To be clear, this is known as the First Law of Thermodynamics – the Conservation Of Energy. You can move the heat around, but with the roof on the whole will get slowly hotter.
IOW, No plan to mitigate the heat that doesn’t ALSO address the carbon we have added the the atmosphere and continue to add to it (the “roof” I refer to) will work well. It’s addressing the symptoms while avoiding the main cause, though deforestation is also involved.
Mitigation schemes are merely bandages on a gaping wound, cynically designed so as to keep us addicted to FF by the fat, greedy, FF companies. Maybe (like filters on cigarettes) we should require them to build huge air filtering machines around the world to clean up the globe’s FF additions that we’ve added because their anti-alternative energy, anti-progress shenanigans all this time have kept us addicted to it (as a whole)..
I did something akin to this when I was a kid. Made a cake on my own. Too salty, so I “fixed” it by adding a bit more sugar. Then it was too sweet! Hmm. So I added a bit more salt. Rats! Then again it was too salty!! So I tried adding a bit more sugar. and so on. It eventually became a thick, greenish, rubbery, inedible mass that had to be thrown out. D:
Geoff Miell (UV thread June),
I would suggest that, unlike you, Kevin Anderson understands entirely what is being said in Box et al (2022) ‘Greenland ice sheet climate disequilibrium and committed sea-level rise’. I do not see how his statement that SLR will sit in the range 1m to 2m under +3ºC to +4ºC of AGW says otherwise.Note that he talks of “only” 1m to 2m SLR by 2100 in such circumstances, contrasting this with the multi-metre SLR commitment such a level of AGW will bring.
And while it is true that “Past performance is no guarantee of future performance,” it is no reason to ignore such “Past performance” in some demented appeal to ‘common sense’ Such ignorance is entirely non-scientific.
Perhaps I should draw your attention to the excellent NSIDC ‘Greenland Ice Sheet Today’ page. While the 2023 Greenland Surface Melt Extent did manage a daily record on 27th June (that described by Jason Box as “punching off the charts” which is perhaps overly dramatic description given the record set in 2002 for 28th June), this was not such a spectacular daily record as to yet detract from the headline message of the NSIDC post of 26th June <i<'Greenland melt season off to a modest start.'
Geoff Miellsays
MA Rodger: – “Note that he talks of “only” 1m to 2m SLR by 2100 in such circumstances, contrasting this with the multi-metre SLR commitment such a level of AGW will bring.”
It seems to me you are having difficulty with the comprehension of the meaning of what Kevin Anderson actually said: “So we may only across this century see one or two metres, which will be devastating for many of our coastal cities.”
The words “may only” link with “across this century”, NOT with the SLR height range.
It seems to me you only want to see what aligns with your dismissive “SLR blather” narrative.
I’d suggest “multi-metre” SLR – “multi” by definition being more than one – begins at two metres, which as Kevin Anderson said, “would be devastating for many of our coastal cities.”
I’d suggest Kevin Anderson’s statement about likely 1-2 m SLR within this century doesn’t align with 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.”
There are none so blind as those who will not see.
MA Rodger: – “And while it is true that “Past performance is no guarantee of future performance,” it is no reason to ignore such “Past performance” in some demented appeal to ‘common sense’ Such ignorance is entirely non-scientific.”
IMO, your use of the phrase “demented appeal” is ad hominem – entirely non-scientific.
Kevin Anderson said: “We have no historical precedent in human history for these sorts of temperature changes,” Thus I think the phrase I invoked; “Past performance is no guarantee of future performance,” is entirely appropriate. But it seems to me you would rather invoke insults.
MA Rodger: – “Perhaps I should draw your attention to the excellent NSIDC ‘Greenland Ice Sheet Today’ page. While the 2023 Greenland Surface Melt Extent did manage a daily record on 27th June (that described by Jason Box as “punching off the charts” which is perhaps overly dramatic description given the record set in 2002 for 28th June), this was not such a spectacular daily record as to yet detract from the headline message of the NSIDC post of 26th June <i<'Greenland melt season off to a modest start.'”
Thanks for the link to the ‘Greenland Ice Sheet Today’ page – it seems an excellent resource.
The Greenland melt season may well be off to a modest start, but I’d suggest it’s still early days. With North Atlantic SSTs at record seasonal high temperatures since early March 2023, and daily NH 2-meter air temperature also high, I’d suggest it would not be at all surprising to see modest melting rapidly change to record ice loss in the coming few months. Perhaps the Canadian wildfire smoke may moderate temperatures over Greenland? We’ll see soon. Then there’s next year, which is looking likely to be hotter still. https://climatereanalyzer.org/clim/sst_daily/ https://climatereanalyzer.org/clim/t2_daily/
Killiansays
It seems to me you are having difficulty with the comprehension of the meaning of what Kevin Anderson actually said: “So we may only across this century see one or two metres, which will be devastating for many of our coastal cities.”
The words “may only” link with “across this century”, NOT with the SLR height range.
It seems to me you only want to see what aligns with your dismissive “SLR blather” narrative.
Yes. MA is exceedingly conservative in his interpretations of climate science literature. Always has been. This causes very poor analyses on his part on the regular because climate change is beyond rapid at this point. Two good examples were:
1. Regarding ASI, I predicted *on these pages* back in Aug. 2015 ASI Extent would be among the lower bounds based on the El Nino beginning that year and the assumption a. any warming phenomenon would have to have an impact on ASI and b. Pacific waters flow through the Arctic Ocean.
He, and everyone else, told me I was wrong and there was no scientific support for this. Turns out, six years later “heat bombs” from the Pacific flowing into the Arctic Ocean exist according to a study via Scripps.
2. A few years ago, we had some somewhat unusual CO2 spikes in February. Something about them struck me as a possible shift. The magnitude of them, and the timing, and that I didn’t remember them from the past. Of course, MA barked at me, “Nothing to see here, folks!” To his credit, he showed such things had occurred in the past. Of course, that doesn’t nullify a shift happening during the time we were observing.
The next year they started in February. I pointed to them again, added in other correlations (such as the somewhat unexplained low ASIE of 2020), and suggested maybe this was a more systemic change than he thought. I was correct, of course, as Winter CO2 excursions have continued.
This is a situation I predicted: A system changing faster than ever before other than bolide impacts, human actions debilitating all ecosystems simultaneously, climate sensitivity *having to be* higher than 3C, and little or no hysteresis in the system. This is completely anomalous in human and Earth history. I have issued this warning on these pages for well over a decade. Still, MA pulls back on the reins as if you and I were two crazy people whipping the horses as we approached a hairpin turn along a cliffside trail.
It’s all well and good, even necessary, to have one conservative voice among the choir for balance, but MA is dismissive, patronizing, and very much overly conservative given the risk assessment. If MA kept some balance and wasn’t so goddamned judgmental, his input would be more valuable – even though his style of analysis is downright dangerous at this point because he shouts down outlier analyses rather than working with them.
Suffice it to say, speaking as a long-time teacher of English communication and as a person that always scores in the top few percentiles of standardized tests on the verbal sections of standardized tests, your analysis of the language was spot on and MA’s was clearly biased in his editing, sadly, because to claim otherwise is to ask us to believe he uses language at an elementary school level, which he most certainly does not.
As to the science, if I am not mistaken, Kevin Anderson has stated more than 2M SLR is possible this century, as have others, including Box. I am happy to be wrong about this, but am quite sure I am not.
Geoff Miell,
In June’s UV thread, I characterised a comment interchange on SLR as “blather” as it was effectively long-winded talk with no real substance. This resulted in a ding-dong between you and me in which you have seven-times attempted to defend such “blather” while I have attempted to correct you. I don’t see any progress is made in either endeaviour. It seems “blather” is the name of the game with you.
I could continue pointing out your error.
☻ In this latest defence of yours, you kick off by failing to note the context of Kevin Anderson’s video. He asks ‘What heve we done since 1990 (to mitigate AGW)?’ and points out that we have managed to increase annual CO2 emissions by 60% (that’s +63% annual emissions from FF 1990-2021 according to the GCP numbers) so the present trend is “we are heading towards 3 or 4 degrees centigrate of warming this century. … That is the direction of travel. Now that direction of travel doesn’t have to continue…” Anderson points to such 3 or 4 degrees centigrate AGW resulting in multi-metre SLR through the next millennium when even the 1m-to-2m SLR such warming would deliver by 2100 would be devastating.
So the “direction of travel” is not actually multi-metre SLR by 2100 (although metre-plus will be devastating enough) and that is a metre-plus SLR by 2100 which is not inevitable.
☻ You invoke the lack of precedence of the climate change resulting from AGW which is more-than a bit silly given that lack of precedence was being used to ignore data plotting said AGW.
☻ And finally, you describe the 2023 Greenland melt season as “early days” when we are about a week shy of the peak of the season (so the “early days” are now almost behind us) and then invoke the very likely ‘scorchyisimo’ 2024 resulting from the coming El Niño which is again entirely bonkers given the data plotting AGW mentioned above was demonstrating the lack of correlation between El Niño and Greenland melt.
So I could continue pointing out your error, but you evidently are not able to adjust your grand vision of the coming Armagedon to match the evidence. I see no point in continuing.
Killiansays
Two is multi. Your word games to defend your own scientific reticence are a disservice to the audience. Based on the 2.77 average SLR/year from 1993~2002 and the 4.62 average SLR/year from 2013-2022, I used a simple formula of a 50% increase in mm/per decade to get the same pattern we have seen over the last thirty years extrapolated to 2100. Note, this is without any increase in rate, which is extremely unrealistic.
Result? 251 centimeters by 2100.
This is a *conservative* estimate, not an apocalyptic one.
Here’s my data, done very, very simply, of course. If I’ve done the math incorrectly, please revise the result.
This is what ChatGPT came up with given NOAA data and data in a recent article on SLR.
Total sea level rise from 2002 to 2023: 10.1 cm (or 101 mm)
Current rate of sea level rise: 3.99 mm/yr
Sea level rise in 1992: approximately 2.77 mm/yr
First, we need to calculate the rate of increase per year from 1992 to 2002. To do that, we can subtract the sea level rise in 1992 from the total sea level rise from 2002 to 2023 and divide it by the 10-year period:
Rate of increase per year from 1992 to 2002 = (Total sea level rise from 2002 to 2023 – Sea level rise in 1992) / 10 years
= (101 mm – 2.77 mm/yr * 10 years) / 10 years
= (101 mm – 27.7 mm) / 10 years
= 7.23 mm/yr
Now, let’s extrapolate the sea level rise to 2100 based on the current rate of increase per year and the rate of increase per year from 1992 to 2002. We will assume a linear extrapolation for simplicity, although it’s important to note that sea level rise projections can be subject to various factors and uncertainties.
Extrapolated sea level rise in 2100 = Sea level rise in 2023 + (Current rate of increase per year + Rate of increase per year from 1992 to 2002) * (Year in 2100 – Year in 2023)
Extrapolated sea level rise in 2100 = 101 mm + (3.99 mm/yr + 7.23 mm/yr) * (2100 – 2023)
Extrapolated sea level rise in 2100 = 101 mm + 11.22 mm/yr * 77 years
Using a calculator or spreadsheet, we can evaluate this expression:
Extrapolated sea level rise in 2100 ≈ 101 mm + 865.94 mm
Extrapolated sea level rise in 2100 ≈ 966.94 mm
Therefore, based on the given information and assuming a linear extrapolation, the extrapolated sea level rise in 2100 would be approximately 966.94 mm, or approximately 96.7 cm.
Killian,
You are here actually addressing me rather than just bad-mouthing my judgement. So perhaps your comment warrants a reply.
You insist “Two is multi.” which is true. And five and seven and ten are also “multi.” So I would suggest describing a projected-or-whatever SLR of 2m as ‘multi-metre’ is a very poor description.
I’m not sure what all the rest of your comment is inspired by our new friend ChatGPT.
Identfying the acceleration in SLR is not so straightforward. (See this CarbonBrief ‘explainer’ from 2019 which suggests the acceleration is a linear 0.1mm/y/y, a value matching the satellite data 1993-2022 and yielding a 1993-2100 SLR of +0.75m.). I don’t see any evidence for an exponential increase in the satellite SLR data but that doesn’t stop such a fit. (See this NASA graphic which is showing an acceleration of 2.6%/y, yielding a 1993-2100 SLR of +1.2m.)
But do note the 2100 SLR is strongly dependent on the level of AGW we inflict on the world between now & then. Note the final graphic in the CarbonBrief ‘Explainer’ which shows strong acceleration only under RCP8.5.
In that context, your big long column of numbers presents a curious mix of stepped linear and exponential SLR increase, the exponential section providing the heavy lifting and, with a doubling-time of 20y, it is far from the *conservative* estimate you describe it as.
The calculation below the big long column of numbers is entirely incoherent in application. If a linear ΔSLR is adopted with SLR(1992)=2.77mm/y and ΣSLR (2002-23)=101mm, then surely SLR (2002-23)=2.77 x 21y + [11 x 21y + 0.5 x 21y^2] x ΔSLR or ΔSLR=0.95mm/y/y. So that would not be greatly different from the 1993-2100 SLR = +0.75m of the linear acceleration presented above of 0.1mm/y/y.
Geoff Miellsays
MA Rodger: – “But do note the 2100 SLR is strongly dependent on the level of AGW we inflict on the world between now & then. Note the final graphic in the CarbonBrief ‘Explainer’ which shows strong acceleration only under RCP8.5.”
Professor Jason Box posted on 16 Jul 2023 another informative YouTube video titled insane flooding rain to Greenland – rapids in an atmospheric river, duration 0:11:26. Prof Box talks about 16 extreme rainfall events (i.e. ≥300 mm of rainfall within a 24-hour period) observed in Greenland since 1991. Extreme rainfall ‘darkens’ the surface snow, inducing more heat adsorption on following sunny days, elevating melting rates for days/weeks. IMO, this is an excellent presentation discussing atmospheric ‘river’ rapids that instrumentation is now observing in greater detail in southern Greenland (and apparently also in Antarctica).
Prof Box suggests extreme rainfall events on the Greenland & Antarctic ice sheets, already being observed, and the consequent impacts, haven’t been accounted for in the ice sheet melt rate modellings.
As global mean warming inevitably continues more extreme rainfall events are likely, softening the snow/ice faster, inducing surface ‘darkening’ and hydro-fracturing the ice, which will likely accelerate ice sheet melt rates (faster than the modelling that the CarbonBrief ‘Explainer’ shows), thus substantially increasing SLR contributions in the years/decades to come.
I note that below the CarbonBrief ‘Explainer’, in the comments section, included from John Englander (bold text my emphasis):
This review of rising sea level is thorough and seems balanced. Nonetheless from my work on sea level rise I believe that there is a strong bias to understate. As suggested herein there are now credible models looking at 2 meters or more by the year 2100. Many feedback loops are not yet incorporated in the models. Even if we are successful at restricting the warming to another degree Celsius, the long term correlation of sea level change with global temperature strongly suggests we should be planning for a total re-think of coastal communities and infrastructure, while there is time to plan intelligently.
Geoff Miell,
For myself, I am not very interested in the rabbit holes you present here to investigate.
Your commenter of from 4 years ago on the CarbonBrief SLR Explainer page sits alongside others that I wouldn’t give the time of day. Mind your commenter John Englander is published and co-authored Siegert et al (2020) ‘Twenty-first century sea-level rise could exceed IPCC projections for strong-warming futures’ which concludes that the now-significant ice-loss contribution to SLR from the polar ice caps is tracking along the upper IPCC projections (see their Fig 1) and with other considerations…
…suggest that the probability of sea-level rise greater than the IPCC range may be higher than generally expected, especially under higher emissions scenarios, and that there is little probability of sea-level rise less than the IPCC range.
On the subject of latest Greenland ice melt, NSIDV posted on their Greenland Ice Sheet Today page with an update of the 2023 melt season. The Surface Melt has continued strongly with their Interactive Chart showing six daily records.
But for me, the Rolls-Royce record is the GRACE data which shows Greenland annual Ice loss with no acceleration since 2012 while Antarctic annual ice loss has been negative for 2022-23. Of course, we should always remember that net ice loss is the balance between precipitation and run-off/calving, thus the balance between two very big numbers. There is no reason to be complacent and simply assume that balance will continue with the positive with the negative matching so closely.
Geoff Miellsays
MA Rodger: – “Your commenter of from 4 years ago on the CarbonBrief SLR Explainer page sits alongside others that I wouldn’t give the time of day.”
Are you saying you wouldn’t give the time of day to John Englander? Why?
MA Rodger: – “This is far from a doomsday prediction.”
As you note, John Englander is a co-author together with Martin Siegert, Richard B. Alley, Eric Rignot & Robert Corell of their 18 Dec 2020 paper titled Twenty-first century sea-level rise could exceed IPCC projections for strong-warming futures. Thanks for highlighting this paper. The paper’s summary included (bold text my emphasis):
While twentieth century sea-level rise was dominated by thermal expansion of ocean water, mass loss from glaciers and ice sheets is now a larger annual contributor. There is uncertainty on how ice sheets will respond to further warming, however, reducing confidence in twenty-first century sea-level projections. In 2019, to address the uncertainty, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) reported that sea-level rise from the 1950s levels would likely be within 0.61–1.10 m if warming exceeds 4°C by 2100. The IPCC acknowledged greater sea-level increases were possible through mechanisms not fully incorporated in models used in the assessment. In this perspective, we discuss challenges faced in projecting sea-level change and discuss why the IPCC’s sea-level range for 2100 under strong warming is focused at the low end of possible outcomes. We argue outcomes above this range are far more probable than below it and discuss how decision makers may benefit from reframing IPCC’s terminology to avoid unintentionally masking worst-case scenarios.
And just below Box 1 (bold text my emphasis):
The lessons from the paleo record inform us that it is possible, when pushed by greenhouse gases, for the climate to change rapidly and for ice sheets to drive several meters of global sea-level rise over a century timescale.
I don’t think you are helping support your original argument that: “I would characterise SLR blather in this comment thread with talk of doubling times as being multi-metre blather and rather pointless.”
ICYMI, CNN reported in an article headlined Long-lost Greenland ice core suggests potential for disastrous sea level rise on 20 Jul 2023, including:
A recently discovered ice core taken from beneath Greenland’s ice sheet decades ago has revealed that a large part of the country was ice-free around 400,000 years ago, when temperatures were similar to those the world is approaching now, according to a new report – an alarming finding that could have disastrous implications for sea level rise.
The study overturns previous assumptions that most of Greenland’s ice sheet has been frozen for millions of years, the authors said. Instead, moderate, natural warming led to large-scale melting and sea level rise of more than 1.4 meters (4.6 feet), according to the report published Thursday in the journal Science.
“When you look at what nature did in the past, as geoscientists, that’s our best clue to the future,” said Paul Bierman, a scientist at the University of Vermont and a lead author of the study.
MA Rodger: – “There is no reason to be complacent and simply assume that balance will continue with the positive with the negative matching so closely.‘
I’d suggest accumulating evidence/data for multi-metre SLR by 2100 is increasingly likely.
John Pollacksays
I would like to bring an additional perspective to the discussion about SLR and melting of continental ice sheets (Greenland, Antarctica).
I am heavily influenced by these two publications showing a very rapid sea level rise toward the end of the last interglacial, approximately 119k yr ago. The SLR earlier in the interglacial already brought the prevailing sea level about 3m higher than present levels. The final surge brought sea level to at least 6m https://www.nature.com/articles/nature07933
and probably 9m https://www.nature.com/articles/ngeo1890?proof=trueMay.
above present levels! This surge happened rapidly enough that coral growth couldn’t keep up with SLR.
We are in the early stages of a very large SLR. There is a natural mechanism for destabilizing the Greenland and/or Antarctic Ice Sheets that is fairly fast-acting on a human time scale. We don’t know if that mechanism has actually been inevitably triggered yet, or we’re merely getting hints of it so far. In either case, it seems pointless to focus on what limited SLR has occurred up to now, and whether it fits a linear, quadratic (acceleration) or exponential model. I suggest that the real world is telling us that the process is chaotic, regardless of what the early stages look like. We don’t know just when it will really hit hard, this time around. I’ll have more about glacial models in another post.
The driver of SLR this time is of course the abrupt rise in greenhouse gases. Talk of equilibrium climate sensitivity seems premature when we’re going to be out of equilibrium for a prolonged period. In the last interglacial, the big driver seems to have been increased obliquity. This has the effect of providing higher incoming insolation at high latitudes during the summer, with less available at low latitudes. This apparently allowed a warmer polar climate than we have currently, even with a maximum CO2 concentration around 300 ppm. This would have also have led to enhanced ice-albedo feedback as darker surfaces absorbed extra summer solar radiation.
Note that even though the poles were somewhat warmer than at present, (evidenced by 3m higher sea level) it didn’t set off a large carbon bomb. We know that from CO2 levels in Antarctic ice, which don’t show any drastic peaks. Qualitatively, the big melt this time will be driven relatively more by heat transport from lower latitudes. This would include both ocean currents and atmospheric rivers, of course. It also suggests that the tropics could already be as hot or hotter than during the last peak, and are still on the way up. The greenhouse gas levels we’ve already reached are very frightening from this perspective. However, society in general seems to be little motivated to put on the brakes, regardless of future consequences.
John Pollack,
(Do note that the ding-dong you describe as “the discussion about SLR and melting of continental ice sheets (Greenland, Antarctica)” was in my understanding specifically wrestling with the SLR by 2100 from Greenland given today’s level of AGW (so the ‘baked-in’ SLR and not any further projected AGW to 2100) and whether it was accurate to say the science was showing this SLR by 2100 as being ‘multi-metre.’)
It would be surely difficult not to agree that increasing AGW threatens to destabilize Antarctic/Greenland ice sheets and thus that it would deliver multi-metre SLR as witnessed in the Eemian SLR data.
Yet linking-in the evidence of the Eemian SLR into the 2100 SLR ‘discussion’ requires the evidence of how quickly such ‘destabilized’ SLR will be. (One of the two sources linked above appears to give some information on this. Blanchon et al (2009) with its 119kybp SLR of 3m talks of 36mm/y although the references given supporting this value give different values, ie +45mm/y.)
There is also a need to check that the ice sheets present prior to this rapid 119kybp SLR are ‘equivalent’ to the Antarctic/Greenland ice sheets under threat from AGW today. What we don’t know well with the Eemian is the start-point of this 119kybp SLR in terms of the Antarctic/Greenland ice sheets. So the likes of Yau et al (2016), in saying ”Greenland likely did not contribute to anomalously high sea levels at ∼127 ka, or to a rapid jump in sea level at ∼120 ka.” may be indicating the threat of a repeat of the Eemian rests in Antarctica, but that would be an Antarctica with presumably a lot more ice stacked on it relative to today (as there was a lot less ice stacked on Greenland back then).
patrick Jun.30: I do disagree that clouds are the only contributor to surface cooling response”
I didn’t say that – I responded to your “[The RC water cycle geoengineering proponents ] – are not completely wrong: [because] of cooling effect ( w/ significant contribution from cloud cover) from irrigation.”
by pointing that calculations by both Kalisz and Shurly implicitly excluded the effect of irrigation on cloud cover).
patrick: “One study (cited in Puma and Cook) used ~100 times the irrigation amount to achieve a global land average cooling of 1.310 K
Which again supports my point. Based on Tomas and Shurly’s assumption that 1oo% of latent heat escapes into space, Tomas calculated that to counter GW we need latent heat from 13x the current irrigation. I pointed that only a fraction of latent heat escapes to space. Since only ~1/3 of all energy put into atmosphere is radiated into space – if we were to use this number to the latent heat – then instead of 13x irrigation, we would need 40x irrigation. To reduce the temp. over land by 1.31 K, i.e. not that far to the current warming over land –
your source (Puma and Cook) used ~100x the irrigation, thus proving my point that Tomas with his 13x – severely underestimated the amount of water that would have to be evaporated to “neutralize”.
