disagree that clouds are the only contributor to surface cooling response; first consider the case with no H2O/cloud or surface albedo/emissivity changes. Forced surface wetting (or other measures to enhance evaporation ie. surface area) could increase specific humidity, thus lowering the cloud base, so that the convective lapse rate changes overall. Initially, before temperatures change, the change in LH flux is not countered, and there is a surface cooling and warming at some higher levels in the troposphere. When equilibrium is restored, the change in LH flux is completely countered by some combination of radiant and SH flux changes, At that point, there is ‘no escape to Space of the change’ in that sense, but rather there is a redistribution of where net LW radiant cooling occurs, the column total still adds up to the same OLR; the changes in temperature remain. It’s then a question of whether the greenhouse effect of increased H2O or cloud changes win out over the enhanced albedo due to any cloud changes (and also, surface properties), and then of course, there will then be H2O+cloud+lapse rate feedback, either way.
One study (cited in Puma and Cook) used ~100 times the irrigation amount to achieve a global land average cooling of 1.310 K (what happens to SSTs? idk). of course, we need to watch our water resources; the main point here (from me) is a matter of theory. ( https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2023/06/unforced-variations-jun-2023/#comment-812414 )
Patrick o twentyseven: “kindness”.
Yes, that’s what I was trying to say when I mentioned that the “best and brightest” scientists I’ve known were also “humble” people. They were just nice people. Didn’t think too much of themselves. Allowed room for (reasonable) disagreement. And if it was unreasonable they were still kind. Apparently, though, some people think that one demonstrates one’s “scientific-ness” by being horrible to others.
I find it jaw dropping that two of the most insulting people here (well one of them at least) are accusing the others of “categorizing, othering, and marginalization”. Huh??? But I guess in their universe ^ is down and black is white.
Anyway, I don’t want to be unkind as well. These are just my observations.
@ Ron R
This is halfway supersticious. Many of them were not those humble easy and pieceful ones who were misunderstood by society and politicians and church in their time.
Half of them at least are exeptions, quite problematic characters..
Giordano Bruno violated his very order and submission and eternal promises. So severe that he went up to Calvin in Schweiz , a declared anti- papist and swiss lawyer, for meditation. He was burnt at the stake at last after having been given all reasonable chanses. Today they would have given Haloperidol and saved tar and firewood, and bad church reputation
Arcimedes was not quite humble either, he violated Martial Law from the Emperor and spoke “NULLE TANGERE CIRCVLVM NOSTRVM!” to the Imperial police. And had to feel the consequenses of civil misbehaviours..
Tyho Brahe had his nose cut off and had to perform further wityh a silver nose protese, and had to flee the royal court and aspire rather at the Emperor, who he also gave very bad notes “The Emperor has got a darkened mind,…”
Gallilei, ” Eppur si mouve…” against the most brilliant dominican procedure and logics after having lost his case in court. He was sent to home- arrest fror the rest of his life
Ludwig Bolzman, look him up on Wikipedia. Probably Manic depressive, quite ingenious,….. and then deep dark depressdions, would also have been medicated. today. He comitted suicide.
Einstein, need I say more “I am no perfect husband..”. He was here in Norway chasing Christine Bonnevie our first female professor. . A pipe- smoking Jewish Fiddler from Prater in Wien , with skirt flap out an trousers leg open, his hair in wild disorder,… against Edgar Hoover vand the US atomic bomb.
we can exel in such impossible and threatening peronalities from science history.
.
Newton is a most fameous of them with very bad characters from Stephen Hawkin , who himself was quite impossible also in many ways.
James Hansen, How many times has he got arrested and brought in by the Sherriff for civil disorder?
Thanks Carbo. I realize there are those in history exasperated by offensive governments and the order of the day that spoke out and we punished by that order. But the last one you mention, for example, James Hansen, he’s been arrested I think 4 times. But that’s not what I’m saying. It’s the arrestors, the governments, that were wrong in many of those cases..