And the higher the volume of water that needs to be evaporated – the bigger the difficulty and the more massive the cost. Which puts a dent in yours:
“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”
since if we devote such massive resources to B (increasing the irrigation by 100 TIMES!), then it would divert a lot of resources from doing A (=GHG mitigation), meaning we won’t be able to commit to A regardless“
patrick o twentysevensays
Yes, my comment was a bit sloppy on a few points. I had thought Kalisz had mentioned clouds. You allowed that the LH flux itself can have an effect on sfc T. I noted my position on geoengineering in a few other Jun comments, with more clarity (I’m open to marginal usage of various ideas, but not the large-scale massive irrigation increase, especially not in the Sahara; of course wetland restoration (unfortunately limited by our land usage needs) and reducing UHI, etc. make sense for additional reasons; we will need to irrigate our crops to some extent anyway – but efficiently; etc. – For big impacts, my preference is for CO2 sequestration itself (which should continue even after getting completely off fossil fuels, etc., and on that point, ocean fertilization – if it works – would still involve messing with ecosystems, so adverse side effects are still a possibility; OTOH, it could become a sort of quasi-sustainable(?) aquaculture for feeding people (at least until population levels fall back to ?)… I had suggesting a solar geoengineering scheme just to limit SLR, not to cool the whole globe – to be employed later – if it could be done; not counting on it: https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2023/06/unforced-variations-jun-2023/#comment-812722 ). …
patrick o twentysevensays
On that last idea – I was thinking of horizontal area when I noted the tendency for OLR effects > SW effects at higher latitudes; of course an area facing the sun would be better in terms of this and materials/etc.
But on my point regarding the role of LH, I think your analysis using the 1/3 escape to Space ratio doesn’t quite apply here, because:
When an additional LH flux from the surface is initially ‘turned on’, setting aside changes in atmospheric and surface composition (or texture, etc.), there is no radiant effect because temperatures have not changed. So the surface cools and the troposphere warms. There is no effect on OLR initially. As the temperature changes, emission of radiation changes; this increases the upward emission to
Space from some of the troposphere, and the backradiation AND reduces the upward emission from the surface; it would (I expect) also reduce the SH flux from the surface. A new convective lapse rate is being established wherein the surface and some part of the lower troposphere are cooler and upper troposphere is warmer. The OLR may change; assuming a greater heat capacity at the surface (and the equilibrium warming of the upper troposphere is not too large relative to the cooling below), OLR may tend to increase during the transition to a new equilibrium (this is when the ‘escape to Space’ may be considered to occur). When equilibrium is achieved, the OLR is back to what it was before, with the net radiant cooling vertically redistributed (column total = OLR flux); the change in LH flux (at every vertical level) must be completely balanced by opposing changes in net LW flux and SH flux, because solar heating is the same (until we consider the radiative effects of H2O vapor, clouds, etc.). The ratio of atmospheric emission to Space to combined [direct atmospheric solar heating + emission of LW radiation absorbed in the atmosphere + LH and SH (net) fluxes from the surface] could be different in this new equilibrium, and I’m not sure if the 1/3 ratio would come up during the transition.
Piotrsays
Patrick: JUL 5 “But on my point regarding the role of LH, I think your analysis using the 1/3 escape to Space ratio doesn’t quite apply here, because
Except that my goal was NOT to give the exact value of LH escaping into a space (your “OLW”?),but to explain to Tomas and Shurly why their implicit assumption that 100% of LH escapes into space – is wrong. For that, I deemed ~1/3 of averaged over all sources of heat to the atmosphere, as sufficient.
Of course, this ratio for any of the 4 individual fluxes (solar SW, Earth’s LW, LH, Sensible H) may be different than 1/3. In general – if the heat can It depends on the height where a given flux is first reradiated from : the higher it happens, the higher the % that would ultimately escape into space, as the will be fewer absorption-reradiation events on the way toward the space,
E.g. ozone layer is quite high, so for solar SW absorbed by stratospheric ozone that % probably considerably higher than 1/3. LH that does not make it into stratosphere hence should have value than ozone.
To get the exact value for LH would require a realistic model to quantify the changes
in outgoing into space LW from incremental changes in LH. But again – this was not
my goal – all I needed was to show to Tomas and Shurly that is not the 100% they assumed in their calculations.
In fact, if we take Shurly’s own calculations using radiative of Schmidt et al. 2010 paper
and take LH from Trenberth (78W/m2)
– then within Shurly’s own argument unless more than 94% of LH
is escaping into space – the net effect would be the net warming, thus questioning
Shurly’s confident claim: “The earth is a water-cooled planet – whether you like it or not”.
Again – I am not claiming that Schmidt et. al paper, accounted for all the indirect effect you are talking about – I merely question the calculations and conclusions by Shurly from that Schmidt et al paper he used, i.e. within Shurly’s OWN argument.
And it seems effective since after that Shurly …. has abandoned his own calculations based on Schmidt et al., in favour of … some graph that …. lumps irrigation with albedo change ;-)
But about the problems with his interpretation of that graph – I’ll write separately.
Your last remarks of June 23 are interesting, but then the month was over.
I share your concerns and worries on many points, but I phantacize in terms of different solutions.
As for climate research communication, I have been concerned that the IPCC guidelines for decisionmakers have been too simple and rigid and without uncertainty concerns from the beginning, but I see also the semantic question and for whoom it is meant to be understood, namely the enlighted highscool student with legal Baccalaureus 1 Diploma from worldwide, and by that wiew it seems OK.
The mobsters on their side and who shirked their education and diploma and rather had that from the Party with P will feel heavily frustrated and feel in charge to throw themselves on the cateter and start teaching against it..
Al Gore was quite ingenious. Just because of a microscopic election loss in Florida, he drove up the very hollywood and took strangle grip on
1, the american way of life
2, the Chineese way of life and
3, the oil pipeline between Saudi Arabia and Pentagon.
Strangle grip, beat that!
Ad did set Guinness world recotrd of conspiration.
And that may feel ugly for millions and other millions of incureable Partisans with P in the west as in the east.
I am also in high doubt about the love and popularity of batteries mega windmills and solar cell parks, its full material and environmental costs and footprints, and actually believe more in the combustion engine, especially the Diesel, that is updated and refined to its limits in our days by rather easy means. It only needs better fuel now, and that is a task for chemistery. I believe solar and nuclear can solve it. .
Together witt resigning on unnecessary and sinful, luxurious misuse of materials and energy, and especially its performance against the premise conditions of wind and weathers day and night summer and winter.
Necessary heating processes should be located where waste heat is needed especially in winter and there is also icewater enough for cooling.
Todays luxurious lifestyles were developed and consceived to the premisses of James Watts doubble action steam engine with a huge expensive boiler and mechanical delivery of energy to a “factory” where all the “workers” must assemble at 0700 and home again at 1900 with 1/2 hour eating pause in between . And one week vacation each year at Costa, at Krim. ( or Yugoslavia).
when will we have time for blueberry strawberry raspberry and mushrom – picking?
During the Covid 19 campaign people were told to have “home office..” and not come together in their “factories”. The “Tramvajs” of Praha must have suddenly stood still in the rush hours
As if there is any such thing as the common worker anymore? and ever were? and as if every common worker of today is an intellectual clerk officer at a table in an office with a laptop computer and papers ? who can make “home office” ?
There is obvious and …… manifest…… silli- ness round about most elementary things and that is a worst and most accute environmental problem that must be settled first.
That is my humble opinion.
It follows from the industrialization of thought in pre- electrical time to keep up with the steampressure of James Watts enormeous one and only iron horse in the one and only “factory” at the one and only assembly line inside there. that should ease all the peoples work and earnings. . .
One must learn again tom CARPE DIEM and wait for the opportunity, stay ready and wait for the wind for when to sail and for water for when to mill and know how to rather do something useful in between.
In my opinion, you may be correct in that Diesel engine has not said its last word yet, and may be still among relevant technical means for the future, hopefully more sustainable human society if run with a suitable “environmentally friendly” fuel.
I do not think that such fuel can be a hydrocarbon, because I do not believe in possibility of an energetically (and economically) feasible carbon dioxide recycling.
proposed in time of the first oil shock that such fuel might be molten sodium (or a sodium-potassium alloy that needs less sophisticated thermal insulation for fuel tanks because the eutectic point in the Na-K phase diagram is below 0 °C).
The sodium metal can be re-cycled by direct electrolysis of NaOH which is product of its reaction with water and oxygen:
Sodium and/or potassium are thus true “electrofuels”, directly recyclable by electrolysis, in contrast to hydrocarbons that are still obtainable from carbon dioxide only indirectly, by a series of laborious irreversible chemical conversions causing huge energy losses and consequently low efficiency of such energy storage.
Greetings
Tom
P.S.
For further details and a broader context, see also my orgpage to energy storage in abundant alkali metals:
Yes, but metallic sodium and potassium is extreemly dangerous, corrosive and inflameable.
I like the alkali metals more in the carbonate and bicarbonate form., eventually in the form of pure potassium nitrate for gunpowder..
Bohemian cristal is a speciality as they hardly had Soda, but enough of Potash in the glass factories and could refine and use that instead. It showed to be the finer luxury glasses.
But “Potash” it is not K2CO3. “Potash ” is rather a sodium potassium phosphate Na K H PO4 . x H2O. with some colloidal SiO2- hydrate carbonate. It just makes the soaps better and the glasses finer.
Weinstein, Potassium tartrate , the tartaric acid salt of potassium settes in the finest white wine bottles, and is a signal of highest pure quality on Eiffel volcanic ash ground.
Potassium is essencial for human and animal health and welfare in the climate,
But not necessarily in the form of Vino Biancho. . Apple squash more or less bubbled and preserved may be even stronjger in regard to Potassium, And water melons is further a really good source of potassium.
The cucurbitaceae together with the apples plums and pears are especially rich on Potassium, thus must be intensely recommended in addition to it wherever Vino Biancho is mentioned
When you serve vino biancho and champagne on the table for celebration, put also a bottle of elementary harvested sorted milled and and squeezed and pasteurized apples beneith it and look what people preferre and like, what goes away first.
Advanced, strong autentic especially also choisest stolen wild apples are just as fine in peoples opinions.
Then you must salt it, and there we have crabs and oysters and lobsters unsalted. They are
simply warmed or even “marinated” in their own seawater and served fresh without any further spices.
A Pilsner to it is often what does it especially for shrimps and crabs. It is as simple as that.
Why go to Krim for Sekt if you have all this at home..
But, for this, we must have our climate in order.
I look forwad to being able to run the Diesel engine simply on straw and twigs. As I wrote, we went over the mountains and back again on much less than one tank, in a 4cyl top valved high compression Ford Diesel van… I feel comfortable with that “torch” and sound, and it does not smoke uphill. anymore.
Diesel of today has really high quality and is what Rudolf Diesel intended. They only need better fuel now, and we can gladly pay it as they neither smoke nor drink.
We have got the same in the boat at last. 4 stroke top valved 2 cyl Yanmar with swirl chamber. neither smoking nor drinking just working and the fuel budget has become neglectible for us after so many years..
Russell Seitzsays
The coordinated focus of climate communication on forest fire and heat induced respiratory distress may risk collateral damage from two new syndromes; styled FOGO and FOLGO
Thomas Kalisz, (your comment on last months UV page @ July 1 on biomass etc, etc.)
Thanks for the clarifications. Your comments in that post most were much more convincing overall with the exception I just see the irrigation and evapotranspiration thing as having very limited application as a mitigation tool. .It will help obviously, but there are huge problems in using at at huge scale.
I agree that burning biomass ( timber, wood pellets etc, etc) does not make much sense as a climate mitigation tool for the reasons you stated. Biofuels made form things like corn also seem to have limited usefulness due to resource limits. Because of the limits in producing biofuels, I believe they should be used for things that are very hard to decarbonise like air travel. Adding them to automobile petrol makes no sense to me at all. It sounds like a feel good political decision and just perpetuates ICE vehicles.
Regarding the challenge of wind and solar power intermittency issues, and and mass energy storage for things like long periods of low wind or sunlight and seasonal issues. Another solution is electrofuels. They are carbon neutral and could be stored long term and used in gas fired plant.
I would like to add a remark regarding so called “electrofuels”. I added the quotation marks because no one can directly convert electricity into a hydrocarbon, or oppositely. It has its consequences in poor efficiency and economy of such energy storage.
It is important to keep in mind that if we convert precious “clean” electricity from renewable energy sources into hydrogen by water electrolysis, any further purely chemical conversion thereof irreversibly dissipates a significant part of the saved energy into heat. One-step conversions like HaberBosch ammonia synthesis or Sabatier carbon dioxide conversion into methane thus consume about 25-30 % electricity saved originally in H2.
The only “true” commercially available electrofuel is thus hydrogen which can be produced directly by water electrolysis and directly converted back into water and electricity in electrochemical fuel cells. These devices theoretically do allow efficiencies close to 100 %, in practice, however, suffer from electrochemical inactivity of hydrogen that can be still overcome in a limited extent only, using expensive precious metal catalysts like platinum and with a trade-off between power and size of the device on one hand and its efficiency on the other hand.
Alkali metals like sodium do not suffer from this disadvantage and making the sodium fuel cell commercially available thus can provide a significantly cheaper seasonal electricity storage than hydrogen.
Hydrocarbon “electrofuels” are nothing else than brutal lobbying of the established automotive industry – an enormous wasting with valuable electricity with a practically zero perspective of a competitiveness with fossil fuels, I am afraid.
There is still another option valid for worldwide, that should be mentioned.
I was casting bronse in our wooden stove, that is very prasctical. I only do thast now and then and can thus resign on a large bottle 0f propane gas with furnace simply by wreckboards and chopped firewood, a good heating stove and chimney, and resign also on tropical woods.
My wife came and said “Why are you heating fiercely now in summer? do that in the winter!
Which is right. That chopped and pelleted firewood is really very valuable, and should be burnt at high temperatures only at times when one can also take care of the waste heat. and will have to heat for several purposes all the time in any case.
A man, it is told, was living on the top of the main stove in the fameous brick factory, …. in the winter
at least……,… they have obviously known how to use the heat at all its temperatures before. They could not afford anything better……
A smallest glass furnace drains 15 kilowatts all the time all around the clock and the year, That goes right into the chimney and the room to be ventilated in summer.. How many supermarkets or human appartments could be heated by that? Or how many greenhouses in winter?
But they are more aware of it again in modern industry. The artistic glass factory belongs in the cellar of an appartment block where they can sell off the waste heat also. .
The very difficult energy storage problems are largely the product of methods procedures and lifestyles that were consciously invented and designed in order to get independent of wind and weather and water and seasons. Mitigation to climate change should entail some reversing of that, that became possible through coal and cokes industry
I do understand now that the root cause of continuing misunderstanding between us was my imprecise explanation of the equivalence between global annual precipitation and the average latent heat flow.
If the average air humidity stays constant, 990 mm of the average annual precipitation corresponds evaporation 990 L water from each square meter of Earth surface. It corresponds ca 2.7 L from each square meter per day. As the enthalpy of water evaporation is ca 0.7 kWh/L, the necessary energy is about 1.9 kWh, ca 6 840 000 J. One day has 86 400 seconds, 6 840 000 J divided by 86 400 s gives the average latent heat flow ca 79 W/m2.
I still assume that if the mean annual precipitation is ca 36 times higher than the entire water content in the atmosphere, it can be taken as a hint that water circulates between the surface and the atmosphere quickly – the entire atmospheric water is exchanged in average every ten days. I cannot provide a perfect explanation, I take the decoupling of the water cycle intensity from the average air humidity as an empirical observation.
I therefore assume that whereas the average absolute humidity depends on global average temperature, water cycle intensity depends rather on the rate of water and energy supply.
Greetings
Tomáš
patrick o twentysevensays
Piotr’s point was that the flux (cycling rate) and reservoir (amount in atmosphere) are in different units so it doesn’t make since to say one is larger than the other. You have compared them by taking the ratio of reservoir to flux, and thus found the residence time, which is a reasonable thing to do. It is much shorter than a year, much longer than an hour.
This does not say anything about the decoupling of the two (reservoir and flux). If the residence time were constant, the reservoir would have to remain proportional to the flux. It so happens that the residence time is expected to increase in response to increased CO2, maybe global warming in general?? – but solar forcing would have a different effect (increased solar heating would tend to increase the flux more than increased GHGs would, AFAIK, if my understanding is correct). So you are at least somewhat correct: the cycling rate and amount depend on different things (energy fluxes and temperature, roughly) – but it is complicated (4+D system), and I expect there are limits – it would be difficult to have any water cycle without allowing some H2O in the air.
Forced surface wetting starts out by increasing LH flux from the surface (for surfaces that are forcibly wetted) and necessarily adding more H2O to the air near the surface. Setting radiative effects of changed H2O+clouds,etc., aside, the shift in convective lapse rate would also tend to, **I believe**, result in more H2O in the upper troposphere. Increased low-level cloudiness could cause cooling overall, counteracting this tendency, but it seems odd to think this could reduce the near surface specific humidity to at or below initial levels given how the mechanism works. But with the 4+D nature of it all (and the when and where of irrigation), who knows?
patrick o twentysevensays
“ the cycling rate and amount depend on different things (energy fluxes and temperature, roughly) ”
Actually, the cycling rate depends both on net radiant heating and temperature – because the fraction of convective flux from the surface which is LH tends to increase with increasing T.
Many thanks you both for your explanations as regards the residence time of water vapour in Earth atmosphere as well as for your exhaustive discussion of the ratio between outgoing longwave radiation (OLR) flux and the downwelling longwave radiation (DLR) flux.
First of all, I apologize once again for my inappropriate argument for the “decoupling” between water intensity and average air humidity based on an (erroneous) feeling that already the short residence time about 9-10 days can be taken as a hint thereto. I admit that although similar kind of argumentation appears even in publications cited in the IPCC report (e.g. Sherwood et al, 2018 cited in https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2023/06/unforced-variations-jun-2023/#comment-812741), I had to be more careful and not repeat it without a thorough plausibility check.
It would have been more correct if I asked why Piotr assumes that water residence time in the atmosphere shall remain constant (and average air humidity must increase if we increase the intensity of water vapour flux). On my side, I do not see any reason why water vapour residence time must be just 9.5 days and not 3 days or 30 days, at the same average air humidity.
It is my feeling that Piotr infers his view basically from the 1D model that he several times mentioned (Piotr, correct me please if I am wrong). Applicability of this model on the entire Earth is, however, highly questionable, as pointed out by patrick and by John Pollack https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2023/07/unforced-variations-july-2023/#comment-812888
For this reason, I still do not consider my assumption (that water cycle could be artificially enhanced or artificially weakened without substantial changes in average global absolute air humidity) as erroneous or disproven.
Let us now turn to Piotr`s opinion that only a smaller portion of the heat flux transported in the troposphere by non-radiative mechanisms, particularly by latent energy (LE) flux, shall be considered as actually decreasing the average Earth surface temperature, because a big part of this non-radiative energy flux is in fact re-radiated back to the surface and merely heats colder parts thereof.
Herein, I am still afraid that this interpretation of the global energy budget (GEB) may be incorrect. First, as shown convincingly by patrick, the ratio between OLR and DLR is no fixed quantity, it likely depends on parameters like emission height distribution and lapse rate. Second, the LE is no “additional” energy flowing to the atmosphere, because an increase in the non-radiative flux is compensated by an equal decrease in the upwelling radiation. If we assume just a balance caused by an increased greenhouse effect, then the increase in the DLR must come on the expenses of the OLR, and the difference between both values is the famous Earth energy imbalance (EEI).
If we would like to compensate the increased DLR by an equivalent increase in the LE, to obtain the original OLR and to cancel the EEI, we do not need to suppose that any part of the LE must be re-radiated back to the Earth, because the respective change will be simply achieved by the change in the DLR /OLR ratio, equally as the previous change caused by the addition of the greenhouse gas.
It sounds as a quite bold assumption but I have still a feeling that it is in fact correct. I think there is a strong hint thereto – namely, the equivalence between the annual average precipitation and the mean LE, to that I point from the very start of this discussion and that was so far considered by Piotr as unimportant.
Finally, I would like to shortly comment on the practical aspects of the geoengineering proposal that I allegedly made and that are criticized by Piotr. Please note that in fact, I proposed a practical experiment in urban heat islands, with the goal to test present climate models and to find out which mode of massive solar energy exploitation – the “classical” one, releasing the waste heat mostly as a sensible heat, or the alternative that would have released this heat in form of LE – could be more appropriate.
Consider that the lapse rate diminishes considerably towards the moist tropics. By association the vapor residence time is considerably less than global average at low latitude. 4-5 days only, compared to 9 or 10 globally? This is in-part due to the temperature dependence of the moist adiabatic lapse rate or the equilibrium partitioning.
Using the high magnitude of latent heating over moist relatively warm regions, the surface doesn’t have to warm as much to restore energy balance at the top under greenhouse forcing. The opposite is the case in desert/poles.
The pristine condition of Earth maintains the non-equilibrium steady state condition of 288K surface, with a 255K average radiating temperature. This is accomplished in-part by atmospheric heat transport in global circulation i.e. the magnitude of the latent flux (rate of condensation).
The associated radiative emission from atmosphere results in about 50% from water vapor, 20% from trace gases, and 30% from variable condensate (frequency independent).
Piotrsays
TomasGPT(?): why Piotr assumes that water residence time in the atmosphere shall remain constant?
I don’t – my argument does not require constant, nor changing, residence time
TomasGPT: why average air humidity must increase if we increase the intensity of water vapour flux
Have you found a way (perhaps a really long and rather thick chimney?) to move your … 13000 km3 of extra water, in water vapour form, directly from the surface to the condensation height, thus by-passing the undersaturated column of air between the surface and the condensation height?
Tomas GPT: “ Herein, I am still afraid that [Piotr] interpretation of the global energy budget (GEB) may be incorrect”, “It is my feeling that Piotr infers his view basically from the 1D model. Applicability of this model on the entire Earth is, however, highly questionable, as pointed out by patrick and by John Pollack
In my post to zebra I have already mentioned your tendency to play various people here against each other – here by dropping names of patrick and John Pollack you imply that they support you – even though nothing of the sort happened.
You also assume that uncertainty is your friend – you ASSUME that a 3-D model would quash my objections and saved your schemes, but equally, or more likely, it could do the opposite.
And, as you know – I already replied to both patrick and John that using a complicated 1-D model of atmosphere (patrick) and calling for a 3-D approach (John) is NOT NEEDED to falsify your claims, when you don’t understand even a simple 1-D energy budget.
“You could swat a fly with a microscope (3-D model), but why”?
Finally, in science your gut “feelings” that I am wrong, and you are correct – are irrelevant = either you can prove your point, or you can’t.
As you may take therefrom, macias made me aware of a serious mistake in my post. As soon as I realized it, I corrected my nonsensical statement regarding the EEI accordingly.
Let me now return to your objection that supplying ca 13 000 km3 water per year to an area of about 10 million km2 of Sahara desert and allowing it to evaporate there during sunny days will inevitably increase the absolute humidity in this area (and, possibly, even globally).
I think the objection deserves a thorough analysis, because I can indeed hardly imagine any reasonable way how to secure the necessary mass flux without securing certain air humidity in the area. I think that we should therefore ask if an increase of the humidity above Sahara desert above its original level is necessary for enabling the contemplated water cycle enhancement – and if so, if the magnitude of the respective increase may cause a significant change in the greenhouse effect.
If we will assume that the evaporated water will circulate within the said area, then the necessary “reservoir” in the atmosphere above this area will be proportionate to the residence time. For the contemplated flux 13 000 km3 per year and average residence time equal to the global average of the water vapour residence time in Earth atmosphere (which is currently about 10 days), the size of the required water reservoir above Sahara desert is about 400 km3 (if we consider this amount of water as a liquid). If the residence time drops to 5 days, the necessary reservoir shrinks to about 200 km3 water only.
Let us now compare these values with the current available size of this reservoir. As the average atmospheric pressure is about 10 N per square centimetre, the atmospheric column above each square kilometre of Earth surface weights about 107 t (1010 kg). Above the entire considered area of 107 km2, it will be about 1014 t air. If the average relative air humidity over Sahara is 25 %, average temperature 30 °C and absolute saturated air humidity at 30 °C is 30 g water in one cubic metre of air, then the 25 % relative humidity corresponds to mass fraction of water in air about 0.068. Average water content over the entire Sahara area would have been thus about 1014 t × 0.068 = 6.8×1011 t, what corresponds to 680 km3 water. According to this very rough estimation, the average air humidity over Sahara could already represent a sufficient water vapour reservoir for the contemplated huge intensification of the water cycle over this area from current 75 mm of average annual precipitation to ca 1300 mm.
Of course, real numbers may differ, e.g. due to fact that we should consider most of evaporation during the time of the most intense surface insolation. I just tried to show that as regards air humidity, we do not start from zero even over Sahara desert, and that this circumstance may play a significant role in estimations how much the contemplated artificial intensification of water evaporation from the surface may influence the absolute air humidity and the infrared absorption linked thereto.
Finally, I would like to look again on your argument that only a small part of the latent heat flow (LE) actually cools Earth surface, because a majority thereof must be re-radiated from the atmosphere back to the surface.
I think that the latent heat flow about 80 W/m2 as given in various global energy balance (GEB) schemes indeed does represent a neat value cooling the Earth surface (not the entire Earth as such!) and that this value shall not be any way re-calculated or corrected (as you assumed so far), for a simple reason that the redistribution of the latent heat flow, as suggested by you, would have destroyed the GEB.
Let us take your argument for valid and assume that 37 % of the heat transported to the atmosphere by non-radiative mechanisms (as latent + sensible heat) indeed adds to the outgoing infrared radiation (OLR) and 63 % to the downwelling infrared radiation (DLR).
the OLR would have increased from 239.9 W/m2 to 278.7 W/m2. After this recalculation, the Earth would have not been in the present state (a slight positive energy imbalance increasing slowly its temperature) anymore. Instead, it would have suddenly emitted significantly more energy than it obtains from the Sun (if we suppose 287.7 W/m2 as the “enhanced OLR” + 99.9 W/m2 of reflected solar radiation, the EEI would have changed from 0.6 W/m2 to -38.2 W/m2).
If you admit that your assumption (that some values given in the GEB schemes have to be recalculated to reveal the “true” values of the non-radiative energy transfer) was false, the problem vanishes. I suppose that instead, any change in the non-radiative energy flow can be simply subtracted from the upwelling surface radiation, and will result in a commensurate change in mean radiative temperature of Earth surface.
Greetings
Tomáš
Piotrsays
Re: Tomáš Kalisz, Jul 19
Your calculations, Tomas, are akin to calculating how many angels can dance on the top of a needle, down to a third decimal point. Sure – it looks precise, but it means nothing.
First, you are making major invalid assumptions, rendering your numbers meaningless – e.g. you assume … no lapse rate, apply GLOBAL avg. residence time to that over Sahara, no horizontal air mass movement over reidence time scale. And all that so you can make a … bizarre claim:
TK: the average air humidity over Sahara could already represent a sufficient water vapour reservoir for the contemplated huge intensification of the water cycle over this area from current 75 mm of average annual precipitation to ca 1300 mm ”
Huh? In what logical system does this have any sense? If the existing water vapour reservoir over Sahara is “sufficient” for precipitation to increase from 75mm to 1300mm – why it haven’t increased to 1300mm already?
Now to your second claim:
TK I think that the latent heat flow about 80 W/m2 indeed does represent a neat value cooling the Earth surface (not the entire Earth as such!) and that this value shall not be any way re-calculated or corrected
So what happens, Genius, to all this latent heat that you put into the atmosphere at the rate of 80W/m2, BUT DO NOT ALLOW it to be moved away from atmosphere?
To give you an idea: the weight of air over 1m^2 ~1o^4 kg, heat capacity of air 700 J/kg/K. At 80W/m2, this translates to warming of atmosphere at 360K/yr.
I.e. under your assumptions, in mere 16 years the temperature of Earth’s atmosphere would be equal to the temperature of the surface of the Sun. You see the problem, right?
@Kalizs says: – ” If we assume just a balance caused by an increased greenhouse effect, then the increase in the DLR must come on the expenses of the OLR, and the difference between both values is the famous Earth energy imbalance (EEI). ”
ms: —
A sentence that proves that you have understood absolutely nothing when it comes to GEB.
Similar to the bullying idiots: piotr, bpl, nigelj, zebra, crap-O-mountain, you’ve been banging around here for weeks – with no sense, no purpose and with the sole, arrogant goal of making themselves important
Piotrsays
Shurly to Kalisz: “A sentence that proves that you have understood absolutely nothing when it comes to GEB.” ” with no sense, no purpose and with the sole, arrogant goal of making themselves important”
Ouch, poor Tomas -all that from that Shurly guy you thought would have your back. And for what – for trying to endear yourself to patrick by dropping in terms he introduced. Why, Shurly, why?
Transference? Having humiliated himself again and again when going against the people Shurly assures are “idiots “, the last time in: – Shurly took it out on …our hapless, happy-go-lucky Tomas.
Tomáš Kaliszsays
Dear macias,
Many thanks for your kind feedback. I admit that I may still completely misunderstand the entire topics. A hint thereto are also different interpretations of the surface cooling and its relationship to the GEB and EEI that come from various participants in this discussion and that appear, at least from my point of view, often contradicing to each other.
Personally, I would like to find out the correct explanation, not to show myself.
If you can explain the response of the GEB / EEI to a change in the content of atmospheric greenhouse gases better / correctly, it will be my pleasure to learn from you.
Greetiongs
Tom
Tomáš Kaliszsays
Dear macias,
Thank you once again for your feedback.
I looked again on my post an now see what a bullshit I wrote regarding the EEI.
I would like to correct the description of my present understanding as follows:
If concentration of a greenhouse gas (e.g. CO2) in Earth atmosphere suddenly increases, it will cause a temporal increase in downwelling longwawe radiation (DLR), which comes at the expense of an equal decrease in the outgoing longwawe radiation (OLR). In other words, my understanding is that deltaOLR = -(deltaDLR) = -EEI.
I hereby apologize to all discussion participants for my original statement which was indeed a very confusing “shortcut” of (or rather “shorting in”?) my thoughts.
Greetings
Tomáš
patrick o twentysevensays
“In other words, my understanding is that deltaOLR = -(deltaDLR) = -EEI.”
No, the two values are not connected so simply. The instantaneous radiative forcing (IRF = reduction in net upward radiant flux) caused by an increase in any greenhouse gas or clouds/etc., generally is a function of height, as well as local conditions and the vertical temperature profile, of course.
(changes within the atmosphere do not affect the downward flux from Space (~= 0 for LW radiation; SW ~= solar energy) or the upward LW flux from the surface, so the LW radiative forcings at those two locations are -deltaOLR and deltaDLR; more generally, within the atmosphere, there are changes in both upward and downward LW fluxes, resulting in a change in the net LW flux.)
I’m under the impression that increased CO2 IRF tends to be larger at TOA than at the sfc (**?**), implying a net warming of the atmospheric column (includes some cooling within the stratosphere).
patrick o twentysevensays
EEI(t) = -ΔOLR(t=0) + TOA SW feedback(t) + TOA LW response(t)
TOA LW IRF = ΔOLR(t=0)
ΔOLR(t) = ΔOLR(t=0) – TOA LW response(t)
ΔOLR(t) = increase in upward LW flux at TOA
TOA SW feedback(t) = increase in solar heating (atm+sfc)
TOA LW response(t) = increase in upward LW flux at TOA caused by climate response
patrick o twentysevensays
correction (negative sign):
TOA LW IRF = –ΔOLR(t=0)
patrick o twentysevensays
TOA LW IRF = –ΔOLR(t=0)
rewritten:
IRF(LW,toa) = –ΔOLR(t=0)
ΔOLR = increase in upward LW flux at TOA
= LW response(toa) – Forcing(LW,toa)
LW response(toa) = – Planck response(toa) – LW feedback(toa)
= increase in upward LW flux at TOA caused by climate response
SW feedback(toa) = increase in solar heating (atm+sfc)
Forcing may refer to IRF, SARF, or ERF, with whatever portion of the LW response and SW feedback associated with going from IRF to SARF (stratospheric adjustment) or ERF being included in forcing and not counted in the LW response and SW feedback to that forcing. I hope I got that right.
patrick o twentysevensays
The Planck response is itself a (negative) LW feedback but I was counting it seperately from LW flux changes caused by changes in composition or optical properties in general.
patrick o twentysevensays
changes within the atmosphere do not[directly]affect […] the upward LW flux from the surface,
– assumes perfect blackbody surface
” Have I clarified this still open subpoint to the climate dispute about the role of laten heat transport…. in earth surface temperature regulation sufficiently? ”
Well, as you state it now, I have a a feeling that it is trivial and no more important than the differende of max day temperature in summer in a rainy and a sunny day.. And I just cannot immagine that it should have been ignored or forgotten or even hidden by conventional climate research and meteorology.
The idea of irrigating and watering the landscape artificially to counteract global surface warming seems ridiculous to me. .
After a very hot and dry June here, summer rain and showers have come the natural way and all water restrictions and bushfire warnings are gone. There is suddenly an enormeous lot of white and gray clouds in the air, and dripping everywhere. The groundwater level in my cellar pump has come up, and the cisternes have been running over. It is simply ridiculous that all this moisture and water and ….. about 5 deg cooling of daytime max temperatures may have come from forest and trees and bushes “evapotranspiration”. sucked up and “evaportranspirated” from that dry ground.
There is no Vltava river big enough in my “Vlast” to have delivered all that moisture so soon. And it is just normal summer rain here swinging around 22 celsius temperature in the fjord.
It has come in frome the now very fameous extreeme temperatures in the north Atlantic and the north sea of course, in freshly distilled form. What was rather lacking for a while was cooling on the condenser. It was absolutely blue sky with no scirrus. When scirrus came, rain also came in 3 days.
Not water on the ground, that is the wrong end, but ice on the top! is what does it.
H2O Latent highly energic water is there all the time and comes from the sea.
A relative of mine crossed the atlantic in sailboat from Spania to west india. He said afterwards that if the jetliner condense stripes dissolve, that means steady clear wether. But if they remain,… that means rain is coming.
I have no hygrometer and should have had it but it was quite dry in june.
Maybe still another good advice from my side (if Ceskoslovensko can tolerate any more now : )
My good advice:
Do not approach the climate and try and roll it up from the wrong end because the climate is like a crochet work , to be untangled from the right end namely from its cool side.
What makes it so infameous for many is that they try and understand globaL warming instead of global cooling.
And it is not the poles, it is BIG BANG all the way around us that is the global heat sink. The cooling element, , not on the ground, but on the top is out of order for sinful human reasons.
Sinful denialists and surrealists who are to be blamed, are then trying to have us looking in the wrong direction.
Part of the transport issue is due to this natural idea of ours of centralizing solar. It makes sense to put panels in tropical deserts as that is where the sun is the hottest because it strikes directly at the planet. Yet the economical transport of energy issue would be very large.
Some few, myself included, have recommended rather having the panels spaced out, not having nearly the same transport issue. “Decentralizing” them. Put a panel on every roof globally that can use one. The rest, those in farthest northern and southern hemispheres can use the solar from the deserts. That’s my idea at least. Decentralizing it would also have the benefit of not having to pay some agency for energy, which agency likely will construe it somehow so that you’ll end up paying the same thing or more than now. It would require some resources, but solar is ever getting smaller., as witness my solar powered watering timer with it’s about 1″ solar panel that can store an amazing amount of power it gets from that tiny panel.
Some of those resources can be harvested by slowing, then reversing the human population growth (which would help with so many other things as well) then eventually recycling the stuff they’ve used. I don’t know about rare earths though. Anyway, it’s would be a “deconstruction economy” I call it in my story. This is more long term though. Will take attrition.
Ron R.says
By the way, putting the panels on every roof could be partially (maybe fully?) offset by diverting money away from our massive militaries (how many bombs and bombers do we need anyway).
This is where the Fee and Dividend idea got it all wrong. I said, before F&D was a thing, the government should create grants for all households (not owners) from the fees that *must* be used to achieve a given level of reduction of emissions, in whatever ways was suitable to the specific situation of each household, and particularly to support massively distributed efforts, such as household and small community scales.
My suggestion was this continue till each household reached the minimum threshold before they could begin to pocket the dividend. Of course, anyone in the top 10% would get no dividend.
Ron R.says
In the meantime, we don’t need to do everything at once. Well we need to, but because of present circumstances, we are yet unable to as yet. It doesn’t have to be an either/or answer though. Either FF or Solar. We can use both but get off of FF and move to solar as much as possible now. We are doing that, but removing the many obstacles the FF industries have put up, we could be doing it a lot faster.
Ron R.says
ms: — Send your full puke bag, preferably peer reviewed, to the IPCC…. Same goes for other fools & stupid desert walkers like nigelj, levenson, zebra, ron r., & crap-O-mountain alias sverre kolberg.
@RR says: – ” With the roof on, irrigation wouldn’t let the heat out, only displace it.
ms: — You`re a stupid religious sheep ? — It’s best to put your bible verses where the sun never shines .
If you are looking for more sheep to support you – just ask Levenson, he still has space in the barn.
Small minds like you, who always like to quickly form a mob with other small minds, cannot be convinced with a simple, easy-to-understand graphic from the IPCC.
So you romantic fool you think you are more competent than the IPCC (LOL).
Ron R.says
I wonder how many dozens of times you’ve called people here on Real Climate (and elsewhere?) “stupid sheep” because they didn’t see things your 100% way? Again, you really know how to win friends and influence people huh?. Must be fun at your house.
Anyway, I’d rather be a sheep is better than a goat.
Ron R.says
Oops, that’s, I’d rather be a sheep than a goat. Maybe I am a stupid sheep. :)
Tomáš Kaliszsays
Me too :-)
Piotrsays
Macias Shurly: 4 JUL: “Small minds like you, who always like to quickly form a mob with other small minds, cannot be convinced with a simple, easy-to-understand graphic from the IPCC The main message is:– IRRIGATION & ALBEDO IS COOLING.
So you romantic fool you think you are more competent than the IPCC (LOL)”
It’s the failure in that proof to defend his assumption that 100% of LH is emitted into space, which forced Shurly from claiming support from Gavin, to claiming the support from IPCC, e.g.:
M. Shurly: “ Hello Piotr – whether you are viewing an IPCC graph or replying to my post – please always do it with due attention.”
I.e. do as I tell you, not as I do: it was Shurly who hasn’t figured out that “IPCC graph” wasn’t … the
original IPCC graph, but a Wikimedia version, which CHANGED the one thing Shurly based his confident claims upon: in the actual IPCC graph, we have “LAND USE REFLECTANCE AND IRRIGATION”, instead of “Irrigation and albedo” in Shurly’s Wikimedia graph.
Which was crucial to Shurly’s argument, because he claimed that that albedo was just a PART of the irrigation effect:
ms: “ additional cloud albedo naturally produced by additional irrigation”
i.e. that the ENTIRE -0.15C is attributable to irrigation.
However, “Land use reflectance” IS NOT “additional cloud albedo from irrigation” – so it cannot be subsumed into the irrigation’s effect, In fact, irrigation lowers the land use reflectance because moist soil and vegetation have LOWER albedo than unirrigated dry soil/sand, which warms the Earth.
The non-irrigation changes in land use are the opposite – typically increase albedo , as forests have much lower albedo than than croplands and pastures that replaced them.
I haven’t seen any breakdown between the LAND USE REFLECTANCE and IRRIGATION” – in the original IPCC graph, but given:
a) the net warming effect of water cycle unintentionally proved by Shurly’s failed attempt to use Gavin’s 2010 paper to provide him credibility
b) the land use typically increasing the land reflectance
c) irrigation decreasing land reflectance
it. is NOT very likely, that the land use reflectance is … ZERO – as the Shurly claim of irrigation causing cooling of the Earth by 0.15C, on which he based his derision toward opponents:
MS: “You`re a stupid religious sheep ? — It’s best to put your bible verses where the sun never shines. Small minds like you, who always like to quickly form a mob with other small minds.
So you romantic fool you think you are more competent than the IPCC (LOL).”
Macias Shurly, at his truest…
Radge Haverssays
Ron R.
Good point.
And speaking of angry, hot air and swampy vapors, I don’t know if it will add anything to the conversation, but I thought this was interesting from The Guardian:
Interesting article, Radge. Thanks. Might have some unintended consequences longterm, that funneling of energy to turn the atmosphere into a giant useable battery – Tesla’s dream – (I hope not), but what do I know?
But it reminds me that there have been so many alt-energy proposals, yet here we (mostly) all still are. Still stuck with the polluting, prehistoric, internal combustion engine! Still burning oil and coal from ancient plankton and trees! Unbelievable! I remember similar articles about the paint on a house also acting as solar panels and urine as alternative energy and lots of others. Where are they now?
By the way, I’m a hypocrite in that I use ’em too. Have too. The POB have ensured that, so far at least, clean alternatives are expensive and unavailable (for the most part), and I have a life to live. But, alternatives are stubbornly progressing, and I’m trying as well.
Radge Haverssays
I agree, speculative solutions do make good fodder for science fiction though– or grist for the mill: which reminds me to wonder if Dr. Schmidt is working the Silurian Hypothesis into a novel yet?
Anyway re: hypocrisy?
Take heart, here are some students who have a really polished take on that (at 3;20 ) while dunking on climate denial: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I9zZZDARQ7s
No, Matthias Schürle alias Macias Schurly is definitely not a fundamentalist protestant, but you may have other conscepts of what protests fundamentally over there in the states.
Schürle is rather a runaway child frrom Kindergarten and Freie Deutsche Jugend Jugendweihe, Junge Pioniers behind the iron curtain in the late DDR. German Democratic Republic.
He is teaching like a DDR Deutschlandsender in East Berlin, the pioneering and dia- lectic materialistic way with patent from the Soviet scientific academy in Ljeningrad.
German lutheran he aint not. Western protestand calvinist neither. That is the Levenson type. And Anglican… he denies both King Charles and the Cambridge University and is teaching the alternatives damning and swearing, fighting the flies and the sparrows and the kits and the dogs and the school teachers frrom the west and from the british empire when frustrated.
That is clear Maoism and marxist leninism of progressive Adolf Prussian pedantic blood, and earlly pioneering soviett style, even selling himself as an “artist” for it..
It is 1923- 33 pioneering racial revolutionary Surrealism.
Russian orthodox? No. He is planning a large communal and privat rainbarrel, heated with all the advantages for the people instead of the orthodox christus our saviour cathedral in Moskva, that is to be demolished again because being not sustainable.
If I know him right, he will vote fror Trump also next time and applaud the climbing of the capitol hill again. Damning and swearing he is good at. .
.
Ron R.says
Hmm, I thought perhaps he was also JCM (with his “ja ja ja” Spanish – ha ha ha in English – or maybe just supposed to look like Spanish?) they sound very similar for venom. If I am wrong I apologize to them. I also thought perhaps evangelical fundamentalist because of his previous Bible allusions, but who knows?
JCM has been good enough to tell of his grandfathers / “bestefar”s obviously swedish and only swedish name and his way of career through the fameous Oslofjord paper mills and swedish communist labour union colleagues brought with him onto the Ontario river papermill successes.
It is swedish Rallare or engl http://www.navvy blood. in 3rd generation
Look up Mendels beans and laws of possible bloody heritage of that. I call it the Bloodgroup P for Pure and Party & cetera.
Mendels laws sustains in an interesting way the 10 amenments §2 as statede in original about Gods revenge in 3rd and 4th generation.
Ron R.says
Ah, ok Carbo. Swedish. Thanks.
Piotrsays
Ron,
I don’t think JCM’s “ja” or “Ja ja” was supposed to be Spanish. Unless JCM is a German, his “ja ja” toward people who are likely NOT German (“Ron”, “Piotr”) – is to compare them to Nazis. I.e., according to the Godwin’s Law – JCM’s admission of running out of arguments.
Ron R.says
I also thought perhaps evangelical fundamentalist because of his previous Bible allusions, but who knows?
Or maybe some flavor of protestantism? There are sooo many.
Considering the many comments from last month concerning water, water vapor, and atmospheric energy, I am struck that the threads were proceeding almost as if we weren’t living on a rotating planet with a 3-D atmosphere and a surface consisting of over 70% ocean. Simplifications of complex processes can help one grasp the essentials, but for a more detailed consideration, it is necessary to take a more realistic approach at some point.
If air is rising in one place, it is descending somewhere else. This is reflected in the equation of continuity.
Once latent heat is converted to sensible heat by condensation or freezing, that heat energy may have other fates than being radiated to space or back to earth. It can be converted to mechanical energy, resulting in horizontal winds and forced vertical motions. That includes storms, tropical cyclones, and persistent circulations that move both heat and water vapor from one location to another. You can provide copious water to a surface area that is in a region of persistent downward vertical motion without generating a lot of clouds and precipitation. The shores of the Persian Gulf are incredibly humid in the summer, and Saudi Arabia irrigates, but there is very little rain. The Galapagos Islands are surrounded by tropical ocean, but are near-desert. California gets little summer rainfall, no matter how much they irrigate the valleys for agriculture. Oceans interact with the atmosphere, and have their own circulations.
It’s a big world. You won’t fit it all into a 2-D model.
Yes, this is elementary things We learnt it in public school and I later found Theo Löbsacks Atem der Erde in translation. He was reaaly very good.
Thor Heyerdahl once turned a big Globus the right way and said:L “Look, this is not the planet earth, it is the p0lanet sea, Can`t you see that?” and NASA has taken and published colour pictures of it from outside. through Nationalo Geographic Magazine. and people will not believe that.
Flat earthers, desert walkers, blind believers in the scriptures, I say. How often shall I have to repeat it?
It is even worse when it comes to material sciences and deep microchosmos. They discuss it in terms of what they are told to believe in. Sheere LEGO, and air as a dry sandstorm with spiral springs between tghe grains. So dry that even the ETER has evaporated. With gunsmoke. and bullets flying. Typical hollywood wild west moovies. on their brains. And call it statistics confidence peer rewiewed and models.
patrick o twentysevensays
Some related links: https://atmos.uw.edu/academics/classes/2014Q1/545/545_Ch_1.pdf http://research.jisao.washington.edu/wallace/545_Notes.pdf (this seems like a completed version of the first; but URL is marked as “not secure”)
I quick skim, and I found ~2 to 3 W/m2 conversion rate, dissipation of kinetic energy, which is similar to what a textbook I have says (from memory, roughly 10% of kinetic energy generated from APE is recycled into APE) – but I think this may be for large-scale motion ie., not cumulus convection or boundary-layer thermals. Another book I have left me with the impression that a similar rate of kinetic energy generation is involved in such small-scale, localized convection; but this is dissipated much faster so most of the kinetic energy in the atmosphere is in the larger-scale motions. IMO, the heat engine efficiency should be given in terms of conversion from convective heat fluxes.
One thing I’ve been interested in for a while (and still don’t really understand) is how climate change affects extratropic storm tracks and jet streams, and also the Hadley Cells (not just on what happens but why). I binge read several articles on this several months ago. One interesting set of mechanisms is that increased baroclinicity in the upper troposphere (I assume related to the tropical “hot spot” associated with the lapse rate feedback/moist convection) favors development of longer-wavelength baroclinic waves (which are likelier to break anticyclonically…); these propagate slower eastward (in spite of the faster westerlies near the tropopause – although slower in the mid-troposphere?- but also there’s beta (planetary vorticity gradient)), changing the location of the critical (steering) surface, where the waves propagate to and are absorbed, and this would cause a shift equatorward but the storm tracks are closer to the poleward-side critical surface (I mean, where it intersects the height at which the waves propagate to it? – obviously… well I’ll have to come back to this.
Thank you very much for the links to the relevant chapters from the textbook written by John Michael Wallace.
Greetings
Tomáš
patrick o twentysevensays
… I’ll have to track down that bit about critical surface shifts (which I might not have gotten quite right) some other time, but part of what I said came from this:
Enhanced poleward propagation of storms under climate change
Talia Tamarin-Brodsky, Yohai Kaspi https://www.nature.com/articles/s41561-017-0001-8
abstract (emphasis mine):
“Earth’s midlatitudes are dominated by regions of large atmospheric weather variability—often referred to as storm tracks— which influence the distribution of temperature, precipitation and wind in the extratropics. Comprehensive climate models forced by increased greenhouse gas emissions suggest that under global warming the storm tracks shift poleward. While the poleward shift is a robust response across most models, there is currently no consensus on what the underlying dynamical mechanism is. Here we present a new perspective on the poleward shift, which is based on a Lagrangian view of the storm tracks. We show that in addition to a poleward shift in the genesis latitude of the storms, associated with the shift in baroclinicity, the latitudinal displacement of cyclonic storms increases under global warming. This is achieved by applying a storm-tracking algorithm to an ensemble of CMIP5 models. The increased latitudinal propagation in a warmer climate is shown to be a result of stronger upper-level winds and increased atmospheric water vapour. These changes in the propagation characteristics of the storms can have a significant impact on midlatitude climate.”
“… I’ll have to track down that bit about critical surface shifts (which I might not have gotten quite right) some other time,”
Found it:
Can the Increase in the Eddy Length Scale under Global Warming Cause the Poleward Shift of the Jet Streams?