When Thoreau wrote about “civil disobedience”. He was referring to a reaction to official policy AFAIK. It’s not him out then who is/was at fault but his oppressors. He shouldn’t take the blame.
What I’m talking about is about common courtesy between civilized people. Calling people names is schoolyard stuff. I know you are right that there have been exceptions in history. But you’re also right that lots of famous influential people have behaved privately badly.
The best and brightest that I have known were also just kind people.
Anyway.
Sorry for all the typos. Auto-wrong strikes again.
It’s not fossil fuels, it’s fossil water!!
https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/2023GL103509
That’s a lot of water!
So let’s see:
IF Water vapor is a greenhouse gas.
AND Pumping water out of the ground creates more water vapor.
THEN The energy imbalance that we observe TOA is the result of increasing water vapor, not CO2.
The correlation is clear… we have data that atmospheric water vapor is increasing, and temperature, which is a proxy for system energy, is increasing as well.
So we can go on burning fossil fuels all we want just by adjusting the water cycle!
Let’s do some experiments where we reduce the water on the surface by pumping it into the depleted aquifers… I’m sure it is worth a try, because, you know, I say so….
Dear zebra,
As correctly emphasized several times by macias, average water vapour concentration in the atmosphere and water cycle intensity are basically decoupled from each other. It is apparent from the fact that recent estimate of global annual precipitation is 990 mm and corresponding water volume is about 500 000 km3, whereas the total water amount in the atmosphere is about 13 000 km3 only.
As an important consequence of this fact, it is possible that (at a constant global average surface temperature), global annual precipitation changes in a broad range without any change in the average air humidity.
For this reason, I see your objection as unsubstantiated.
Greetings
Tomáš
(re both you and Zebra) https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2023/06/unforced-variations-jun-2023/#comment-812741 , esp. the last comment in that series (consider comparing total amount of atm. H2O+cloud to amount cycled in one hour), and https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2023/06/unforced-variations-jun-2023/#comment-812388 … https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2023/06/unforced-variations-jun-2023/#comment-812402 … https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2023/06/unforced-variations-jun-2023/#comment-812407 … https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2023/06/unforced-variations-jun-2023/#comment-812411 …
Yes, irrigation may well cause a global average cooling. Other land use effects may have caused a similar warming via there effect on evapotranspiration (via cloud cover). Other land use effects have caused other warming/cooling effects (less forest – snow has potentially greater albedo impact; more dust in the air… etc.)
No, this is not a good solution for anthropogenic global warming it total, or CO2 emissions (has broader effects). It may be of some help (particularly for warming caused by stomatal changes caused by CO2?). But it doesn’t solve ocean acidification, would have to continually increase if we keep adding more CO2 to the air, and doesn’t have the same ‘shape’ of forcing, so it can’t address the whole of climate change caused by CO2 et al.
Beware Dishonest Antarctic Climate Fear Mongering!!!
https://twitter.com/JimSteeleSkepti/status/1673399906848083968
Climate Science Refutes alarmist scientists and click-bait media’s claims that rising CO2 is melting Antarctica and raising sea levels.
Graphs below from published science illustrate the expected infrared radiation (pointed to by red arrows) escaping to space from a body at the given temperature based on undisputed laws of physics. Jagged black lines show what satellites observe. The difference is the greenhouse effect.
The greenhouse effect at 60F is highlighted by blue triangles for water vapors’ infrared wavelength absorption and red triangles for CO2’s absorption which prevent all the expected heat from escaping via those wavelengths.
But in Antarctica where it is extremely cold and dry there is virtually no water vapor greenhouse effect and CO2 actually helps more heat escape COOLING the continent. A negative greenhouse effect.
If you never heard of the Negative Greenhouse Effect it should alert you to how the media has been horribly misleading you!
There is No Climate Crisis!
Yes, maybe better to have them ( the progressive denialists and surrealists) declared and online.
Re: Jim Steele Jun 27: “Beware Dishonest Antarctic Climate Fear Mongering!!!”