Joseph Kidston, G. K. Vallis, S. M. Dean, J. A. Renwick https://journals.ametsoc.org/view/journals/clim/24/14/2010jcli3738.1.xml
abstract:
“The question of whether an increase in the atmospheric eddy length scale may cause a poleward shift of the midlatitude jet streams is addressed. An increase in the length scale of the eddy reduces its zonal phase speed and so causes eddies to dissipate farther from the jet core. If the eddy dissipation region on the poleward flank of the jet overlaps with the eddy source latitudes, shifting this dissipation to higher latitudes will alter which latitudes are a net source of baroclinic eddies, and hence the eddy-driven jet stream may shift poleward. This behavior does not affect the equatorward flank of the jet in the same way because the dissipation region on the equatorward flank is well separated from the source latitudes. An experiment with a barotropic model is presented in which an increase in the length scale of a midlatitude perturbation results in a poleward shift in the acceleration of the zonal flow. Initial investigations indicate that this behavior is also important in both observational data and the output of comprehensive general circulation models (GCMs). A simplified GCM is used to show that the latitude of the eddy-driven jet is well correlated with the eddy length scale. It is argued that the increase in the eddy length scale causes the poleward shift of the jet in these experiments, rather than vice versa.”
PS the second Tamarin & Kaspi paper above seems to cover about the same subject matter as the 1st (or closely related), and is freely-available.
(PV – eg., IPV (isentropic PV), is a measure of angular momentum in fluids, constructed so as to be conserved by all inviscid, adiabatic processes.)
Piotrsays
John Pollack: ‘It’s a big world. You won’t fit it all into a 2-D model.”
Except one doesn’t need big world to show that Kalisz, Shurly and JCM are clowns – they don’t get
even 1-D models – Shurly assumes 100% of latent heat delivered into troposphere escapes into space, Kalisz is perplexed why he can’t compare variables that have different dimensions. Not exactly a 3-D modelling-of-the-world material, aren’t they.
Yes, you could use a microscope to swat a fly, but why?
zebrasays
Piotr, I said basically exactly the same below, addressed to John, Ray, and “others”, which sometimes has included you.
These people are not here to have a serious discussion; they don’t actually care how you answer, as long as you answer.
They are completely wrong about the fundamentals, but as long as people respond about details, they can pretend to be discussing science. Perhaps it is like little children putting on their parent’s clothes and having a tea party, or our USA out-of-shape pretend-men dressing in camo and carrying guns. Perhaps someone with a psych background can offer a formal explanation?
So I applaud your approach below. If you are going to respond at all, repeat the explanation that shows the fundamental error. They will try to make changes to language to suck you back in, but they will never answer the question, as I said last month, which to me is the best demonstration… to others who may be reading… of their insincerity.
Piotrsays
Zebra: They will try to make changes to language to suck you back in, but they will never answer the question,
Actually, T. Kalisz went a level up, takes criticisms as agreement and uses one critics agains the other:
T. Kalisz to Ray: “As regards your doubts about significance of the effect for Earth climate, please follow my discussion with Piotr”
which implies that he has already successfully dealt with those criticisms of his claims… ;-)
If you watch Star Trek, Tom Kalisz must be a Pakled.
zebrasays
Yes, very strange… as I said at one point, it is almost as if someone is artificially creating these different personalities for the vapor commenters.
But whether it is them (AI it, whatever,) or Victor and others, I’m still concerned that what they do “works” for them because you guys can’t resist the opportunity to talk about the details instead of requiring them to address the fundamental false premise first.
Consider what Gavin just posted about the WSJ piece….. “But let’s be honest, it’s basically pure distraction and attempts to complicate something that is pretty basic:” Exactly!
But in this venue, it is up to the science commenters to not allow that game to work…. I don’t know if there really are lurkers or visitors who might get fooled to some extent, but anyway, why give the pretend-scientists the satisfaction of feeling that they are “owning” you?
My point is that this doesn’t have to be a popular forum in terms of sustaining itself, only that the people interested know that such a thing exists. There was only one time that a troll invaded the Azimuth Project forum, and that was toward the end when the discussion died down. Yet, I can almost anticipate that a troll could generate ChatGPT responses and use these to comment and appear knowledgeable. The key again is that a forum doesn’t have to be heavily populated, but that a handful of engaged participants can make a difference.
“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 would ask why they would even be interested in understanding ENSO?
Piotrsays
T. Kalisz “do understand now that the root cause of continuing misunderstanding between us was my imprecise explanation of the equivalence between global annual precipitation and the average latent heat flow
No Tomas, you still DON’T understand it – I DIDN’T question your calculations of the latent heat flux so there was no point to repeat it.
What I DID question was your attempt to disregard the role of the “content of water in the atmosphere” in the heat budget, as unimportant, because
[TM] the mean annual precipitation is ca 36 times higher than the entire water content in the atmosphere”
You CAN’T compare/disregard variables that have different dimensions/units
Explaining things to you is at the far end of the curve of diminishing returns, so I won’t waste more
of my time, but repeat, what I said the last time:
==
Piotr Jun 30: “You are comparing apples and oranges, well actually more like apples and
photosynthesis rate – one is a reservoir the other is a flux – different concepts, different units – it’s “500 000 km3/yr”, not as you wrote “500 000 km3”.
But why should we use “per yr” and not, say, “per second” – after all, the radiative fluxes are given in W/m2, with watts being J/s. But if we use per sec- your precipitation rate becomes = 0.016 km3/s. The reservoir size is still the same = 13000km3. So who is “small” now?
If two variables have different dimensions/units you CAN’T claim that one is larger or smaller than the other, and therefore you can’t claim that one is more or less important than the other.
==============
If you can’t still understand – ask a colleague or ChatGPT to explain it to you.
Do I understand correctly that you do not disprove the equivalence between 990 mm of global annual precipitation and the average latent heat flux ca 79 W/m2 in Trenberth’s schemes of the “global energy budget” anymore?
It could allow us to focus on your second objection, that I inappropriately infer that the average global air humidity is basically decoupled from the global water cycle intensity from the circumstance that water is, contrary e.g. to the second most important greenhouse gas CO2, retained in the atmosphere relatively shortly.
I re-thought your objection and admit that you may be right in this respect. Indeed, one could imagine that carbon dioxide cycle is intensified equally on the emission side as well as on the absorption cycle, without any influence on the global mean atmospheric CO2 concentration. The crucial difference between water on one hand and CO2 on the other hand is thus NOT the respective cycle intensity.
I think that my incorrect statement could be rectified as follows:
Contrary to non-condensing greenhouse gases, water emissions to the atmosphere are strongly coupled with water removal therefrom. Water content in the atmosphere does not change unless the average temperature changes. At each average Earth temperature, a broad range of water cycle intensities may be possible.
Could you agree to this corrected version?
Best regards
Tomáš
Piotrsays
T.Kalisz: “Do I understand correctly that you do not disprove the equivalence between 990 mm of global annual precipitation”
No you don’t understand it correctly, since I have neither proven or disproven it – I simply have ignored it as irrelevant to my critique.
TK: I re-thought your objection and admit that you may be right in this respect.
Very kind of you, unfortunately the rest of the sentence renders it meaningless:
– you claim an inspiration by the argument that I … wasn’t making – I talked about your ideas of intensifying water cycle, NOT CO2 cycle.
– your self-“correction” is made of 2 banal, hence signifying nothing, statements of the obvious:
-“ water emissions to the atmosphere are strongly coupled with water removal therefrom.”
– broad range of water cycle intensities may be possible”
or not what I was a saying:
you:”Water content in the atmosphere does not change unless the average temperature changes”
in nature true, but we are talking about geoengineering – and here it is not
– if you evaporate water into any air with RH<100%, you would increase the water content in that part of the air column. In fact you would increase this water content in the worst possible place from radiative balance point of view – in the lower part of the troposphere – the closer to the ground you absorb L the, bigger portion of it returns to the Earth surface (I.e. does not make it into space).
And the main point you still don't get – I have shown that your water cycle schemes are either:
* counter-productive i.e. causing net warming, see:
– my recalculation of Shurly’s claim based on Schmidt et al. 2010 showing the net warming
-water cycle is considered a positive, not negative. feedback with temperature
– also the paper brought up by Nigel, in which locally night warming outweighed day’s cooling.
or
* too small and/or too expensive to matter at the global scale: countering current GHG forcing would have required 40x to 100x increase over the current irrigation) i,e, requiring
massive funds that would have been much more effectively used in mitigation of the root cause of global warming – GHG emissions.
Tomáš Kaliszsays
Dear Piotr,
Thank you for your swift response.
If you consider the equivalence between mean global annual precipitation and the average latent heat flow irrelevant for our discussion, could you explain in mor detail why?
It is my feeling that without understanding why do you think so, I am not able to grasp other explanations from your side, too.
Greetings
Tom
Piotrsays
Tomáš Kalisz 8JuL: If you consider the equivalence between mean global annual precipitation and the average latent heat flow irrelevant for our discussion, could you explain in more detail why?
I said: “is irrelevant to my critique”. If you say: a) 2.1 can be approximated as 2 and b) 2 > 9 – my critique would focus on b).
If your house is built on sand (“b”), the good fit of the roof tiles (“a”) is of marginal importance.
As for why your house is built on sand – see my earlier explanations why most of the extra latent heat won’t escape into space, why the effect pf that that does would be reduced/countered by increased water vapour LW absorption and how this would require increasing current irrgation by 40- 100 times, which would render your ideas ecologically, technically and economically unfeasible, and counter productive for addressing GHG emissions ( the last past of my previous post
Piotrsays
1. Solar Jim argued for the enforcement the moderation against the incessant drivel of climate change denialists, that swamps RC, discouraging both participants and readers from using it to educate themselves about, or to advance, new ideas.
2. Paul Pukite called it: “limiting ideas” and to illustrate it offered … his experience with groups working on advancing understanding ENSO.
3. Since neither Solar Jim or me – meant this subject as deserving BoreHole, but the denialist drivel drowning this webpage I wrote:
Piotr June 30: “ 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?”
4. P.Pukite Jul 2:” I would ask why they would even be interested in understanding ENSO?”
??? Shouldn’t YOU be answering this question?
WHY in the discussion about the need to protect the usefullness of this group against the mass production by Shurly, Kalisz, JCM, Victor, KnowitAll, who either cannot, or want not to, understand the answers to their questions, you described it as … “limiting ideas” and brought up your
interests in understanding ENSO… as if it applied to those people?
What happened to my response to Piotr? Where I paid tribute to 2 late collaborators of mine?
Find me on Threads.net/PaulPukite, where I have dedicated threads to each of the climate indices. Perhaps it’s not worth my time here, or as they used to say on the blogs GBCW.
Ray Ladburysays
Tomas, in answer to your question about photons outside of the absorption bands of the GHGs, where, specifically would those photons come from? You will likely say “blackbody radiation,” but Earth, especially high in the atmosphere is not a blackbody. It doesn’t absorb and emit all radiation. It only emits and absorbs radiation where it can–that is where there are quantum transitions corresponding to the photon energies–including effects of collisional broadening, etc.
The other thing is that you seem to have a fundamental misunderstanding of how science works. Do you really think that you are the first person to think of the possibility of latent heat transporting energy out of the atmosphere? Do you really think that if a climate scientist thought this might work that they would not jump at the chance to model it and potentially revolutionize not just climate science, but also our industrial economy?
You’ve proposed a mechanism. I’ve pointed out that there are competing factors that suggest your mechanism would not work. The appropriate thing to do at this point with such a complicated system is to model it–taking into account all the physical processes that might be important. If you haven’t done that, then you are wasting the time of yourself and everyone else on this board.
Be aware that clouds and snow are not at all so “white” further in the IR spectrum as it is in visible light.
I have no accute “Data” on it, but I am allowed to assume and to tell about Kirchoffs rule, that emittance = absorbance. That rules obviously for metal casting charcoal and ceramic materials and glasses in the heat. and then invisible IR heat radiation is absorbed very well indeed in white snow and glass clear water. Thus it is obvious that shiny white snow and clouds both will absorb and emit IR very well.
Yes even another argument. I saw a glassblower here for a while, manipulating his glasses in air inside his high orange hot glass furnace to re- heat them again. . Thick glasses that glow only deep red out in the dark room do heat up again frappingly fast,… as fast as black irons, in that orange red Planc Bolzmann situation at 1100 celsius IR.
So there cannot be any doubt, IR radiation right to space from shiny white very high and thick clouds is very natural and trivial and should not be denied.
Moral:
Proper Cumulonimbus and even large tropical hurricanes are cooling down the situation fast and efficiently when the sun has warmed the situaltion for long enough. It is an obvious negative feedback to global warming. That is even orthodox classical meteorology . and should not be denied or disputed.
And look, the hurricanes soften and vanish quickly when they come in over land even green lands with high “evapotranspiration” because their major resource of latent energy input flux in the form of steam is from the especially warm tropical ocean waters. They cool down the tropical oceans again when the summers have lasted for long enough.
thank you very much for your additional explanation of your view.
You are surely not correct in your feeling that climate science does not deal with Earth surface cooling by latent heat transport to the troposphere. References cited e.g. by JCM, macias, patrick o twentyseven show that it is in fact a standard part of present climate models. I only pointed to the circumstance that present technology offers new options how this important climate regulation mechanism could be exploited.
What is somewhat strange is only the fact that public policies still treat water regime as something secondary, dependent and less important, although it is also a primary „forcing“ driving the climate. This discrepancy is reflected also in IPCC summaries for policymakers that are basically silent about the role of the water cycle in climate regulation, although the same cannot be said about IPCC reports in their entirety.
In my opinion, it is quite unfortunate. I think that this disproportional information about comparably important climate regulation mechanisms may be among reasons why even some colleagues participating in the present discussion are still afraid that dealing with latent heat transport from Earth surface is a kind of pseudoscience contradicting basic laws of physics:
„To be clear, this is known as the First Law of Thermodynamics – the Conservation Of Energy. You can move the heat around, but with the roof on the whole will get slowly hotter.“
As regards the reason why at least the lower layers of Earth atmosphere emit IR radiation in a very broad spectral range resembling the black body radiation, I am not familiar therewith, however, I hope that perhaps the numerous references brought by patrick o twentyseven might be useful. As he summarizes in https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2023/06/unforced-variations-jun-2023/#comment-812715
water vapour may be the main emitter enabling the IR emission outside the CO2 absorption bands.
Greetings
Tom
Ray Ladburysays
Ferchrissake, read for content. I am not saying that it isn’t dealt with, but rather that it isn’t a large effect! And the deltas from changing water use, etc. will be even smaller. If you think I am wrong, prove it. Do the modeling and publish a paper! That’s how science works.
Thank you very much for your kind feedback. Do I understand correctly that you do not dismiss Earth surface cooling by latent heat transport as a nonsense contradicting the first law of thermodynamics anymore? It you admit, similarly as Ron R. in
that “the roof (in sense of IR absorption of atmosphere layer in altitudes above usual cloud base) is still porous”, I see it as a major progress in our discussion.
If so, our discussion may now go forward to three more specific questions:
a) How important is the effect in the global energy budget?
b) Is the effect now at its limit, or can it be exploited in an extent exceeding the present level thereof significantly?
c) Are there positive synergies that might attenuate the effect, or negative synergies that may attenuate it?
Am particularly thankful for bringing me to the question b). As regards your doubts about significance of the effect for Earth climate, please follow my discussion with Piotr.
Best regards
Tomáš
Ron R.says
Tomas, nothing has changed. It’s pretty obvious to everyone that some % of the sun’s radiated heat is still escaping into space or it would get really here fast. I’ve read that some 70% of the sun’s radiation is absorbed by the earth while 30% is re-radiated back out. With global warming though, more is bouncing back in again unnaturally and thus warming us unnaturally. It’s pretty elementary (if I’m understanding you right). Some light, and heat, are escaping.
Ray would be much more qualified than me to continue the discussion though.
Ron R.says
Found a couple of simple charts to maybe explain the greenhouse effect better.
IOW, normally a portion of the sun’s energy that strikes the earth is absorbed by it. Some of it, a minority, is reflected back out into space by the land, by albedo there, and on the tops of clouds, etc. But due to gasses in our atmosphere enough is trapped that it contributes to a beneficial warming for life. Yea! It’s in evolved balance (life and it’s perturbations keeps it in a general balance). Co2 comes from plant and animal life therefrom. There’s an additional amount of it from volcanos, but it’s all figured in. Some of that is absorbed by the oceans, some by the trees and other plant life. It works pretty well and we’re all happy.
The problem is that because of the rapid (a few hundred years) addition of Co2 from our burning of fossil fuels (created over millions of years millions of years ago – energy which was absorbed for the growth of plants and sea animals living back then) we are causing the earth to warm up unnaturally, pushing it out of that balance, because their carbon is not allowing incoming solar radiation to escape to space as it normally would. It’s keeping it here longer.
Since the sun’s energy cannot be destroyed, it is converted to use by life and by work. Buried too. But ultimately it is still here, especially if we are not allowing what would normally escape to escape back out. Some is trapped by the oceans and plants living now, that’s OK. But we are overwhelming them. They are blanketing our skies and acidifying our seas. To make matters worse, we are cutting some of them down!
This is my understanding of it anyway. Ray or BPL or somebody here more knowledgable, and who accepts basic physics, can correct me if I misstated anything and continue if they want.
Re: BPL 9.JUL.
so in your simplified model atmosphere is infinitely thin, just moves up (or down) to the height at which temperature it would produce the right amount of out LW radiation?
In other words – the LW emitted by Earth either directly escapes into space (the window) or is absorbed ONLY once and then half emitted out and half emitted down.
I understand you wanted your model to be as simple as possible, but the infinitely thin atm, misses an important effect of increasing GHGs – that they cause the first absorption to happen closer to the Earth. i.e. In warmer temp -> more of energy returns back to the Earth. That’s why in a thick atmosphere there is asymmetry between the LW leaving into space (165+30 W/m2) and the amount coming back to Earth (the back radiation of 324 W/m2) – hence my ~1/3 number in posts to Kalisz and Shurly (out of all energy absorbed by the atmosphere – only ~1/3 radiates into space while ~2/3 returns to Earth surface).
This also explains why in Gavin’s recent post the Earth surface gets warmer, but the upper atmosphere gets colder.
Yes, it was an extremely simplified model, and left out many of the processes in the real atmosphere. It was just there to illustrate one point–given conservation of Energy, Stefan-Boltzmann, Wien, and an atmosphere that can absorb IR, there MUST be a greenhouse effect. Many more sophisticated models are possible, from semigray models through latitudinally-resolved energy balance models, through radiative-convective models, EMICs, GCMs, etc.
zebrasays
BPL and Piotr,
BPL, Piotr knows I am a big fan of simplification ;-), so I like your piece, and I have a request. Can you do the same magic for a planet with zero water open to the atmosphere? (Other GHG are still present.)
I’m just thinking about the Vapor-boys and how they would explain what would happen if we then added water, and what the numbers might be as we moved up from that initial value of zer0.
(Of course, the most likely response would be “I can’t explain it but I’m just sure I am right and you are wrong”.)
The model as set up doesn’t distinguish what greenhouse gases are present. I could make it more elaborate by having some expression for what fraction of the IR is absorbed, based on the different greenhouse agents present, but it would be hard to keep it simple.
zebrasays
BPL,
Okay, so get to work! ;-)
Anyway, I wish I could remember where I saw it… I think a NASA article… but I read that water vapor accounted for 50% of warming. So it is going to be somewhere similar to the value that has been calculated for the planet without CO2, since that condition has all the water vapor condensed out, correct?
Piotrsays
Zebra to BPL: “ Can you do the same magic for a planet with zero water open to the atmosphere? (Other GHG are still present.) I’m just thinking about the Vapor-boys and how they would explain what would happen if we then added water .”
Why reinvent a wheel, and a square one at that? What you ask of BPL has been already done, using a much more realistic model, by Schmidt et al 2010. In fact, that model was initially brought up by one of the Vapor boys to defend the scheme of the other Vapor boys:
Shurly: “ Our GranMaster Dr. Gavin Schmidt says https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/2010JD014287”
Unfortunately for him, I used the very same paper to show that unless more than 94% of LH is EMITTED into space, the net effect of adding evaporation is to WARM the Earth, And since based on energy budgets – a more likely number is ~35%,
hence within Shurly’s own argument I have shown that the net effect of increasing evaporation would be to WARM the Earth. E.g.
So what you propose – not only has been done, except with a more realistic atmosphere, but we also already know WHAT the response of the “Vapor boys” was:
– Shurly … stopped referring to his own argument and changed the subject to
a misrepresented by him IPCC graph. I.e. the mole’s strategy in whack-a-mole.
– Kalisz: ignores those results,
dismisses it as … a petty squabble between me and Shurly (“I see little sense in Piotr’s dispute with macias shurly“) and implies that the conclusion – the increase in evaporation warms the Earth – has … no relevance to his schemes to … cool the Earth with increasing evaporation,
And … welcomes your proposal (“ Dear zebra. Thank you very much for your proposal “), as a chance to change the subject from the conclusions of the already existing model, to … potential results, that may, or may not, materialize.
And, in a meantime, by embracing your proposal – Kalisz portrays himself as open to
arguments, and projects the confidence that the results of the possible future model, if ever produced, would support his claims. And if they don’t – the model
can always be dismissed as too much of a simplification.
Weren’t you just warning of a danger of getting “owned” by the denialists? ;-)
Piotrsays
Zebra to BPL, Jul 16: “ Okay, so get to work! ;-) Anyway, I wish I could remember where I saw it… I think a NASA article…but I read that water vapor accounted for 50% of warming. ”
i.e. the paper that has been repeatedly linked to in this thread. And the paper that used
more realistic ModelE (“Space Studies (GISS) atmospheric general circulation model (GCM)”).
And which results you want recreate with … an maximally simplified model by BPL (1-D model with infinitely thin atmosphere), which, if the modification that you requested are implemented, will … no longer be simple, while still not yielding any realistic results, (because of its still extremely simplified nature).
Hence my recurring question: ” Why reinvent a wheel, and a square one at that?”
Barry E Finchsays
Jim Steele 27 JUN 2023 Antarctica “greenhouse effect” in Earth’s troposphere is backwards in winter. The GHGs cool Antarctica in winter (Antarctica “greenhouse effect” probably normal but low in summer, I’ll not spend the time getting surface temperatures and calculating it). Arctic Ocean 75N “greenhouse effect” in Earth’s troposphere is forwards in winter but considerably less than global average. ~No sunshine and the warm air arrives high so the CO2 etc.IR molecules manufacture and emit to space (not “re-emit, manufacture and emit) LWR more than is emitted up from the snow surface, as measured by IRIS or whatever since 1964. Antarctica is losing ice because the ocean is warming at ~200 m to ~800 m and the circumpolar wind has strengthened and moved closer to Antarctica because Antarctica surface has warmed less than lower latitudes. Antarctica ice loss below the surface is 600 times as much as Antarctica ice loss at the surface.
Barry E Finchsays
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=efE2L4XaapU The answer to Yong Zhong’s question at 8:07 to 8:26 is “because CO2 molecules manufacture LWR, and almost certainly decimal orders of magnitude more than the surface emits at 13-17 microns”. Since I pondered and decided this in 2017 I have come across 2 experimental proofs that I’m correct, 1 partial experimental proof that I’m correct, 1 mixed experimental proof but it relies on Appeal to Great Authority (one of Zhong’s academic opponents) and 2 Appeals to Authority (2 of Zhong’s academic opponents).
The Climate State website just went through the largest update since the project started. There is now a knowledge base, the old forum is back, and the news page has been reworked. If you write about the climate and want to publish articles at Climate State (no reposts) contact us. Everyone can register, create a social profile, read about and discuss our changing environment.
I may reply more formal if you are able to grasp it.
We hardly need more of that ” teaching” style popular science about what is dammned sure because science has prooved it, and all the examples of what von Däniken has come over and there is strong evidence for, but science is helpless or is being sensored.
I have personally studied a lot of new age and para-sciences to be qualified for digging into that also.
What we / the people better need and what I must recommend is to try and qualify as the amateur scientist and secure for yourself methods to find out and methods of observation and measurement….. from many sides and horizons of science so the expertise will not cheat and bluff you so easily. So you rather can look them into their chards and better make up your own mind.
That is, to be sceptical and critical in a qualified way.
And in addition, some knowledge of how to state proof and to show evidence. which is quite an art that must be learnt. That comes under epistemology.
Example:
I bought new trousers at the supermarket and neither I nor the lady could understand the labeled size numbers. “Have you got a tailor measuring stripe” no she had not.
“but have you got anyting like a long thread?”
Yes, she had.
So i laid that thread around my waist, kept it with fingers and laid it doubble, stretched it out, and told her to keep and stretch out the trousers the same way.
It did match.
and that is basic scientific measurement that has got nothing to do neither with inches nor with centimeters nor with numbers of the same.
It is rather the basic elementary scientific way to be sure enough. and to show evidence.
People give a damn to science and to measurement and to comparishion and to counting when it comes to it, and that is quite a problem in our time.
They thrive for their aquainted LEGO. and deny & ridicule anything before they can have those industrial artificial proteses of thought and behaviours, Massproduced labeled and brandmarked from common peoples owners. .
It is the ruin of mentality through classical industrial imprisonment and slavery..
I come to think that due to especially fast global warming caused by human use of fossile fuel first of all, a lot of further known details become physically plausible…..
…….. such as less clouds over lands and desertification here and there but not everywhere. The sea temperatures will lag behind the land temperatrures due to higher specific hear capacity of water compared to dry land.
But Thomas Kalisz must accept the tradewinds and the monsune and sunny seabreeze – effects worldwide and that rain on land has evaporated at sea for the most, and not from “evapotranspiratrion” by trees and green vegetation that would have dried out very fast .
That land- evapotranspirational theory of both rain and snow seems unbelieveable as simply seen and judged from my window in quite normal summer weather after a long period of dangerous drought.
And here is really green forests enough they really did not cause the sudden change of sumjmer weather back to the more normal , Quite on the contrary, they are the quite normal and traditional consequenses of it.. in Köppens climate system.
There aint no Vltava in my Vlast so mighty that it could possibly have supported all that water at that sudden speed of water falling down and filling up the groundwater levels / not being remooved and evapotranspirated from them,
It “evapotranspirates” at sea of course and rains down again over land and sea, depending on winds and on necessay chill on the top of the clouds.
It is conscistent also with what I wrote for Kalisz of paleoclimatology from Wikipedia. A warm global climate situation in balance entails a very green earth even with rainforests and Kaolin formation at high latitudes. And a cool ice age climate in balance entails heavy and frequent duststorms and dustbowls, giving enormeous Loess sedimentation in the tempered even sub- arctic zones worldwide.
Todays situation then becomes an exeptionally fast upgoing rather unnatural climatic transcient where the ocean temperatures are lagging consequently behind due to difference of material heat capacities.
I shall come back to it,
This can explain a wide spectrum of things and events and known data details much easier and in a conscistent way.
Ned Kellysays
C says: “I shall come back to it,”
No don’t. Just shut up.
Please send this clown to the Bore Hole permanently.
Have you no shame Gavin et al? I beg you. Please put us all out of our misery. Thank you.
No, I am not an A.I. nor have I used, or do I ever plan to use, ChatGPS or GDP or GPA or whatever. It creeps me out.
Should I take it as a complement or complaint that you thought I might?
But there must be better ways to demonstrate you’re real than using the n-word, etc. (also, an AI could be trained on a bigot…)
It is my predisposition to give people the benefit of the doubt, and in particular, I do not expect people to be familiar with every racial/ethnic/gender/etc. slur/epithet, trope, or stereotype – I know I’ve gone for long periods of time not knowing some common ones from my own country. The bigots have worn potholes in our language/etc. that the innocent may accidently step in.
But I was thrown and shocked when you used the n-word. (I am aware there is a Scandinavian word which bears a superficial resemblance, but I suspect you were not declaring yourself to not be stingy.) I had thought it was widely recognized as perhaps THE most offensive word in the entire history of words, if not at least tied. Perhaps I am wrong? Well, I will explain – for someone of my cultural background (U.S.), it is the Tsar bomb of words; capable of incinerating entire conversations, not to mention the radioactive fallout. If I see it or hear it from a person, I decide to avoid that person – I want nothing to do with them. There are exceptions (Mark Twain,… it’s different when a black person uses it but still…) But generally, you just DON’T use it. Period.
Also, there is a history of comparing black people (and maybe others) with non-human primates, so your “ape manners” discussion could have struck a nerve, especially when combined with saying its in their DNA. And then there’s the going on about Polish personality tendencies…
I get there are cultural variations – ie. the meaning of a thumbs up, how close together people stand when talking to each other; people with my cultural background are more likely to greet strangers with a friendly smile and “hi”, as I understand it – whereas this would be considered odd in other places.
Then you discussed other personality/behavioral traits being hereditary… perhaps you were speaking figuratively?
Moderators, please! I object very strongly to C’s use of racial slurs. Regardless of his excuses and accusations, it is clearly way outside your guidelines. It shouldn’t be up to Patrick to point it out, although it can get lost in the other verbiage.
[Response: Sorry – that slipped past us. Now deleted. – gavin]
prlsays
Carbomontanus:
Tell that to Nede Kelly also whoever she is.
The poster’s handle was Ned Kelly.
Ned Kelly was a notorious Australian bushranger who was arrested, tried, convicted and executed in 1880 for the murder of a policeman.
I have no Idea why the poster chose that as their handle, though, but it seems unlikely to me that the poster is female.
patrick o twentysevensays
re John Pollack and Gavin – thank you for taking care of that, and for the other one from last month.
Tomáš Kaliszsays
Dear Carbomontanus,
I particularly appreciate your hints to archaeological findings in tropical Africa and Amazonia suggesting that present wet tropical region might have been significantly drier when Sahara was green.
It suggests that while regional precipitation distribution might have changed dramatically, the overall water cycle intensity might have been more stable in the past.
I believe these questions deserve a continuing thorough research.
Yes, and how shall we explain such things without constructing collisions and paradoxes in regard to elementary physics and meteorology?
A more savanna- like central Congo when Sahara was rainy enough?
I would suggest change of major global wind patterns and systems. That may be more dramatic to people and to the økosystems than just a few degrees change of mean temperature.
Tomáš Kaliszsays
Dear Carbomontanus,
A Czech paleoclimatologist Dr. Petr Pokorný made me aware of his chapter in a recent book Antropocén (Anthropocene), wherein he mentions these archaeological funds.
In fact, there is a 2500 years long story of agricultural land in Amazonia that ended abruptly in the end of 16th century when infectious diseases brought from Europe killed almost all inhabitants. Consequently, current Amazonian rainforest is a result of a successfull succession of the nature into this ancient agricultural land. I do not know if there already has been any research regarding changes in water cycle resulting from these land use changes. There are some signs (according to analyses of air bubbles from ice cores) of decrease of atmospheric CO2 concentration due to Amazonia reforestation.
The relevant references to the original literature are
Heckenberger, M., Neves, E. G. (2009): Amazonian archaeology. Annual Review of Anthropology, 38, pages 251-266;
Denevan, W. M. (2004): Semi-intensive pre-European cultivation and the origins of anthropogenic Dark Earths in Amazonia. In: Glaser, B., Woods, W. I. (eds.):
Amazonian Dark Earths: Exploitations in Space and Time.
Springer, Berlin.
Levis, C., Costa, F. R. C., Bongers, F. a kol. (2017): Persistent effects of pre-Columbian plant domestication of Amazonian forest composition. Science, 355, 925–931.
Loughlin, N. J. D., Gosling, W. D., Mothes, P., Montoya, E. (2018): Ecological consequences of post-Columbian indigenous depopulation in the Andean-Amazonian corridor. Nature Ecology a Evolution. https://doi.org./10.1038/s41559-018-0602-7
Greetings
Tom
Tomáš Kaliszsays
Dear Carbomontanus,
A Czech paleoclimatologist Petr Pokorný made me aware of his chapter in a recent book „Antropocén“ (Anthropocene), wherein he mentions also these archaeological findings.
Very likely, there was no overlap between the era of agricultural landscape in Amazonia and the era of green Sahara, because Amazonian civilization was more recent – it collapsed in the end of 16th century due to infectious diseases brought from Europe.
References cited in the book:
Loughlin, N. J. D., Gosling, W. D., Mothes, P., Montoya, E. (2018): Ecological consequences of post-Columbian indigenous depopulation in the Andean-Amazonian corridor. Nature Ecology a Evolution. https://doi.org./10.1038/s41559-018-0602-7
Levis, C., Costa, F. R. C., Bongers, F. a kol. (2017): Persistent effects of pre-Columbian plant domestication of Amazonian forest composition. Science, 355, 925–931.
Heckenberger, M., Neves, E. G. (2009): Amazonian archaeology. Annual Review of Anthropology, 38.
Denevan, W. M. (2004): Semi-intensive pre-European cultivation and the origins of anthropogenic Dark Earths in Amazonia. In: Glaser, B., Woods, W. I. (eds.): Amazonian Dark Earths: Exploitations in Space and Time.
Springer, Berlin.
Greetings
Tomáš
P.S.
Interestingly, the end of Amazonian agricultural landscape seems to have a certain “fingerprint” in decreasing atmospheric CO2 concentration due to succession of Amazonian rainforest. It may be construed from air bubbles in antarctic ice cores.
There is no mention of the impact on hydrology and / or regional climate. Possibly, no studies in this direction have been made yet.
JCMsays
it should be noted that, as a general rule of thumb for global terrestrial catchments, the evapotranspiration ET is about two thirds of precipitation P, with runoff Q closing the balance at 1/3 in a natural state.
So the ET/Q = 2 globally averaged pristine condition.
Cheng and Lu find that climatologically “62% of continental precipitation stems from evapotranspiration through Lagrangian tracking – a measure is known as the global continental precipitation recycling ratio…… On the 1° grid scale, nonlocal terrestrial sources dominate precipitation in almost 70% of the land areas, most prominent in the continental interior.”.
“Significance Statement
Water is crucial for human civilization. There has been a century-long discussion on the moisture sources of continental precipitation. Using Lagrangian tracking, we show that 62% of continental precipitation stems from evapotranspiration, closing the gap with the budget-based estimate. Terrestrial sources dominate precipitation in 70% of Earth’s surface, especially in the interior of South America, Africa, and Eurasia. Global monsoon regions and the mid-to-high latitudes share a completely different source-regulated hydroclimate. Terrestrial source hotspots for continental precipitation that deserve conservation are identified. Two types of processes that formulate a cascade of regional water cycles are proposed and evaluated. Findings here advance the understanding of the origin of continental precipitation, offering insights into water and land management for freshwater sustainability.”
My personal observation in a northern mid-latitude continental climate is that the perennial grasses and winter wheat are primed to transpire as soon as the ground thaws in spring. The annuals are taking until early July for knee height stems.
Constrained maximum transpiration is not occurring until 60-80 days after annual plantings. Unnatural hot weather pockets in June are certainly to be expected under direct sun.
Here we can see quite clearly that irrigated lands are not resembling pristine catchment of the great central valley of California; such a change to hydroclimate should be considered prior to dismissal..
And take notice that irrigated lands are but 5-10% of cropped area, by fancy drip system or pivot. The vast majority of the disrupted landscape is not being irrigated, of course! Nobody is watering the cash crops or idle tree stands (nor should they).
There is no equal compensating swap of desertification and irrigation. It just doesn’t work like that. Plus the missing drawdown of 10-20 billion tons per year Carbon into soils is not to be dismissed. These are the stable organics which sustain the net energy flows away from the surface, in addition to minimizing greenhouse effects.
As an afterthought of trace gas programs, a renewed appreciation of catchment hydrology and the associated energetic aspects and heat transport is due. If not for policy consideration, at least for scientific curiosity. The active dismissal of such matters is counter-productive. My guess is this is due in part to politics, and quite large gaps in data.
Why is the central valley of California that important? What about Donbas and Kryim, Ukraina and Uzbekistan and the Aral sea under STALIN regime, and what about the mongolians and the turks in central Asia, the Taklamakhan and Lop Nor and Xinkiang situation even with experimental atomic bombs on it?
Almonds and rasins and dried fruits and peppers and rare earths on the silk road…. all the way to Las Vegas and Hollywood. In the golden state.
They are not at charge and not global in the climate. They only believe blindly in their scriptures.
Shall I have to repeat that of desert walkers and blind believers fanatics and flat earthers within their error- bars in their peoples republics?
Ron R.says
“With the roof on, irrigation wouldn’t let the heat out, only displace it.”
By the way, before somebody jumps on it, I acknowledge that the roof is sill porous. Some percentage on heat is getting out. It’s just that the Co2 that we are emitting is causing more of it to remain in the atmosphere than otherwise would. And as we continue to emit that will increase. Gotta get serious and do something about the Co2.
zebrasays
John Pollack, Ray, and others:
John, I recall you schooling me about the 3D nature of the jet stream, and your comment here is also very informative. And Ray, the obvious point about emissions is also useful. I would just offer this simple observation:
Climate warming is expected to intensify and accelerate the global hydrologic cycle resulting in increases in evaporation, evapotranspiration (ET), atmospheric water-vapor content, and precipitation. The strength of the hydrologic response, or sensitivity of the response for a given degree of warming, is a critical outstanding question in climatology and hydrology. In this review chapter, I examine the published record of trends in various components of the hydrologic cycle and associated variables to assess observed hydrologic responses to warming during the period of observational records. Global and regional trends in evaporation, ET, and atmospheric water-vapor content and several large river basin water-balance studies support an ongoing intensification of the hydrologic cycle.
So before getting lost in the details, how about dealing with the basic reasoning? The hydrologic cycle is intensifying (without purposeful human intervention), and, consequently, GHG water-vapor is increasing, and, as expected, the energy imbalance continues and perhaps is getting worse. How does it make sense to add more??
In fact, it’s reasonable to argue that we should be decreasing evaporation… as I referenced last month, humans have pumped enough groundwater to raise sea level and tilt the axis of the planet. Our ability to do this obviously coincided with the increase in available mechanical energy due to the use of fossil fuels; perhaps it would be good to return to the more natural pre-industrial hydrologic cycle conditions as well as CO2 levels? (Or at least be far more efficient in our irrigation and consumption practices.)
The point being that if you start out with an invalid premise, discussing lots of details is just a form of informal fallacy.
zebrasays
(Fixed blockquote I hope.)
John Pollack, Ray, and others:
John, I recall you schooling me about the 3D nature of the jet stream, and your comment here is also very informative. And Ray, the obvious point about emissions is also useful. I would just offer this simple observation:
Climate warming is expected to intensify and accelerate the global hydrologic cycle resulting in increases in evaporation, evapotranspiration (ET), atmospheric water-vapor content, and precipitation. The strength of the hydrologic response, or sensitivity of the response for a given degree of warming, is a critical outstanding question in climatology and hydrology. In this review chapter, I examine the published record of trends in various components of the hydrologic cycle and associated variables to assess observed hydrologic responses to warming during the period of observational records. Global and regional trends in evaporation, ET, and atmospheric water-vapor content and several large river basin water-balance studies support an ongoing intensification of the hydrologic cycle.
So before getting lost in the details, how about dealing with the basic reasoning? The hydrologic cycle is intensifying (without purposeful human intervention), and, consequently, GHG water-vapor is increasing, and, as expected, the energy imbalance continues and perhaps is getting worse. How does it make sense to add more??
In fact, it’s reasonable to argue that we should be decreasing evaporation… as I referenced last month, humans have pumped enough groundwater to raise sea level and tilt the axis of the planet. Our ability to do this obviously coincided with the increase in available mechanical energy due to the use of fossil fuels; perhaps it would be good to return to the more natural pre-industrial hydrologic cycle conditions as well as CO2 levels? (Or at least be far more efficient in our irrigation and consumption practices.)
The point being that if you start out with an invalid premise, discussing lots of details is just a form of informal fallacy.
@ all ye rain barrelers, water cyclers, desert walkes, flat earters and blind believers in your dogmatic scriptures , statistics, and “peer rewiewed” iconography and models of the same:
Today on the 5th of july 2023 The internet reports 300 fligthts at least cancelled because of “storm” on Schiphol airport south 0f Amsterdam, their national airport where the earth is especially flat in combination with with Waterstaat, that is Dutch and means waterlevels.
The Nullschool betrays a red storm dash coming in over Den Haag at the Scheveningen dijks and dunes. .
I have once landed there by KLM through 2 thick peasoups at rough winds, The captain said before we went down : ” The weather on Schiphol is a bit rough… , but we shall manage to get down… ”
I heard him grinding his teeth when saying so, thus fastened my seatbelt. .
It went down on one wheel in several jumps, and the very good captain was able to shake it on track along with the landing stripe at Schiphol and on place beneith the Hangar. So we could breathe out again.
That was late autumn, a normal autumn storm in the southern north sea. .
But today 5th of july 2023 it was obviously worse. That is…… unconventional, an extreme even on Schiphol.
It is probably a consequence of Claussius Clappeyrons law and the Montgolfier principle in the notheast atlantic, that is an open system now also with record early sea surface temperatures
It is time for our landcrabs now to learn about where and why it evapotranspirates, and what that may have for large regional, seemingly strange even frustrating consequenses, even for the KLM.
UAH TLT has been posted for June with an anomaly of +0.38ºC, a tad up on May’s +0.37ºC. It was the second warmest June on the UAH TLT record after 1998 (+0.44ºC) and ahead of 2019 (+0.34ºC), 2020, 2016 (+0.21ºC) & 2015 (+0.18ºC). Recent years missing from this list (UAH is a bit trend-denying) are 2017 (+0.09ºC), 2018 & 2022 (+0.06ºC) and 2021 (+0.00ºC).
The start of 2023 remains as seventh warmest, but now closer to a top-five finish for the full calendar year.
“The fossil fuel industry is very good at getting what it wants because they get the lobbyists best at playing the game,” Roberts said. “They have the best staff, huge legal departments, and the ability to funnel dark money to lobbying and influence channels.
“This database really makes it apparent that when you hire these insider lobbyists, you are basically working with double agents. They are guns for hire. The information you share with them is probably going to the opposition.”
The Koch name comes up again and again. It’s unconscionable, imo, to sell the planet and the future simply to make and keep a few people obscenely wealthy. No amount of donating to PBS is ever going to rectify that.
Not entirely sure what you mean; I believe my sense of morality hasn’t changed much since I was a child (presumably morality fundamentally is a matter of instinct and/or a natural product of empathy + awareness (PS remember to include kindness for one’s self), but I continue to learn about global warming and how solar cells work, and how democracy works, etc. There are things I would not really on a book to tell me, and that’s (one place) where I break with some religious people (eg. the Bible/whatever says wives should … oh please, just think/feel about it!). Of course, in order to apply morality, one must have a situation to apply it to (it’s like math; it’s hypothetical until it isn’t). And you need to know how to be nice (eg. what does this person like to eat? What medicine treats their condition? Is this social-economic-political system sustainable? Will it devolve into tyranny? Will it sink under the mass of it’s own pollution?) in order to be effective.
And if I didn’t read such books, I wouldn’t know the humorous story of how ancient Egypt became ancient Egypt:
hey, what should we feed dead people?
How about bread and beer!
“Bread”? What is this “bread” you speak of?… and that’s where Pharaohs come from (okay, I skipped a few steps but it’s pretty interesting).
Also it’s just nice to know what others think sometimes.
Piotrsays
patrick;
“how ancient Egypt became ancient Egypt:
“hey, what should we feed dead people?
How about bread and beer!
“Bread”? What is this “bread” you speak of?…”
Copernicus ERA5 reanalysis has posted for June giving the global SAT anomaly at +0.53ºC, the highest anomaly of the year-to-date (previously monthly anomalies spanning from Jan’s +0.25ºC up to March’s +0.51ºC). June 2023 is the warmest June on the ERA5 record by quite a way, previous warm years being 2019 (+0.37ºC), 2020, 2022, 2016, 2018, 2021, 2017, 2015 & 1998 (+0.18ºC) now 10th warmest June in the ERA5 SAT record.
June 2023 is the 9th highest monthly anomaly on the ERA5 all-month record.
A year-on-year graph of the ERA5 record is presented here – GRAPH 2b.
The first half of 2023 has climbed up from 5th spot last month to 4th warmest start-of-the-year, or perhaps that is =3rd. With the coming El Niño, 2023 may well challenge 2020 for warmest-year, although the ENSO forecasts do appear to be showing an El Niño less powerful than 1998 or 2016 (with peak ENSO 3.4 predictions averaging +1.8ºC when the 1998 & 2016 El Niños peaked at +2.7ºC and +2.9ºC respectively).
Meanwhile, the “Daily 2-meter Air Temperature” (World, 90°S-90°N, 0-360°E) has exceeded the 17 °C threshold for the first time in the instrumental records (so far) for:
• Mon, Jul 3, 2023: Observed Temperature 17.01 °C (anomaly +0.81 °C)
• Tue, Jul 4, 2023: Observed Temperature 17.18 °C (anomaly +0.98 °C)
• Wed, Jul 5, 2023: Observed Temperature 17.18 °C (anomaly +0.98 °C)
• Thu, Jul 6, 2023: Observed Temperature 17.23 °C (anomaly +1.02 °C) https://climatereanalyzer.org/clim/t2_daily/
And SSTs (World, 60°S-60°N) have been at record seasonal highs for more than 3½ months, significantly above the equivalent seasonal temperatures for the 1998 & 2016 El Niño years. https://climatereanalyzer.org/clim/sst_daily/
MA Rodger: – “…although the ENSO forecasts do appear to be showing an El Niño less powerful than 1998 or 2016 (with peak ENSO 3.4 predictions averaging +1.8ºC when the 1998 & 2016 El Niños peaked at +2.7ºC and +2.9ºC respectively).”
The Australian Bureau of Meteorology (BoM) issued its latest revised Long-range sea surface temperature forecasts, dated 1 Jul 2023, including forecast means for the NINO 3.4 region:
Barring a major volcanic eruption, nuclear war, and/or major meteor strike, I would not be at all surprised to see a +1.3 °C global mean surface temperature threshold exceedance (relative to the GISS 1880-1920 baseline) yearly average for 2023, and +1.4 °C for 2024.
Geoff Meill,
The predictions for the 2023 full calendar year global temperature will vary with time and method and also by data record. The analysis by CarbonBrief at the end of April (so 6 weeks earlier than BEST analysis) found the chances of a ‘scorchyisimo’ 2023 were 22% with the most likely outcome a 4th place within the range 1st-to-6th, this based on the ERA5 record. The Met Office found a similar result for 2023 with their analysis back at the end of 2022 as did WMO with their Global Annual to Decadal Climate Update published last month.
Myself, I find applying very simplistic analyses do seem to point to a ‘scorchyisimo’ 2023, but presumably these analyses by BEST, CarbonBrief, Met Office & WMO are better informed.
You (again) point to the Ozzie BoM AUS-ACCESS projecting NINO3.4 values for the end 2023 which are not dissimilar to the peak NINO3.4 values for 2015 & 1997. (Repeating similar critique of BoM made before) these values have been revised down by BoM since their June analysis and note back then their projected NINO3.4 values for June (+1.2ºC) ended up measuring significantly lower (+0.9ºC).
And more importantly, the projected values for NINO3.4 from Columbia IRI that I have referenced in previous responses to you do include AUS-ACCESS and show it as a top-end outlier. Note that both the BEST & CarbonBrief SAT analyses linked above show this same Columbia IRI analysis.
The measure you set out for the 2023 calendar year (+1.3°C global mean surface temperature threshold exceedance relative to the GISS 1880-1920 baseline) is also the annual GISS ‘scorchyisimo’ threshold as currently top-spot year in GISS is 2016 at +1.29°C. I don’t see any projections for 2023 saying a +1.3°C outcome would be ‘at all suprising’ so you express nothing novel although it may be that if you were to express it statistically it would be a different story.
Ned Kellysays
I guess most people have been keeping track of recent extreme weather and temp news. Here’s another just in case you missed it. Take care now.
World Health Organization (WHO) Director-General Tedros Ghebreyesus has said climate change will drive a surge in “extreme weather events” in 2023, pointing to record-breaking temperatures around the globe this week.
Speaking during a Wednesday press briefing, Tedros said the “climate crisis” is now among the “major factors determining human health outcomes,” warning that global warming could ultimately produce a “wave of hunger, migration and disease.”
“Over the coming months, we expect a range of extreme weather events, including droughts, floods, hurricanes, and heatwaves, all of which harm human health,” he said, also noting that Monday marked the “hottest day on record” for average temperatures around the world.
Adam Leasays
The heatwaves across the globe at present seem to be caused by a particular locked in Rossby wave pattern. The UK Met Office deep dive on YouTube went into this in some detail and was very well presented to the general public (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ykC7ZeOa04Q). It is a wave number five pattern that has developed and is known to be very persistent, and is responsible for the location of the ridges which have resulted in extreme heat across the continents. The UK is under a trough which is why it has experienced a cool and wet July in contrast to southern Europe which has seen 40+C temperatures. Last year the UK experienced record breaking temperatures at the same time of year (>40C) which was also down to a wave number five Rossby wave pattern, except the UK back then was under a ridge. It it interesting that you can get completely different weather regimes in one country with the same planetary weather setup. The question is, is climate change making these persistent weather patterns more common? It feels like in the UK we are getting more frequent periods of weather that gets stuck in a rut, It almost feels like I am now living in a hybrid temperate wet and dry climate with random dry and rainy seasons these days.