Thank you, Jim Steele, for honestly warning the reader about the nature of your post. If only other climate change deniers could be as upfront…
To the moderators – if it is too much time-consuming to do do effective moderating (I know you are busy people) – perhaps you could try AI to identify the candidates worthy of the Borehole?
Even with cursory look at John Steele’s short contribution I can spot already several red-flags:
1. Key phrases that portray the author as a fiercely independent mind, fighting the combined forces of scientists and media: “Climate Fear Mongering”, “alarmist scientists and click-bait media”
2. John Steele’s original contribution to Earth’s thermodynamics: “ CO2 helps more heat escape“,
3. Instead of links to peer-review sources, a link to the …author’s own web page.
4. The graphs are, of course “ from published science“, Fahrenheits in them suggest how recent/international is this research.
5. Having a “skeptic” in the blog address is a nice touch. The real skeptic, first and foremost is skeptical toward themselves – one’s ignorance, wishful thinking, and blind spots. Obviously, not the case here. ;-)
6. An inordinate fondness for capital letters and exclamation marks (“Beware Dishonest Antarctic Climate Fear Mongering!!!” “the media has been horribly misleading you!” , “There is No Climate Crisis!“)
7. Never doubting one-self- what is a probability that no trained scientist noticed it, that I will be the first person who invents a wheel…
And if I can get all that from one short post, imagine what an AI trained on a few months of position RC, could do.
An inordinate fondness for capital letters
:) Is that like Darwin’s “inordinate fondness for beetles”?
“An inordinate fondness for beetles”
Oops, that was J.B.S. Haldane who said that.
Ron: Is that like [Haldane’s] “inordinate fondness for beetles”?
Yes ;-)
Well, except for the fact that nobody is claiming that it is backradiation from the atmosphere that is melting the glaciers, but rather elevated temperatures in the southern seas melting the sea ice that holds back the glaciers. Why not at least learn the real science rather than attack a straw man? Oh, yeah, the real science doesn’t support your imbecilic talking points.
There is a climate crisis. There has been a climate crisis for 30 years, and we’ve doe fuck all to address it.
The feature you refer to depends on a sufficient temperature inversion. Temperature inversions in the troposphere can happen because (mainly, I believe) solar heating of the surface+troposphere is unevenly distributed horizontally and in time; the former is associated with large-scale overturning; that and heat capacity extend the troposphere to places (I believe) and times where it would not otherwise be.
Globally, time-averaged, there is solar heating concentrated at/within/under the surface (from memory, about 2/3 of solar heating is in surface material, 1/3 in the atmosphere (most of that in the troposphere).
This must be balanced by a net upward fluxes of ~LW (terrestrial) radiation and convection; convection being mainly in the troposphere and limited to below TOA (top of atmosphere); OLR (outgoing LW) radiant flux is the only significant means by which Earth sheds heat to Space.
… The general tendency is for temperature to decrease going up from the surface, through the atmosphere, to Space (which can be treated as a perfect blackbody object close to 0 K for this purpose).
So in the global time average, the greenhouse gases and agents (clouds), ie., the LW optical thickness or depth of the atmosphere (measure of opaqueness) maintains a higher surface temperature than the effective temperature of the OLR flux density, and in particular, an increase in CO2 tends to reduce the net upward LW flux, leading to an imbalance, resulting in an accumulation of enthalpy (colloquially known as heat), which eventually raises the temperature to a new equilibrium wherein the fluxes are balanced again; feedbacks such as an increase in H2O vapor shift the amount of warming required to achieve equilibrium.
see also my comments starting here:
https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2023/05/cmip6-not-so-sudden-stratospheric-cooling/#comment-811736 ,
https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2023/05/cmip6-not-so-sudden-stratospheric-cooling/#comment-811771 …,
https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2023/05/cmip6-not-so-sudden-stratospheric-cooling/#comment-811772 … ,
https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2023/05/cmip6-not-so-sudden-stratospheric-cooling/#comment-811930 ,
https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2023/05/cmip6-not-so-sudden-stratospheric-cooling/#comment-811932 …
and https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2023/05/cmip6-not-so-sudden-stratospheric-cooling/#comment-812156
and https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2023/05/cmip6-not-so-sudden-stratospheric-cooling/#comment-812157
(note I address the effects of inversion layers; I was being very general regarding the hills/valleys/moats/levees in graphs of spectral radiance or spectral flux density (spectral irradiance), as this can apply to upward and downward fluxes/etc. separately; the net upward spectral flux looks like a valley in the typical case of temperature decreasing with height.)