Barry E Finchsays
chris 5 JUN 2023 Stefan Rahmstorf shows at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xITEUv65tj0 at 16:50 a bifurcation zone of 0.10 Sv freshwater forcing with an estimated present location of 0.085 Sv freshwater forcing stopping the AMOC. According to PIOMAS 1979-2020 the freshwater forcing of Arctic Ocean sea ice reduction is:
– 0.0085 Sv freshwater forcing so it’s 10% of the estimated AMOC cessation needs. Then there’s
– Arctic ocean precipitation exceeds evaporation by 5,700 km**3 / year = 0.18 Sv so 3% more water cycle = 0.0054 Sv freshwater forcing, so 6%
– Asia & N. America discharges 4,300 km**3 water / year into Arctic ocean annually = 0.14 Sv so 3% more water cycle = 0.0042 Sv freshwater forcing, so 5%
– Greenland discharges 270 km**3 more water+ice / year = 0.0086 Sv freshwater forcing, so 10%
However, I don’t know whether this freshwater forcing is assigned to varying importances by sub-region and I saw a scientist present that Greenland discharge doesn’t go to where it would provide freshwater forcing to the AMOC.
Barry E Finchsays
Corrections: 0.1 Sv S.B. 0.125 Sv and 0.085 Sv S.B. 0.078 Sv so 10% S .B. 11%, 6% S .B. 7%, 5% stat 5%, 10% S .B. 11%, totalling 34% of the freshwater forcing to stop the AMOC based on that pictorial starting at early-mid 20th century.
nigeljsays
“Irrigation enhances local warming with greater nocturnal warming effects than daytime cooling effects. Xing Chen1,2 and Su-Jong Jeong1,3. Published 29 January 2018 ”
Abstract
To meet the growing demand for food, land is being managed to be more productive using agricultural intensification practices, such as the use of irrigation. Understanding the specific environmental impacts of irrigation is a critical part of using it as a sustainable way to provide food security. However, our knowledge of irrigation effects on climate is still limited to daytime effects. This is a critical issue to define the effects of irrigation on warming related to greenhouse gases (GHGs). This study shows that irrigation led to an increasing temperature (0.002 °C year−1) by enhancing nighttime warming (0.009 °C year−1) more than daytime cooling (−0.007 °C year−1) during the dry season from 1961–2004 over the North China Plain (NCP), which is one of largest irrigated areas in the world. By implementing irrigation processes in regional climate model simulations, the consistent warming effect of irrigation on nighttime temperatures over the NCP was shown to match observations. The intensive nocturnal warming is attributed to energy storage in the wetter soil during the daytime, which contributed to the nighttime surface warming. Our results suggest that irrigation could locally amplify the warming related to GHGs, and this effect should be taken into account in future climate change projections.
I have understood it and tried to point at it. Now the chineese seem to have found it.
I have insinuated “Do not hide the decline.” On the contrary, try and become a holist, and judge and integrate the sunsets and the autumns, namely the declines, . and the nights and the winters also.
They are discussing ther. situation and the climate the way they are innaugurated drilled and aquainted, as national sports records and the stock market on Wallstreet, the dow jones index along with rumors, in virtual reality.
Tomáš Kaliszsays
Dear nigelj,
Thank you very much for this reference.
I read this open source article and found out that in the assessed area of the North China Plain (NCP), the irrigation is carried out in the dry season which falls in the timespan September – May. It is thus the colder part of the year in the NCP.
The prevailing warming effect of irrigation can be thus in some extent likely ascribed to the fact that during this cold season, evaporation (and, consequelntly, the cooling effect of irrigation) may be relatively weak.
I therefore think that the results of this study cannot be generalized, especially not the way that “irrigation has a warming effect on Earth climate”.
I just come home from a tour across http://www.Hemsedalsfjellet , that is not as high as the high Tatra but anyhow,…..
and there is land on both sides. Norge / Noreg.
Noreg is quite more steep and vertical. Irrigation is seldom relevant there, if at all. Irrigation is a misuse of water due to your living on the wrong side of the Tatras.
There are strawberries ( Fragaria vesca L.) on both sides, both in Noreg and in Norge, but in Noreg they are more plenty.
RSS have posted the numbers for TLT through to June (although their excellent Trend Browser Tool has yet to update from April).
In RSS TLT May & June 2023 both see global anomalies of +0.77ºC, the highest of the year-to-date (which previously spanned +0.45ºC up to +0.66ºC).
June 2023 is the third warmest June in the RSS TLT record (2nd in UAH TLT & warmest in ERA5 SAT reanalysis) behind June 2019 (+0.84ºC) & 2020 (+0.78ºC) while ahead of 2016, 2010, 1998, 2015, 2014, 2021, 2017, 2022 * 2018 (+0.49ºC).
June 2023 is the 29th highest anomaly in the RSS TLLT record.
The first half of 2023 sits in 7th place as the warmest start-to-the-year (7th in UAH TLT & =3rd in ERA5 SAT reanalysis). For the full 2023 calendar year, the strength of the coming El Niño will be more of a factor with the TLT records.
https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2022/07/the-cos2-problem-in-six-easy-steps-2022-update/
Pierrehumbert: “Infrared radiation and planetary temperature” https://geosci.uchicago.edu/~rtp1/papers/PhysTodayRT2011.pdf
“I Misunderstood the Greenhouse Effect. Here’s How It Works.”:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oqu5DjzOBF8
“Why CO2 cools the middle atmosphere – a consolidating model perspective”Helge F. Goessling, Sebastian Bathiany : https://doi.org/10.5194/esd-7-697-2016
links here: https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2023/05/cmip6-not-so-sudden-stratospheric-cooling/#comment-811964
I like to approach the GHE by visualizing what you would see in heat vision: the atmosphere would be an incadescently-glowing haze/fog, with opaqueness depending on the concentration and characteristics of greenhouse gas molecules, cloud droplets/ice crystals, etc. The LTE approx. holds well for the vast majority of the atmosphere (by mass) and surface material, so (at each point in the spectrum (and if ever necessary, each polarization)), each unit of material emits a glow with a brightness = the Planck function, over an effective area (σa = absorption cross section, which accounts for net absorption = direct absorption – stimulated emission) which absorbs and thus hides whatever glow comes from behind…
(noting that this is a mathematical equivalency – generally you would not be able to discern individual cross sections, and they may represent the average effect of a class of particles/units – particularly important for molecules/etc., which at any given moment are individually generally either absorbing, emitting, or niether).
…so when the concentration is increased, you can’t see as far. (see also my series of comments from Sept 2020 and my Update/Progress on How to See the Greenhouse Effect; Diagram ideas, diagrams done so far (including Seeing Cross Sections – Screen & pinhole camera views); all of part 12?; portions of parts 2 and 13. – this introduces part 12)
Depending on how temperature varies over space…
(by lowercase space, I mean the general concepts of length, area, volume, etc., as opposed to Space, the space above Earth’s (or whichever planet/moon/star/etc. is the subject) atmosphere)
…Increasing the concentration of abs. cross-sectional area will thus change the spectral brightness (spectral radiance) of the glow you see, eventually coming to approach the Planck function of your local temperature as the distance you can see goes toward 0 (this may be called saturation) – unless you are looking up from TOA (top of atmosphere).
The net (spectral) flux through a (horizontal) area depends on the variation of this (spectral) radiance over direction; a net upward flux (per unit horizontal area) through your location requires that it look generally brighter below you and generally dimmer above you (flux = area * integral of (radiance * cos(θ) ) over solid angle, with a +/- depending on your conventions)). Thus increasing the concentration of GHGs/etc. will eventually reduce this variation in brightness and reduce the net upward LW flux.
… to be cont., see also links I put here https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2023/06/unforced-variations-jun-2023/#comment-812815
“Why CO2 cools the middle atmosphere – a consolidating model perspective”Helge F. Goessling, Sebastian Bathiany : https://doi.org/10.5194/esd-7-697-2016
I like to approach the GHE by visualizing what you would see in heat vision: the atmosphere would be an incadescently-glowing haze/fog, with opaqueness depending on the concentration and characteristics of greenhouse gas molecules, cloud droplets/ice crystals, etc. The LTE approx. holds well for the vast majority of the atmosphere (by mass) and surface material, so (at each point in the spectrum (and if ever necessary, each polarization)), each unit of material emits a glow with a brightness = the Planck function, over an effective area (σa = absorption cross section, which accounts for net absorption = direct absorption – stimulated emission) which absorbs and thus hides whatever glow comes from behind…
(noting that this is a mathematical equivalency – generally you would not be able to discern individual cross sections, and they may represent the average effect of a class of particles/units – particularly important for molecules/etc., which at any given moment are individually generally either absorbing, emitting, or niether).
…so when the concentration is increased, you can’t see as far. (see also my series of comments from Sept 2020 and my Update/Progress on How to See the Greenhouse Effect; Diagram ideas, diagrams done so far (including Seeing Cross Sections – Screen & pinhole camera views); all of part 12?; portions of parts 2 and 13. – this introduces part 12)
Depending on how temperature varies over space…
(by lowercase space, I mean the general concepts of length, area, volume, etc., as opposed to Space, the space above Earth’s (or whichever planet/moon/star/etc. is the subject) atmosphere)
…Increasing the concentration of abs. cross-sectional area will thus change the spectral brightness (spectral radiance) of the glow you see, eventually coming to approach the Planck function of your local temperature as the distance you can see goes toward 0 (this may be called saturation) – unless you are looking up from TOA (top of atmosphere).
The net (spectral) flux through a (horizontal) area depends on the variation of this (spectral) radiance over direction; a net upward flux (per unit horizontal area) through your location requires that it look generally brighter below you and generally dimmer above you (flux = area * integral of (radiance * cos(θ) ) over solid angle, with a +/- depending on your conventions)). Thus increasing the concentration of GHGs/etc. will eventually reduce this variation in brightness and reduce the net upward LW flux.
re my: “Thus increasing the concentration of GHGs/etc. will eventually reduce this variation in brightness and reduce the net upward LW flux.”
I was trying to be very general. In the simplest case that temperature only decreases with height from the surface up through the atmosphere’s optical depth and into Space (based on the brightness temperature as seen from below, ie., near 0 K), Then the net upward LW spectral flux is reduced by any increase in GHG or cloud particle concentration (of a given size/type – swapping one gas for another is obviously a different matter), approaching 0 net flux in the limit of saturation – except where there is a discontinuity in temperature over optical depth (eg., TOA) where the limit would be given by the different blackbody fluxes corresponding to the temperatures on either side.
“The net spectral flux may” [ increase before decreasing, or even ] “switch signs“[ etc. ]“ before ultimately approaching the saturation limit,“
patrick o twentysevensays
Clarification: except where there is a discontinuity in temperature over optical depth (eg., TOA) where the limit would be given by the different blackbody [spectral] fluxes [(ie, Planck function * pi sr)] corresponding to the temperatures on either side.
Note – I have been refering to the forcing progressing over ranges of GHG concentrations, etc., not the changes in LW fluxes that occur in the climate response to the forcing. The forcing involves extra/perturbation net radiant heating/cooling, which creates temperature changes over time…
(which don’t necessarily or generally align with the forcing because as each layer changes temperature, it will brighten or dim its emission, and some of that may be absorbed by other layers, thus spreading out the temperature response. Eg., Part of stratospheric cooling can remain in part due to its not absorbing all of the increased LW flux from below.)
… which then leads to changes in LW and possibly convective fluxes; then there are feedbacks (not seperated in time, generally), which may include SW changes, and then the temperatures and temperature-dependent fluxes must respond farther (or less if feedbacks are negative).
PS transfers of kinetic energy (or any mechanical energy that is not embodied in enthalpy**?) can be, for the sake of elegance here, simply included in the convective fluxes.
my series of comments from Sept 2020, combined, with some editing, and another comment:
I’ve been working on some adjustments to my color guesstimates, but first… re 108 Philippe Chantreau
If we could see infra-red, I imagine that the GH effect would cause an ambient “glow” of IR light, most intense close to the surface, and decreasing in intensity with altitude, until reaching a threshold altitude. With an increase in GH effect, I expect that the glow would intensify and the threshold altitude would increase. What I can’t quite put in words is what happens at the threshold altitude. …
… I believe what you’re refering to is the concept of an effective emitting level, which, by analogy with the Sun, is a vertical position that is representive of the Earth’s own photosphere…
…
Imagine the opacity is produced by many opaque particles; they are blackbodies, absorbing whatever light reaches them and emitting according to their temperatures [hotter = brighter]. For each, you see a cross-sectional area source of radiance [σa = absorption cross section]. You can’t see all of them because the closest ones hide some of those farther away, etc. The more densely packed or bigger they are, the less far you can see, and so the light you see matches temperatures closer to you.
Generally the size of the blackbodies depends on the material/substance they represent, frequency, and pressure and temperature (via line broadening, and the ratios of different energy states).
(… PS, more generally, there can also be ‘little mirrorballs’ (scattering cross sections) – in this case consider the reflections (and reflections of reflections…) of blackbodies. Also they may vary with direction and polarization, but that’s not of much concern here…)
You need to be able to see temperature variations in order for there to be a net radiant flux of heat through where you are; it has to look brighter in one direction than it’s opposite. If it is transparent where you are, the flux passing by you depends on conditions somewhere else (and there can be no net radiant heating or cooling at your location). Adding opacity gives the material influence on the radiation, and the potential to radiantly warm or cool. At a certain point, increasing opacity hides the temperature gradient and so everything looks the same where you are; there is no net flux.
—- —- —-
… anyway, a distribution of all the blackbody cross-section area that you can see is called an emission weighting function* [EWF], and looking down from space, that would be the Earth’s photosphere.
caveat: emission weighting function* may be defined for a single direction; for a whole hemisphere of directions up or down, you have to weight by the cosine of the angle from vertical and integrate over solid angle.
Anyway, due to various potential nonlinearities (Planck function not linear over temperature, temperature not linear over optical path,…?), the temperature of the centroid of the emission weighting function won’t necessarily match the brightness temperature of the radiance or irradiance – even at just one frequency.
ignore this: The concept of an effective emission/radiating level most easily applies for a greybody atmosphere, where the opacity is constant over the thermal IR band…
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.
(re 178 patrick027 – there are a few unstated caveats in all that, in case anyone wants to get nitpicky (ie. wouldn’t the closer objects look bigger? Well that matches up with contributing to a larger range of directions reaching your pupil…))
The net upward LW (thermal IR) flux at any level, in the global time average for an equilibrium climate, must combine with the net upward convective flux (which is [global time average: relatively small] above the tropopause) to balance the net downward SW (solar UV, visible, solar IR) flux.
… and so the divergence of the net upward LW flux (increasing with height), which is LW cooling, must balance the solar heating and the convergence (decrease with height) of the upward convective flux (convective heating).
patrick o twentysevensays
Oops, forgot to italicize the quote from 108 Philippe Chantreau (Sept 2020)
…
I’ve now block-ified my blog post, so I can link directly to sections, eg:
Unfortunately, the slide show format has changed; I liked when the images faded into each other, as it gave a bit of an animation-like impression, for comparing the images.
JCMsays
Atmospheric water includes both vapor and liquid/solid phases.
A reduction of transpiration sourced precipitationsheds (“green water”) appears to result in more infrequent or variable continental precipitation events.
A reduction of precipitation efficiency inevitably results in increased atmospheric water duration. Temperature is only one factor in the lower atmospheric water abundance, and clausius clap only deals with a saturated vapor phase.
Increasingly persistent haze condensate is not a removal of water. “Green”-water is suggestive of the biologically mediated components of water flows.
The addition of water by ET and active removal of water by precipitation does indeed depend on biophysical conditions.
“Humanity has already unintentionally and substantially engineered precipitation patterns through land-use change, and conscious protection of the terrestrial water cycle is now urgently needed to achieve sustainability and build resilience.”
“we must understand how changes in land use, modification of surface and groundwater systems, agriculture and urbanization are not only changing terrestrial landscapes, but are altering vital planetary water flows.”
“On average, a drop of water entering the atmosphere over land from the ocean falls 2.6 times as rainfall before returning to the ocean in river flow. There is, in fact, no compelling reason that the 2.6 value, and thus the amount of recycled rainfall, cannot increase or decline based on future land use change”
“Biological particles in the Earth’s atmosphere are a distinctive category of ice nucleating particles (INPs) due to their capability of facilitating ice crystal formation in clouds at relatively warm temperatures. Field observations and model simulations have shown that biological INPs affect cloud and precipitation formation and regulate regional or even global climate, although there are considerable uncertainties in modeling and large gaps between observed and model simulated contribution of biological particles to atmospheric INPs”
Really?
I was not there but we had a phaenomenal summer trip vacation last weekend over the mountains in southern Norway last weekend. The weather is rather steady stable. Holland had an exeptional summer storm, and there is record warm water now in the northeast Atlantic. That ougtht to have consequenses.
Barry E Finchsays
patrick o twentyseven 9 JUL 2023 AT 9:45 PM It seems tome that:
Thus increasing …… will eventually reduce .. upward LW flux.
S.B.
Thus increasing …… will instantly reduce .. upward LW flux.
As the more intelligent of you may be able to see, even I got a brilliant idea, that was published here on 3 juli 2023 d/o
A Ned Kelly (who is she?) demanded me permanently boreholed for it also with a deep, moral plee to Gavin Schmidt for doing so.
I am obviously able to touch the nerves very deeply after all, , by making people aware of rather very elementary rain and destillation physics in the climate, that must be grasped first as one of a very few basic principles, before we can discuss earthly climate.
It is as elementary as can be, known in several versions, for instance “the rule of the coldest wall”.
If given a chamber, a greenhouse, a car, or let us say a chemical flask, with air and water. Where will the dew and the frost settle down? and where will it rather evaporate and sublimate? the temperatures being not even all the way because the system may be large and unevenly heated..
And in general, if the very room or system is being heated up or cooled down ,…. where will it evaporate and dry out?. and where will the water moove over in invisible, gaseous form from A to B and make B soaking wet?
That principle of distillation and greenhoses cars and livingrooms seems to be appliciable to the very earthly climate also when for instance there for some reason is a rapid global warming going on. It will be desertification and drought here and there on land at rapid temperature rising because the sea is more thermically inert than the lands.
But if or when that rapid overall temperature rise curves down and it all stabilizes, there will be all in all more rain on land everywhere. That effect is also seen everywhere in the monsune rains and in the day and night summer and winter swingings…… and with a characteristic time- lag.
I hope that this understanding can help your speculations and phantacies in a critical and more realistic direction.
I learnt it in public school to bring our tiny thoughts in order for lifetime. .
It rules further on how to dress and for how to build , to heat, and to ventilate and how to cool a house, and to get the drought and the moisture and the fresh air to where we want it. It has been human stone- age wisdom allready, and surely denied, ridiculed, etnically politically cleaned out, forbidden and boreholed in stoneage allready.
(Who should therefore rather be our whitchdoctors, rainmakers, shamans, politicians, high priests and teachers?.)
Thus, another example of typical timeless wisdom even from my side, . Beat that.
ResearchGate (ResearchGate.net) is a legitimate venue for scientists and students to upload and discuss papers at. Unfortunately, it has been invaded by climate deniers. Some of the scientists present try to argue with them.
Yesterday, Dr. Alain Robichaus, senior researcher at Environment and Climate Change Canada, was forced out because the deniers contacted his employer and lied about him, saying he was there during his hours of employment, which he was not. I knew deniers used threats, intimidation, and harassment to try to silence scientists, but I had never seen it happen right in front of my eyes before.
Is there any way we can support Dr. Robichaud? Would letters of support from other scientists help? The man broke no ResearchGate rules because ResearchGate took no action against him; but his employers seem to have caved. What can we do?
A strange case. He must have violated, seemingly illegal rules of his employment, as if he was isolated in jail, in psychiatric isolation, or employed a peoples republic behind an iron curtain , for this to be true. But if so in Canada, having a TUTOR representing and holding his interests.
Article 19
“Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression, this includes freedom to hold opinions without interference, and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers.”
Piotrsays
Re: deniers denouncing Alain Robichaud to his employer.
Those who can’t disprove the message, try to silence the messenger. I have seen that on other (non-climate) discussion forums, once even being a target of one myself. And is not limited to the denunciation to the employer – others will post online information on where to find you, and would “compliment” your kids, stopping just short of saying that it would be such pity if something were happen to such cute kids.
I wonder – do we know the name of the denunciator? I’ll presume denunciation to the employer have to be signed with a name to be even considered. May be useful to know with whom we are dealing, if we encounter them in the public space. Somehow, I doubt it’s their first time …
GISTEMP & NOAA have posted SAT for June, both with the highest monthly anomaly of 2023-to-date and both with the warmest June on record, both emphatically so (as does BEST). “Scorchyisimo!!!” has returned.
The GISTEMP June anomaly of +1.07ºC tops previous warmest Junes 2022 (+0.92ºC), 2020, 2019 and 2021 (+0.84ºC), these then the last five Junes.
June 2023 is the 17th highest anomaly in the all-month GISTEMP record.
2023 has now claimed 3rd spot in the warmest start-of-year table and the full 2023 becoming warmest calendar year on record appears much more likely. (BEST now put it at 81% likely.) So all eyes on the developing El Niño.
…….. Jan-June Ave … Annual Ave ..Annual ranking
2016 .. +1.12ºC … … … +1.01ºC … … … 2nd
2020 .. +1.11ºC … … … +1.01ºC … … … 1st
2023 .. +1.01ºC
2017 .. +0.98ºC … … … +0.92ºC … … … 4th
2019 .. +0.97ºC … … … +0.98ºC … … … 3rd
2022 .. +0.91ºC … … … +0.89ºC … … … 6th
2015 .. +0.85ºC … … … +0.90ºC … … … 5th
2018 .. +0.84ºC … … … +0.85ºC … … … 7th
2010 .. +0.80ºC … … … +0.72ºC … … … 10th
2021 .. +0.78ºC … … … +0.84ºC … … … 8th
2007 .. +0.75ºC … … … +0.66ºC … … … 13th
It is time for http://www.noctilucent clouds. They have been absent all this spring,… but I saw themj last night. They tend to come rather in july august. Opposite on the southern hemisphere.
It is the only wiew that we can have of the really higher atmosphere, exept for meteors that shine up at the same levels and believed to give the necessary dusts for cloud formation up there, so it is actually real and visualized stardust also. Partly, real extraterrestrial.
Check it up on Wikipedia, it is really interesting and readable geophysics and chemistery there, so you will have a refreshment training on that also.
Methane CH4 from earthly sources is believed to be the H2O-gas water source, but I suggest also SO2 and NH3. under hard UV and x-ray so that possible sulphuric and nitric acid is also formed, alltogether extreemly hygroscopic and giving nanoparticles in the magnitude of 100 nanometers and downwards.
The colours are further very interesting if seen in the light of traditional spectroscopy, diffuse reflection of direct sunlight, and Goethes theory of colours.
Nocilucent clouds form at 75 to 85 Km heighth and are the highest of allo clouds in the extreemly cold mesopause.
the lower Pearlmother clouds at about 20 Km have been analyzed chemically by weather balloons and highest turbo jet airplanes and shown to be stöchiometric ice- cristals of H2SO4 .HNO3 .nH2O frost falling out of that extreemly thin air. Air pressure halves for each 5.5 Km upwards along with Bolzmanns barometric law, so it must be extreemly cold for any possible cristallization.
The situation trice as high for the fameous Noctilucent clouds seems ……. unbelieveable….. and thus represents an important correcture to our conscepts, views, visions, and scientific beliefs and speculations, in the Real Climate.
Thank you for sharing this reference. I read the article and found a point to that I can hardly agree. It does not pertain directly to climate science – what I see as somewhat strange was Dr. Hansen’s evaluation what is “science” and what is “dogma” in a field that, in my opinion, is purely political.
In remark 2, he refers to an article analyzing lack of public suport for nuclear energy exploitation through so called taxonomies. I read the article and found that its authors admit that there is also another reason for businesses that they are not interested in investing into nuclear energy: lack of economical profitability.
I think that assuming that decarbonization of world economy can or must be achieved by subsidies from public funds may be a legitimate political view but I do not agree that it should be presented as “science”. I personally think that the nuclear industry missed its chance decades ago, and their lobbying cannot disprove the basic fault of their outdated technology – lack of economical competitiveness with newer ones.
Personally, I am very sceptical as regards all recipes “how to save the planet” that suppose that money are something like inexhaustible renewable resource. They are not, I am afraid, and I am afraid that policies based on this assumption may fail. I do not see anything scientific in promoting such questionable approaches.
If we managed to merely prevent evaporation (e.g. by covering the Earth surface by a vapour-tight plastic film), and to keep the present ca 13 000 km3 water vapour in the atmosphere, the average temperature of Earth surface would quickly rise and stabilized somewhere about 30 degree Celsius.
If we then managed to remove this water vapour, too, the average surface temperature on the completely dried Earth would fall and stabilized somewhere about zero degree Celsius, or slightly below.
This assumption was the reason for my remark that I see little sense in Piotr’s dispute with macias shurly, specifically, in setting the question the way “is Earth water-cooled or water-warmed planet”?
I am not sure if present atmospheric models are capable of a such simulation. If so, and if the respective scientific staff will be willing to run such experiments, I am equally curious for the results as you.
Greetings
Tomáš
Piotrsays
Tomas Kalisz: “I see little sense in Piotr’s dispute with macias shurly”
Huh? You mean that my proving that within own Shurly’s argument (based on Schmidt et al 2010) – the increased evaporation WARMS the Earth – is … irrelevant to your schemes in which you want to …COOL the Earth with increased evaporation?
zebrasays
Piotr, responding here to your earlier response to me,
I would say that the owning goes the other way, because what I see here from your interlocutor is another demonstration of zebra’s troll test, which states: “They never answer the question.” Clearly, not an honest attempt to deal with what I actually said, but obvious misrepresentation/deflection/obfuscation.
By now you should have figured out, as I said to you earlier, that I honestly do aim my comments at hypothetical readers who don’t necessarily have the background to evaluate detailed analysis. So I am a big fan of what we used to call First Approximations, for people who at least know/accept some basic principles, to show them that they can begin to figure things out for themselves.
In this case, I am thinking of a planet where the GHG maintain the temp high enough for there to be liquid water and water vapor, but no exposed H2O is present. (I’m asking BPL to come up with what that is, approximately, by his simple method.)
So now we pour out some water from the previously sealed containers. Will the system energy increase or decrease?
If we accept the basic physics of the GHG, including WV, I think we can answer the question of “water cooling the planet” without detailed calculations.
Piotrsays
Shurly to Kalisz: “A sentence that proves that you have understood absolutely nothing when it comes to GEB.” ” with no sense, no purpose and with the sole, arrogant goal of making themselves important”
Ouch, poor Tomas -all that from that Shurly guy you thought would have your back. And for what – for trying to endear yourself to patrick by dropping in terms he introduced. Why, Shurly, why?
Transference? Having humiliated himself again and again when going against the people Shurly assures are “idiots “, the last time in: – Shurly took it out on …our hapless, happy-go-lucky Tomas.
Piotrsays
zebra Jul 17: “By now you should have figured out, as I said to you earlier, that I honestly do aim my comments at hypothetical readers”
Hmm, for the hypothetical readers, they were … strangely specific:
zebra: Jul. 15 “ Can you do the same magic for a planet with zero water […]? I’m just thinking about the Vapor-boys and how they would explain what would happen if we then added water ”
zebra Jul 17: “ So now we pour out some water from the previously sealed containers. Will the system energy increase or decrease?”
I thought I have already answered that in my post you are commenting:
Piotr Jul 16: “ Why reinvent a wheel, and a square one at that? What you ask of BPL has been already done, using a much more realistic model, by Schmidt et al 2010. ”
I.e. their runs without water vapour and clouds. In case if the only other element of water cycle – latent heat changes were not implicitly included – one can add the value from any heat budget. Which I have done.
Your way – asking BPL to add complications by introducing explicit water into his simple model – would have made it more complicated, while still leaving it open to the criticism that it is too much of a simplification (since, for simplicity, it ignores many processes, and some of these are critical to evaluating the role of water).
Zebra If we accept the basic physics of the GHG, including WV, I think we can answer the question of “water cooling the planet” without detailed calculations.
What detailed calculations you speak of? My entire calculations is confined to a single line:
Net GH effect of water = 120W /m² – 47W /m² – Y x 78W /m²
where 120W /m² is the net warming by vapor and clouds
-47/m2 cooling by cloud albedo
-78 latent heat and Y is its % that escapes into space
We can solve the equation for Y, to find that for any Y< 94% the addition of water WARMS the Earth. I think it for your hypothetical readers it would be simpler than what you proposed.
And by proposing, you have already achieved what you warned me about – got owned by Tomas, who by " embracing your proposal – portrays himself to your hypothetical readers as open to arguments, and projects the confidence that the results of the possible future model, if ever produced, would support his claims. And if they don’t – the model can always be dismissed as too much of a simplification.“
zebrasays
Piotr, you are misunderstanding what I said… I only asked BPL to give a number for the planet with water sequestered so it can not evaporate. As I said to you, we know that it would be high enough that water could evaporate. Anyway, I found the reference from NASA I mentioned to BPL:
“Water vapor is Earth’s most abundant greenhouse gas. It’s responsible for about half of Earth’s greenhouse effect — the process that occurs when gases in Earth’s atmosphere trap the Sun’s heat. Greenhouse gases keep our planet livable. Without them, Earth’s surface temperature would be about 59 degrees Fahrenheit (33 degrees Celsius) colder. ”
So let’s say a few degrees C over zero.
The second part, where we de-sequester some water, is what I am asking the hypothetical reader [who accepts the basic premise of GHG], and who is trying to follow the discussion between you and the Vaporistas, to think about… no calculations necessary.
Either the energy in the climate system will increase, decrease, or remain the same. What do you think? (That’s the universal First Approximation.)
Piotrsays
Zebra Jun. 19: “ Piotr, you are misunderstanding what I said…”
When I was a kid, when listening to the Moody Blues and their “Nights in white satin”, I thought that their line “ Letters I’ve written, never meaning to send” was: “Letters I’ve written, never meaning the same “… Well, each time I am discussing with you, Zebra – the latter comes to mind … You say A, somebody challenges A, you lecture them that they misunderstood you, since you clearly were saying B …. Most recent example:
1. Zebra’s repeatedly urges RC authors not to engage denialists (e.g. “Vapour boys”), not to be “owned” by them.
2. Z. Jul 15 asks BPL to modify his model to separate the effects of water, to see how: … the Vapor-boys […] would explain what would happen [to a waterless Earth] if we then added water ”
3. I point that he engaged “Vapor boys”, In fact one of them … thanked Z. for his model proposal, used it to draw attention away from the already existing and much more realistic model that contradicted his Vaporist claims, and projected confidence that the results of the proposed model, if ever produced, would support his claims (and if they don’t, can be easily rejected for lack of realism). With that, I suggested that it is the Vaporist, who absorbed and used Zebra.
4. Z., Jul 17: By now you should have figured out, as I said to you earlier, that I honestly do aim my comments at hypothetical readers”
5. I counter p.4 with Zebra’s direct reference to “Vapor boys” in p.2
6. Z.Jul 19,: “Piotr, you are misunderstanding what I said…“, for he he was merely asking for … “a number for the planet with water sequestered so it can not evaporate”
Huh? You say that by asking the Vapor-boys to explain what would happen if we then added water ” you were asking for … a number for the planet with water sequestered so it can not evaporate” ????
Zebra 19: “The second part, where we de-sequester some water, is what I am asking the hypothetical reader [who accepts the basic premise of GHG], and who is trying to follow the discussion between you and the Vaporistas, to think about… no calculations necessary ”
Again, you were asking …. the hypothetical reader ” how … ” the Vapor-boys would explain what would happen if we then added water ”???
And if “ no calculations are necessary” … why ask BPL for the modifications of his model. Isn’t the whole point of models – to do … calculations?
Really, really strange, from somebody repeatedly lecturing others on the effective communication. Isn’t sticking to the subject and addressing the opponent’s points – the very basis of any discussion?
zebrasays
Piotr, I said:
“The second part, where we de-sequester some water, is what I am asking the hypothetical reader [who accepts the basic premise of GHG], and who is trying to follow the discussion between you and the Vaporistas, to think about… no calculations necessary.
Either the energy in the climate system will increase, decrease, or remain the same. What do you think? (That’s the universal First Approximation.)”
Seems pretty clear that I’m talking about educating the reader.
And I’m not engaging with the Vaporists, I’m engaging with you, to point out that once someone accepts and understands the basic principles of GHG, it is easy to see the answer without doing detailed calculations. (And I see you haven’t answered the question, eh.)
Just a definitions point which I know I’ve made before…. “owning” doesn’t mean them referencing what I said in some dishonest rhetoric; it means, as I said re Victor, that when you allow the trolls to “frame” the discussion, they exercise control (own, dominate) as long as you keep responding in that context. That’s what motivates them, not really discussing science.
My advice is always to require them to agree about the basic principles first.
Piotrsays
Re: zebra 21 JUL
“[quoting Zebra 19 JUL]: The second part, where we de-sequester some water, is what I am asking the hypothetical reader [who accepts the basic premise of GHG], and who is trying to follow the discussion between you and the Vaporistas, to think about… no calculations necessary ”
Seems pretty clear that I’m talking about educating the reader.
You are calling on your after the fact DESCRIPTION of your intentions, NOT on your original post, where the honesty of this description can be tested (by their fruits, not the descriptions you shall know them). And I have ALREADY challenged your DESCRIPTION in the very post you supposedly “reply” to:
===
Piotr, Jul 19 contrasting the above quote of Zebra 19 JUL – with original words of Zebra to BPL: “Can you do the same magic for a planet with zero water […]? I’m just thinking about the Vapor-boys and how they would explain what would happen if we then added water ”
So you were asking …. “the hypothetical reader” how “ the Vapor-boys would explain ” what would happen if we then added water ”??? And if
“no calculations are necessary” … why ask BPL for the modifications of his model. Isn’t the whole point of models – to do … calculations?
===
The discussion works ONLY, if we address the arguments of the other side, NOT if we ignore them, and just repeat our original statement, as if it has not been challenged.
Zebra: 21 Jul : “And I’m not engaging with the Vaporists, I’m engaging with you”
Since you asked BPL for a model with which you could stump “the Vapor boys” – the Zebra doth protest too much, methinks. Particularly, that my point was not so much about “ engaging them” – but about being “owned by them”.
And I provided the explanation why I think you have been owned (Piotr Jun 16): “ [in response to your call to BPL to produce the model that would stump the “Vapor boys”] “Tomas … welcomed your proposal (“ Dear zebra. Thank you very much for your proposal “), as a chance to change the subject from the conclusions of the already existing model, to … potential results, that may, or may not, materialize. And by embracing your proposal – Kalisz portrays himself as open to arguments, and projects the confidence that the results of the possible future model, if ever produced, would support his claims. And if they don’t – the model can always be dismissed as too much of a simplification
With enemies playing straight into their hands like you, why would Vapor boys need friends?
zebrasays
Piotr, if you spend so much time responding to them (my definition of “being owned”, which, if you look it up, is more correct than yours), you tend to become like them.
Remember my troll test: They never answer the question.
So like them, you have written lots of words, but avoided the question.
Would system energy increase, decrease, remain the same?
Piotrsays
Zebra Jul 25: “my definition of “being owned”, if you look it up, is more correct than yours”
You may be right. But I have already moved on to the more fitting description:
see Piotr to Zebra, Jul.23: “ With enemies playing straight into their hands like you, why would Vapor boys need friends?
And I explained why I think so: [Tomas to you] “Dear zebra, Thank you very much for your proposal.” and then he used “your proposal” to draw attention away from the already existing, and much more realistic model, that contradicted his Vaporist claims, projected confidence that the results of the your proposed model, if ever produced, would support his claims, (and if they don’t, can be easily rejected for lack of realism)
So which is worse – playing into the deniers hands, or using my time saying on record why the deniers are wrong?
Zebra: Piotr, if you spend so much time responding to them, you tend to become like them.
Didn’t work this way for my spending time responding to you, now did it? ;-)
Zebra: Remember my troll test: They never answer the question.
Does it apply to the people after their original claim was challenged with the quote of their earlier words. move the goalposts and shift to … other things,
as the previous one never happened? If yes, you might … fit your test:
Your thought experiment is a calorimeter with voume V and gas pressure P. and temperature T at eqvilibrium.
I think of a glass, vacuum exicator that we often use. And to make the air absolutely dry we place a beacher of strong sutphuric acid or dry P2O5 inside.. That beacher must be closed as we start the experiment by opening beacher of water.. That will evaporate until there is exvilibrium again. No gas and no heat is passing through the walls.
The temperature will obviously sink. due to the evaporation entrophy of water. The process is endotherm.
But also for another reasonn that I saw first. The entrophy E of the system will rise.
As E= Q /T and Q = constant due to tight walls and permanence of energy, T will have to fall for E to be able to increase or Water able to go over from liquid into gaseous form in the room.
As you said, without any detailed calculation.
From that to conclude that water cools the planet is more dubious, because water also condenses and remains in the exicator that is gaseous tight, and condences in the earths atmosphere quite as much as it evaporates..
So all in all, water hardly cools the planet.
And by first approximations that you say that you like, do not “hide the decline!” as they said.
Do not hide half of the truth, but care to mention also the condensation of water.
Question:
Why do we have to use cooling water on the vapour condensers?
is for you to be to be answered without detailed calculations.
You would understand this better if you change your mind the way that I have suggested for you, and go after global cooling instead of global warming
It is not the evaporating water on the ground that cools the earth. That rainy chill that comes down and cools and eases the much too hot sunny days and even deserts is chill from deep space brought down to earth by rainy waters, actually from frozen water, ice and snow on top of the clouds high up in the troposphere even in Afrika in thick Congo and in the Caribians with the sun right from zenith down on it.
Those extreemly white clouds cool in 2 ways.
1, by the white para- sol- effect at bright midday. The planccurve of sunshile has maximum in the middle 0f visible light from 5770 K in the solar chromosphere. Visible is between 800 and 400 nanometers. For yellow, see tyhe sodium lines.
I have an incadescent qvarz halogen lamp on variable power in my lab for black body radiation light- temperature reference judgement. .
It is labeled 2700K. and can turn it down to any black body glow temperature and match by colour vision to a candle for instance. That can be checked by a thinnest copper vire melting point 1200 Celsius. Rather exactly the tip of a candle but an iron nickel wire will not melt. MP 1500 for iron.
White paper in that lamplight looks white indeed at 2700K, . But compare to the snow out of the window at grey dayli9tght,… that is obviously whiter, the lamp is clearly more yellow. Normal colour vision adapts quick spontaneously so you must compare by direct colour match.
I have seen spectrum of common incadescent lamps at full voltage. The max radiation is way out in infrared there. Thus shiny white high clouds are a very efficient white para- s0l. Even showing Fraunhofer lines in the cloudy white.
2 But they are not “white” at all in Infrared, as I also wrote you. They emit very efficiently IR on continuous thermal spectrum out to space from that heighth in the atmosphere.
The snow and the rains fall down from there and mostly at sea. Less in Sahara and on the central continents, So isolating the very earth with a Teflon IR transparent frying foil and stop all rainwater from evaporating again, and you will soon get rid of the very clouds, and earth temperature will rise to clear sky Sahara all the way.
As long as you cannot get rid of the oceans, and the winds, forget about the lands.
We are having temperatures here now in grey weather swinging around the sea temperatures in the northeast atlantic. They have been corrected back to sea the natural way both in Holland and northern Spain now, I read.
Forget that about the wet towel on the ground that cools the world by its “evapotranspiration. What cools that towel is the potencial chill from the t0p of the tr0posphere where IR radiates right to empty space,………….. that has fallen down on earth.
What cools the earth is BIG BANG all around us, not evaporating freshwater on the ground.
Top cloud temperatures on Venus in brigtht sunshine vertically right on it is – 40 celsius. here it is about -65 celsius right over Kili9manjaro at midday. Snow hurricanes and a wite enormeous chilling and condensing capacity atop of the tropical hurricanes. That falls down and cools the summer sunshine seawaters again.
Now comes Jacob Våthatt and Mari Vassause, the fameous “Dog days” from 23 july to mid August, the weightpoint of annual rain in the western european monsune. What cools it down now for autumn is not evap0transpiration on the ground but clouds and water enough in the heighth that can be cooled from BIG BANG and longer nights shorter days. By radiation of IR to space, not by evapotranspiration down low.
I cannot see that it is more of a problem than the difference between moist and dry lapserate. At grey cloudy weather the situation is cooled by chill from high above coming down on earth. Not by the evaporation entrophy -chill of water on the more moist ground. coming up and cooling us.
Moral, water is a very good carrier of heat and chill. Not a chilling or heating material. Chill and heat costs and must be supported from elsewhere.
Moral 2: Chill and heat is of another nature than molecular and massive matter. It has got other sources and causes, and is thereforen measured in newtonmeters, not in kilograms and liters.
( even Aristoteles seems to have understood that).
Kaloisz
I can say even more to it if I am permitted.
Now comes also the morning and even evening fogs and morning dews that evaporates in the sun
I have once driven into quite extreme night fogs in Bohemia at about 14 october, At a period of sunny days. That phaenomenon low fogs over the lakes and meadows at windstill in the night tells us that the meadows and waters are warmer than the air above.
Its evaporation at sunrise do not make the outdoor thermometer temperatures fall,
The summa summarum is what warms the earth and the situation nameliy normal daylight in watts per square meters, and into cubic meters of thick fog.
What cooled down the clear vapours in the bohemian landscape just north of Praha to below the dewpoint was BIG BANG near the ground even in Bohemia.
Moral 3
Better look out for and remark and try rather to give a true physical explaination to such very common and natural details of weather and 0f real climate. And you will need no models and statistics, and you can look the professionaql specialists into their chards and judge them for wherther they are autenic responsible and cunning scientists or maybe rather something very different to that however titles and names.
If they can tell about and explain elementary nature the qualitative and quantitative way that you can control for yourself, , then you can conscider whether to take them for serious and whether you have got the capacity to take their learnings. .
Because we havent got the capacity to poke and remember also all falseness and paradoxes, cheatings and “influenzer ” sales propaganda of our time..
Our late Parish Priest once gave a very vice word: “The truth is the easiest to remember!”.
If you can think of that and rather do that, then you have become a scientist yourself.
That also is our consumer protection against the alternatives.
And, as I have pointed at, you can study such timeless wisdom it in Ceskioslovensko allready.
Whether the present atmospheric models are capale of such simulations………
Yes, i really also have my doubts.
They are as much as bought, cheap and very convincing industrial electro- tools for clumsy dilettants, with half fabricata educative LEGO elements building blocks in virtual reality for the consumers and broad masses.
All nvented and purchased in norder to earn money and to stupidi- fy the people and to own them and squeeze them to pay for further central- stimulant “stuff” and sedatives/ euphorica / narcotica.
It is virtual intelligence, it is classical industrially mass produces http://www.proteses of consciousness and understanding.
Ceskoslovensko has published on it, see the ingenious ROBOT- conscept of Franz Kafka.
Vaclav Havel was also very good on automatic thought in political and social keye- positions in an alian occupied national situation. On both sides of the Tatra and in Bohemia and Moravia.
“Who rules on Hradcany, , rules Europe, Hittler procflaimed.
How true at any time.
Tomáš Kaliszsays
Dear Carbomontanus,
Just for the sake of good order, the word “robot” was not introduced by Franz Kafka but by a Czech writer Karel Čapek, in his theater piece R.U.R.
Very fine thank you. I checked up Karel capek. really Very interesting.
In fact, without knowing anything about Capeks robot idea, i once had a dream and wrote a long film manuscript about it, that was never published. “The revolution of the infallible”. And how to stop that .
Along with old and rotten scriptures,…. ( shown and referred to as Bark bug bug- prints on an old tree trunk in the summer creek…)….it all took off from Brüssel.
Namely a moovement that made humans totally infallible. By a pill, and a metal helmet over the head with curly leads over into the next network electric pole, and then press the button. Bzzzzzt with sparks,.. and they were made infallible, smiled ,….. and could not make errors anymore.
But, as human breeding is also sinful, in fact an old error according to the scriptures, , they were also unable to breed further the normal way.
, so the system had to clone its people in a special laboratory with cell cultures, from only the best genetic material of course such as fameous winter olympic winners.
. This got more and more intense until there were only a few erroreous sinful persons remaining that had to be on the run for the system control police. they were Harlekin and Pierrot and Couloumbine. Prima ballerina. from Comedia del Arte. Not yet taken. They came together in a ruin. at candlelight, because even turning the electric switch without permission would betray you.
Also Einstein was “not corrected yet” and could show up in person and tell the tiny rest of normal people what was really going on and how possibly to stop it..
Harlekin was the red nosed red haired circus clown with hanging trousers playing fiddle and the film melody all through was “Bro bro brille” where all children walk around in a ring sing that song… through a high gate made by 2 large teaqchers, where one after one is taken and sorted to A or B having to whisper the answer to a a secret question ( will you have apples or pears?) and it ends with a tug of war between A and B who is stronger.
Eistein, also a fameous friddler, borrows the very fine autentic violino from from Harlekino and performs his version. of the Bro bro brille theme for the tiny rest of all erroreous people in the world
After that, Even Einstein and Harlekin are shown taken by a Razzia.
So0 there is only Columbine & Pierrot remaining in the world and Coloumbine has got some secret sugar drops that makes you look and behave infallable alltyhough you are not, so they get through all the ticket controls on the train and Pierrot into the clooning and breeding laborarory at Hamar Coloumbine waiting outdoor on Hamar Stadion. . , where just by one human cell of himself into a Petri breeding shale for perfect cell cultures. The very system is overwon.
Einstein has told it so.
By that only one autentic and normal and sinful human cell into the system that is infallible thus unable to correct itself..
by that decicive secret ande sinful act in the central lab, follows the fameous octavial bro bro brille fanfare on cornetti wind instrument. “The emperor on his highest castle..”
I tend to beleive that the fameous Bro bro brille game is a remaining mideival dance and performedc ballade for scoolchildren aside with Divina Comedia and http://www.Draumkvedet
So it ends with thawing ice on Hamar ice stadion were all records were formerly set, showing Columbine performing figure scating under blue sky at bright daylight, . on rotten ice and new, fresh water, as the very fameous Hamar stadion is thawing away in spring.
PS
I found the music to it also for those who like music. La bergamasca. That is the bro bro brille theme.
English variety of that dance game is London bridge is falling down.
Shakespeare has used it.
La bergamasca can be used, also for solo instrument, rather Violino d amore. with understrings. When cunningly played it can make out a whole orchestra with very simple means
Found on Youtube.
Barkbeetles are called Ips typograpicus.
Would not theater and music be far more scientific than politics in real climate? DS.
I’m glad China is adding more renewable, and I’m even a little glad they’re adding more nuclear. But I would like it very much if they would stop adding coal.
Levenson
I believe there are just as bad or even worse things going on in chi9nese mining industies than coal.
It seems to me that they have acheived world monopoly on “rare earths” in their nortwestern desert areas by the ability to ignore workers and environmental health, having “Gulag” industries on resources that are hardly prophitable” by other methods known to them.
There are traditional turkish settlements there that they seem to treat the cruel way.
It may be fierceful also elsewhere in the world for the “green” revolution. Cobold mining in Katanga, and I am quite in doubt also about massive litium and copper mining in very arid south american landscapes.
USA has also got relevant resources of litium and “rare earths” but they avoid digging them because the consequenses and byproducs are too ugly. They seem ugly enough to rather give China that practical monopoly.
I scratch my head and try and think of better solutions. And have a dispute going on with my wife who dreams of electric heating under our pavement. NO! I say, we better shuffel snow and sprinkle sand .
Setting off pure hydroelectric power in large electric resistors is obsolete, I say her.
I am very proud of knowing and having saved old methods from the museums that were vital before the invention of cash . in very recent years, and that are often faster cheaper and better but takes skill and training..
I have the solid impression that the american way of life has been intensionally stupidifying now for decades, and that must be changed first of all.
It rather takes education and restoration of thought, culture, opinions., and ideas of values. . .
I am sorry that you assign me as your enemy just because I doubt about validity of your teachings with respect to the function of water cycle in climate regulation. Could you perhaps still look on my last attempt of July 19
Tomas Kalisz Jul24: “Dear Piotr, I am sorry that you assign me as your enemy just because I doubt about validity of your teachings ”
Enemy? This would require an emotional investment in you. And I don’t have a problem with you doubting my arguments, but with your inability to accept arguments even when you have no answer to them, See zebra posts about you.