See also links here: https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2023/05/cmip6-not-so-sudden-stratospheric-cooling/#comment-811964
See also my various comments above regarding radiative-convective equilibrium, eg.:
https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2023/06/unforced-variations-jun-2023/#comment-812708 : “(The greenhouse effect basically works by limiting how far you can see in heat vision.)”
https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2023/06/unforced-variations-jun-2023/#comment-812388 … ,
https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2023/06/unforced-variations-jun-2023/#comment-812402 ,
https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2023/06/unforced-variations-jun-2023/#comment-812407
https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2023/06/unforced-variations-jun-2023/#comment-812738
… and of course, what lots of other people have said:
https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2007/05/start-here/
https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/category/climate-science/greenhouse-gases/
– https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2022/07/the-cos2-problem-in-six-easy-steps-2022-update/
“I Misunderstood the Greenhouse Effect. Here’s How It Works.”:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oqu5DjzOBF8
…
… well, I should have said that such a phenomenon can occur with a sufficient inversion and/or combination of that or small lapse rate and sufficiently low surface LW emissivity:
Inter-Comparison of Field- and Laboratory-Derived Surface Emissivities of Natural and Manmade Materials in Support of Land Surface Temperature (LST) Remote Sensing
https://www.mdpi.com/2072-4292/12/24/4127
Improved Representation of Surface Spectral Emissivity in a Global Climate Model and Its Impact on Simulated Climate
https://journals.ametsoc.org/view/journals/clim/31/9/jcli-d-17-0125.1.xml
The Effects of Surface Longwave Spectral Emissivity on Atmospheric Circulation and Convection over the Sahara and Sahel
https://journals.ametsoc.org/view/journals/clim/32/15/jcli-d-18-0615.1.xml
Surface Emissivity Maps for Use in Satellite Retrievals of Longwave Radiation
https://ntrs.nasa.gov/citations/19990100634
https://ntrs.nasa.gov/api/citations/19990100634/downloads/19990100634.pdf
Deriving high-quality surface emissivity spectra from atmospheric infrared sounder data using cumulative distribution function matching and principal component analysis regression
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0034425718301901
Temperatures, etc.
https://earth.nullschool.net/#current/wind/surface/level/overlay=temp/orthographic=208.22,91.95,285/loc=106.055,88.357
I’ve only just browsed a few figures but I get the sense the surface emissivity isn’t much of an issue for ice/snow or water surfaces, at least. Generally for introductory purposes it is still a useful approximation to think of the surface as a perfect blackbody in LW, AFAIK.
The effect of surface LW emissivity fades with increasing greenhouse effect strength, esp. with H2O or low level clouds, being (typically concentrated in the case of H2O vapor) close to the surface and tending to have similar temperatures; the effectively-reflective fraction of the surface area (thinking in terms of cross sections) will reflect or scatter the downward radiance back up, and from higher levels the surface becomes more hidden anyway.
(Inversions may also occur with downdrafts spreading out from showers/thunderstorms etc. (eg. gust fronts), even with horizontally, time constant solar heating. I haven’t specifically studied these but I’m guessing they are very weak compared to winter polar inversions.)
(eg. Putting a cloud near the top of an inversion would tend to increase OLR (if there is not already sufficient cloud above that) but it would also tend to increase the downward flux underneath. CO2 doubling has a band-widening effect such that the downward flux to the surface can increase in total even with decreasing spectral flux near the band center, depending on how much CO2 there is to begin with… and H2O and cloud distributions, etc.)
Heat is redistributed horizontally in air and in the oceans. Etc.