Then there are your massive gaps in understanding, which make trying to explain to you anything- futile, And yet you still are unwilling to do your homework. You read answers to you and pick only the pieces that fit you, often misconstruing criticism of you as acceptance of your claims. Even more absurd – you expect that top specialists in the field will take time off their busy schedule to explain things to you, or to run models to give you your answers – when you don’t even bother to read their papers. And then there is the arrogance of assuming that without knowing the first thing about the field, you can discover things that no specialist in the field thought of.
You are like a plumber who has strong opinions on COVID and does not trust epidemiologists, and considers reading a textbook on epidemiology too much work…
Thomas Kalisz has another syntax and grammars that is his right and identity..
I do not find that he is a denialist or a troll, but seemingly with other “ways” to get into it than we may be aquainted to. Which entails another form of basic schooling and ideas of evidence and logics.
The common climate denialist and surrealist- Populist is mainly or most oftenly a dia- lectic materialist, a marxist- leninist stalinist in 3rd or 4th generation, lacking due and orderly highschool BACCALAVREVS 1 of western univerity facultary ground, and further immune to christian archetyps and dogmas. Thus easily cathetgorized in Ljeningrad by its deputee in Arbeiter und Bauernfakultät in Greifswald, now taken down. But as we know, the province is conservative (especially in the USA) and the sins of grandfathers are inherited through Mendels laws.
Thomas Kalisz may be a bastard but not of homozygote and dominant pure “race” in that respect. Thus not an incureable dia- lectic materialist- climate surrealist.
I hope that we will be able to take him up to Hradcany in Praha on national ground to the UNIVERSITAS CAROLINVM IV patent of 1348 at least, so we can assemble and concentrate on Paris conventional orthodoxy. .
nigeljsays
Carbo
I agree with you that Tomas Kalisz is not a denialist or troll, per se. I asked him whether he accepted the greenhouse effect, and that burning fossil fuels was warming the climate, etc,etc and he agreed and gave convincing, if somewhat convoluted answers. I like to take people in good faith on their answers until they prove me wrong.
However Kalisz tends to minimise the role of CO2 in the warming, (as does MS and JCM) so perhaps he is in the luke warmer category.
Piotrs criticisms of Kalisz’s evasiveness look valid to me. But that is another issue.
I’m not understanding why you think climate denialism has origins primarily in the Karl Mark / Lennon / Stalin dialectic materialism school of thought. You would need to explain a bit. Because this school of thought is on the left end of politics (economically speaking) and generally that end of politics are more accepting of the anthropogenic global warming theory than the right of politics. The Democrats in America are mildly left leaning (and liberal) and polls show they accept that humans are warming the climate more than the Republican Party (on the right and conservative end of politics). This seems to contradict your theory.
Unless you mean that the marxist / leninist school of thought became corrupted away from its original noble intentions, into an abomination of totalitarian state control and dictatorship and failed collectivist experiments and that it demanded conformity of thought making people susceptible to being manipulated by the state. And that Putin has used this to create an army of internet climate deniers and trolls which sounds very plausible. But that looks like a Russian thing to me. I cant see the same forces at work in America, which is more democratic, free market orientated and non conformist in nature (relatively speaking).
The hard core organised climate denialism in America appears to have its origins with free market, capitalist, right wing, and conservative leaning think tanks like the Heartland Institute, driven apparently by a combination of vested commercial interests in the fossil fuels industry and leanings towards small government and deregulation and against big government and environmental rules and regulations. So the Heartland Institute don’t like the implications of climate science that we are warming the climate which leads to the need for environmental rules and regulations, so they attack the science ( and climate mitigation policies).
Conservative leaning groups like the Heartland Institute are somewhat conformist and driven from the top down, and can become captive to dictatorial and populist leaders like Donald Trump, so in some respects they are like Putins Russia I guess.
While the climate denialism clearly has roots in such instincts, belief systems and ideologies peoples jobs are also a factor. A poll was taken of oil rig workers in America, and 95% didn’t believe we were warming the climate. When peoples jobs are dependent on an industry they are understandably often very defensive about suggestions the industry has to close down of course. Turkeys don’t vote for Christmas. This is like the Luddites of the industrial revolution. Of course such things are not simple. They are shades of grey and some people are more accepting of the need for change.
I tells me a lot more of how it is over there in the states.
I judge it all from local horizons on this side 0f the atloantic and there are differences and contrasts. But also clear similarities.
As for the colours, Red is the socialists and the soviet union and the labour party on this side, Blue is fror the burgeoise and the “conservatives”
Liberals and librealism is an own and 3rd party here as in Germany and England, that has allmost vanished as the labour party and the “Right wing” took over and adapted their ideas. They like to present themselves in green or yellow. Formerly there were the tories and the whigs. The “left & liberals” ” dissolved as the labour party took over their voters.
But the Party with P looks very much the same on both sides. The grand old one on behalf of the people with P, the Eagle of the Parties as declared by Lenin, and with absolute majority, with the historical warrant to rule. P for Party, Pork, People , Proletaaaaaa-r and Privileged. Further, the fameous bloodgroup P.. P for Pure , Pamp & cetera.
Kalisz will understand that. They ruled in Ceskoslovensko also in the good old days with absolute majority, hardly with any allowed opposition and kept all social keye positions without being formally qualified for it. . .
As for Heartland, I can identify them easily. It is Palace der Republik behind the wall in East berlin, now taken down.
It is not indifferent from which Chateau and from which Tank that you order your wine. Not from Chateau Heartland in Michigan and not from Thinktank there.
That ware was bought up very cheaply war surplus in large quantities on the free marked after the fall of the Berlin wall, , distilled only one more time and blended with sheere coke from Ayn Rand in California, who was daughter of a pharmacist from old Ljeningrad and who knew how. To refresh you better and give you a new personality.
It is brown coal destilled potatoe- etanol denaturated for technical purposes.
Longtime consumption develops the Brjesnjev syndrome and with sheere c0ke you loose your ground contact also.
Moral: Never tap your wine from that tank at Chateau Heartland in Michigan..
They simply share the same state religion. Pure Kapitalism and consumerism giving a damn to the very atmosphere, that can be cut by knife wherever they are in charge.
Kalisz will also remember this.
It was the dictatorship of dilettantism.
See also King Donald Grozny.
==========000
I have secured 2 stories.
One from Opa Wacker, tavern owner with legal diploma on the wall..
“You see, it goes up and down in this world. First I kept the horses in WW1, but the Emperor failed. Then with some money from home, I bought and drove Taxi in Bremen, and for that money I hired into the pub here in Ottersberg. But it was the worst rascals in the pub who took on credit and never paid back and just sat and boasted. They could not do any piece of honest work, not even carry up a case of beer for me from the cellars. (Then you get a bottle free) But then one day they got fine dressings and began commanding. Then it went downwards with our business.
But then the brittes and americans came and bombed that, and then it went upwards with the tavern again.
It tells us a lot of who they really were..
Next: A group of scientists came to Max Planc and said Professor Planc , we must write and sign under a letter to the Dept. and say that they are badgering some of our very best colleagues who get arrested or they migrate. This is of disadvantage to our land.
To which Max Planc replied sadly:
Meine Herren, if we sign under and deliver that on friday, we will find our offices and jobs taken over on monday morning allready by peculiar personel in fine suits.with brass.
This explains the dictatorship of dilettantism everywhere. It is simply caused by unqualified personel, stupid mobsters and gangsters from that Peculiar Party with P all over in societys keye roles That must be kept under strict control for unqualified and irrelevant , illegal, simple, strict and ruthless reasons..
On Your last section about turkeys not voting for chistmas.
and how that applies to oil rig workers and their opinions about CO2-AGW
Good greef, ththis is really alarming.
That is illegal employment and treatment conditions for the workers..
That shows obvious ( statistically higly significant proof by poll examination) 0f racial ideological and political and class-discrimination at the entrance and exit doors and in between,…. of workers in the oil rig worker industries in “America”.
They are obviously rigorously sorted at the entrance and exit doors and brainwashed in between, for their work.
Whih is illegal.
Kalisz reminded us of Karel Kapeks ROBOT- theory, and I could counter with my own unpublished film manuscript of the revolution of the infallibles, including Einsteins theory of how to stop that.
Piotrsays
C: “Thomas Kalisz has another syntax and grammars that is his right and identity.. I do not find that he is a denialist or a troll,”
I already said that Tomas best fits the Lenin’s term “useful idiot”. In this case – a useful idiot of fossil-fuel industrial complex, rightwing politicians, and/or Russia and Saudi Arabia countries whose economies, regimes and the ability to project power abroad would have collapsed without the world buying their oil and gas.
Thank you very much for your feedback. Let me shortly comment thereon.
1) Useful idiots
I admit that it often happens that people supporting certain idea finally find out that they helped to achieve a quite different, sometimes exactly opposite effect than they expected. I think that it may happen also to environmental activists glueing themselves on the streets. Many policies adopted under this public pressure that allegedly should counteract the climate change may in fact bring more harm than good.
Subsidies for fossil fuel replacement with so called biomass or biofuels may once quite likely serve as a prominent example. Another example may quite easily become resurrection of technically obsolete, blatantly inefficient and extremely expensive technologies for nuclear energy exploitation, pushed by nuclear industry as an allegedly helpful, „low carbon“ energy source.
I think that in comparison with medialized actions of people unintentionally supporting all this brutal lobbying for various particular private interests that may be exemplified by policies mentioned above, my questions (asked, moreover, on a website that attracts almost zero public attention) can cause a negligible harm even in case that they are indeed totally false as you suppose.
2) Global energy balance (GEB) and latent heat (LH) flow therein
If you under LW mean latent heat, I fully agree to your statement
„ .. the part of your LW (80 W/m2) that returns to Earth is already a PART of the current DLR arrow, while the rest is a PART of the current OLR arrow. “
You may be surprised but this is exactly what I strived to say from the very start of our discussion (if you do not believe, you can check my previous posts in the track of this discussion which is accessible under https://orgpad.com/s/7zfynb_y5o7 ).
3) Remaining open questions
If you agree that we finally arrived at an agreement at least in this single point, I would be happy if we clarify also the remaining misunderstanding between us.
As I already mentioned, I have a feeling that the reason why you reject assertions that LH flux “cools Earth surface” because you think that under this wording, people like me, macias shurly or JCM (“vaporists”) assume or teach that the LH flux “cools the Earth”.
Nevertheless, if you indeed think so, I would like to assure you that we have really spoken about Earth surface and its mean emission temperature, not about mean emission temperature of Earth as a planet.
In fact, I strive to express during the entire discussion an opinion that while (at least in idealized steady state situations called also “radiative equilibrium”) the Earth radiation temperature is defined only by Earth orbital parameters and intensity of solar radiation (which can be with a high accuracy considered constant during the last few decades), the emission temperature of the Earth surface is regulated by additional factors that may have changed.
Among these factors, radiative greenhouse effect of Earth atmosphere strengthened, due to increasing concentration of non-condensing greenhouse gases such as CO2. The persisting disagreement between the “vaporists” on one side and you on the other side seems to consist in following simple difference: Whereas you suppose that the Earth surface warming in the last decades is caused solely by strengthening of the radiative greenhouse effect, the “vaporists” assume that a decrease in the LH flux and/or decrease in Earth albedo caused by reduction of average cloud cover* may have contributed to the observed warming significantly. Am I right?
If so, please try to re-consider a simple example with a given GEB, e.g. such as shown in the scheme under link
and calculate average emission temperature of Earth surface for a slightly decreased LH flux and a commensurately increased radiative flux from the surface (so that the energy balances of both the surface as well as of the atmosphere remain unchanged). As a result, you will obtain an increase of the average emission temperature of the Earth surface. In an opposite case, if latent heat flux increase enables a commensurate decrease of the radiative flux from the surface, average emission temperature of Earth surface will decrease in the newly established steady state. The “planetary” emission temperature of Earth in both new steady states, however, remains the same as in the original steady state with the original ratio of the radiative and non-radiative heat flux.
In other words, the “vaporists” do not speak about any change in steady state (“equilibrium”) emission temperature of Earth as a planet*. We merely point to the circumstance that the difference between the planetary emission temperature and the respective mean emission temperature of a planetary surface depends, on planets like Earth, wherein non-radiative heat flux plays a significant role, not only on the radiative greenhouse effect but also on the non-radiative heat flux.
On Earth, prevailing part of the non-radiative heat flux is latent heat flux caused by water evaporation and condensation. Although high surface area covered by oceans makes the latent heat flow quite stable, the contribution from the land is not negligible and may be variable.
I strived to show that this contribution may be influenced by human activities in an extent that can be still significant for global steady state. I think that my example assuming an artificial “wetting” of Sahara desert showed that changes in water cycle intensity above continents might measurably change the mean emission surface temperature of Earth.
Best regards
Tomáš
*To be completely correct, if the assumed that changes in water cycle intensity are replected also in changes of the average Earth albedo – due to reduction or increase in the reflectivity of cloud cover as suggested by macias shurly, then changes in regional or global water cycle intensity could indirectly influence also the average “planetary” emission temperature of Earth.
This possibility was, however, not the subject of our previous discussion and I propose to put it aside until simpler issues discussed above are finally clarified.
1) Gaps in understanding and unwillingness to read and/or accept arguments
I apologize for the gaps in my understanding. They are the reason why I am asking my questions. As regards the objected ignorance, I can only say that I strive to read all replies posted by my opponents thoroughly and think about them. As far as I find time, I strive to read the relevant literature as well.
I referred to two articles – one that deals with modelling of the water cycle intensity influence on global climate, and another one asking questions if the present models are suitable for such task. Thus, there might be a persisting gap in understanding generally, not only on my side. Unfortunately, no one of the participants in the discussion following this first post and continuing till now addressed these original questions yet.
Instead, there formed a group of opponents, asserting either that
(i) latent heat transport cannot play any role in global mean Earth surface regulation at all (because a modification of mean Earth surface temperature due to latent heat flow would allegedly violate the energy conservation law, or, in another formulation, because the latent heat must „stay in the system“ due to alleged impermeability of upper Earth atmosphere layers with respect to heat transported in the troposphere by LE), or (including you) that
(ii) a small surface cooling effect of latent heat flux may exist, however, it is negligible in comparison with (and effectively overturned by) the greenhouse effect of water vapour, so that it (globally and any time) applies that „Earth is a water warmed planet“.
I admit that although I scrutinize the arguments presented by each opponent quite carefully and that I any time strived to explain the reasons why I do not see specific arguments consistent and convincing, I often struggle with finding the right way how to explain my point of view. Therefore, I am thankful for any feedback that helps me to recognize mistakes or possible weak points in my argumentation.
As regards my ability to accept arguments of my opponent, I am sorry that I still see discrepancies on your side. I believe, however, that as soon as I do not see a reasonable doubt anymore, I am willing to correct my opinion.
2) Water cycle intensity and global annual average of latent heat flow
To become more specific, in previous discussion about the role of latent heat flux in Earth climate regulation, I referred to the second edition (2016) of a standard textbook Physical climatology written by prof. Dennis Hartmann. I pointed to his explanation that the mean Earth surface temperature is about 15 °C (instead of about 30 °C calculated from the simplest model of the greenhouse effect) due to “vertical transport of energy by atmospheric motions” (page 33).
I understood this explanation the way that the difference between the mean Earth surface temperature and the mean emission temperature is regulated not only by surface albedo and by content of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, but also by proportion of radiative and non-radiative heat transport from the surface to the atmosphere.
I further pointed to diagrams explaining the global energy balance (GEB), such as that on page 34 of Hartmann’s Physical climatology textbook or such that is accessible under
In these diagrams, the value of the averaged latent heat flow (LE) is about 80 W/m2. I pointed to the fact that this value is consistent with the heat consumed for evaporation of about 500 000 km3 water annually from Earth surface (which is about 510 000 000 km2), and that this amount of annually evaporated water is consistent with global mean precipitation which is about 990 mm.
Nevertheless, the relationship between LE flux and mean global annual precipitation is no way my invention, I only cannot remember the source anymore from that I became aware thereof. I think that the equivalence between the average latent heat flow and the sum of annual global precipitation is seen so obvious by authors of the GEB diagrams that they desist from detailed explanations in this respect.
3) Earth surface cooling by latent heat flow
I still do not fully understand why you so fiercely strive to disprove the simple observation that the latent heat flow is an important factor in Earth climate regulation, because it decreases the difference between the mean surface temperature of Earth and its average emission temperature in comparison with the case that this difference would have been caused solely by the greenhouse effect, without any modification by non-radiative heat transport.
It is my feeling that you somehow mix “Earth surface cooling” with “Earth cooling” – that may be the reason why you so many times repeated that a significant part of latent heat flux returns to Earth surface in downwelling longwave infrared radiation (DLR).
In my opinion, there is in fact no discrepancy between surface cooling by latent heat flux on one hand and the DLR value resulting from greenhouse effect on the other hand. I only emphasized that in the above mentioned GEB diagrams, the returned part of LE is already included in the depicted DLR, whereas you insisted in your opinion that only a small part of the depicted LE actually cools the surface, because more than two thirds thereof “return back”.
In my last post, I tried to find another way how to support my opinion that any attempt to recalculate the LE with the aim to obtain the hypothetical “genuine” value thereof will destroy the entire GEB. If you take the GEB diagrams as they are and accept the LE value given therein as true, there will be only a small Earth energy imbalance (EEI) up to 1 W/m2, and no catastrophic heating or cooling of the atmosphere or any other part of Earth.
4) Decoupling between water cycle intensity and absolute air humidity
Another persisting objection from your side (against the opinion that water is not ONLY a greenhouse gas but, in fact, it plays also other comparably important roles in Earth climate regulation that may, under specific circumstances, also decrease the difference between the mean Earth surface temperature and the Earth radiative temperature resulting from the radiative greenhouse effect which is caused by greenhouse gases in the atmosphere) is that any artificial water cycle intensification must miss its intended goal (reducing the Earth surface warming), because it will be unavoidably accompanied by a commensurate absolute humidity increase.
If I understood you correctly, you assume that this absolute humidity increase will overturn the intended surface cooling (that we strived to achieve by intensified LE) due to enhancement of the radiative greenhouse effect caused by increased water vapour concentration.
I strived to show that for the contemplated water cycle intensity increase over Sahara from ca 75 mm annual evaporation to ca 1300 mm, a sufficient water atmospheric vapour pool may already exist not only globally, but also locally.
I think that the provided example gives a hint that even over hot arid areas such as Sahara (that might be perhaps quite prominent candidates for most effective artificial surface cooling by enhanced water supply), current absolute air humidity may be high enough and no substantial increase thereof must necessarily result if we arrange an additional water supply enabling the discussed artificially increased evaporation. In other words, it appears that (contrary to your assumption), even if we desist from horizontal water transport and simplify the model situantion by an assumption that all evaporated water stays localized in the Sahara region, no substantial increase of the mean regional absolute humidity above existing level may necessarily result from the assumed, heavily artificially enhanced water cycle in the region.
In this respect, I would like to remind you that I introduced the example with Sahara desert (assuming an artificial supply of about 13 000 km3 sea water annually for evaporation therein) to show that a comparable global water cycle weakening in the past might be considered as an alternative (with respect to greenhouse effect of the increasing concentration of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere) cause of the global warming (about 1 K) observed during the last few decades.
5) Concluding remark
I am aware that you can take the preceding paragraph as a further evidence that I am an agent of fossil fuel industry striving to deflect public attention from increasing CO2 concentration in the atmosphere. Nevertheless, putting aside the circumstance that broad public ignores websites like RC, I think that all my posts can be read also as a mere expression of a concern that mechanism of the observed global climate change may be more complicated as it is presented in mainstream media, and that policies based on that simplified view may very easily fail.
I still think that stepwise weakening of global water cycle in the past might be well possible. To me, arguments therefor presented by some hydrologists and biologists pointing to
(i) human caused continent deforestation,
(ii) soil destruction by improper agricultural practices, and
(iii) improper water management including wetland draining and supporting runoff from the land to sea
do not sound implausibly. Moreover, I have a concern that even in case that the global water cycle intensity might have been in fact still relatively unaffected by human activities, possible regional changes in water cycle intensity over the globe may be still very important and potentially destructive.
That is why I still think that the questions and doubts raised by Makarieva et al in their article
(which is cited by me in my first post mentioned above) may be indeed relevant and might deserve much more attention than they have attracted so far.
Greetings
Tomáš
Piotrsays
T. Kalisz JUl 26: “I believe, however, that as soon as I do not see a reasonable doubt anymore, I am willing to correct my opinion .”
Your posts say otherwise. E.g.: TK: “In my opinion, there is in fact no discrepancy between surface cooling by latent heat flux on one hand and the DLR”
Latent heat removes heat from Earth surface to atmosphere, but it DOES NOT not accumulate there (if it did – I have shown that in 16 years the temp. of atmosphere would be equal to the temp of the Sun). Instead, practically ALL latent heat deposited in the atmosphere
is radiated – most of it as a part of DLR, minority as a part of OLR. Only the OLR part of LH cools the Earth. Which means that net effect of water cycle is to WARM the Earth, hence increasing water cycle would warm Earth even more.
Which renders all your calculations utterly pointless.
Tomáš Kaliszsays
Dear Piotr,
Could you show where I asserted that the LE accumulates in the atmosphere?
This is a continuing misunderstanding on your side, I am afraid.
I merely said that in my opinion, the LE is re-distributed exactly as shown in various GEB diagrams, and that no corrections or recalculations of the energy flows given in these diagrams, as suggested by you, are necessary or appropriate.
I strive to convince you that your assertion (that in fact only a small fraction of the average LE, which is about 80 W/m2, cools the Earth surface) is unsubstantiated and erroneous,
I think so – simply because it appears that any recalculation of the LE will destroy the entire GEB. You unfortunately interpreted this remark the way that I suppose LE accumulation in the atmosphere. If you review my posts, you will find out that I have never said anything like this.
Please feel free to exploit my track of the discussion that is accessible under
T Kalisz:Jul 28 in my opinion, the LE is re-distributed exactly as shown in various GEB diagrams”
Which proves only the shallowness of your understanding – despite posting 10s(?) 100s(?) of post over several months -and throwing around scientific-sounding acronyms – you STILL DO NOT understand a simple diagram at the base of it all!
You THINK that if the LH arrow is drawn( for clarity!) in a different part of the diagram than the DLR and OLR arrows – then NONE of LH becomes a part of either DLR or OLR.
And if so – since thy draw ONLY one LH arrow into the atmosphere and NONE arrows from LH joining DLR or OLR -> then in your “understanding” NONE of the LH from atmosphere
reradiates toward the Earth and heats it.
Further, since there is only LH arrow IN, and no arrows removing that heat OUT of the atm,,
then you imply that the LH must accumulate in the atmosphere. This answers your:
TK: “ Could you show where I asserted that the LE accumulates in the atmosphere?
TK: “I strive to convince you that your assertion (that in fact only a small fraction of the average LE, which is about 80 W/m2, cools the Earth surface) is unsubstantiated and erroneous,
Good luck with that – see above and below.
TK: I think so – simply because it appears that any recalculation of the LE will destroy the entire GEB. ”
It would do no such a thing – the part of your LW (80 W/m2) that returns to Earth
is already a PART of the current DLR arrow, while the rest is a PART of the current OLR arrow.
In other words ALL SOURCES of atm. heat: absorption of Earth LR, absorption of SW, thermals and latent heat ADD TO EACH OTHER and then are reradiated either out (OLR) or back to Earth (DLR).
Further, we see on your diagram that the DLR arrow is about TWICE the OLR arrows – which means than on average (over all sources of heat to the atm.) 2/3 returns to Earth and 1/3 leaves into space. And that why I said that if the fate of LH is similar to the fate of all sources of heat in the atm. – then only 1/3 of LH cools the Earth by escaping into space – the rest being re-absorbed by Earth.
So much for your proving my argument above “unsubstantiated and erroneous“.
JCMsays
@ Tomas
It should be uncontroversial that the climate system energy balance depends largely on heat transport. The balance is achieved by heat transport from regions with a positive net radiative flux to regions with a negative radiative flux.
While not explicit in such documents, the transport of water and the corresponding latent heat transport acts also as an atmospheric dehumidifier. In steady state, the upward transport of water vapor in atmosphere must be balanced by a net downward flux of condensed water.
In a static system with atmospheric greenhouse composition solely of trace non condensing gas, the system cannot compensate for the net radiative flux imbalance at TOA. In reality, annually, the balance uses latent heat transport and associated dehumidification mechanisms.
As discussed by Kleidon, the sustained heat transport in non-equilibrium steady state maintains a maximum gradient by atmospheric heating and radiative cooling. Fajber suggests this results in a sustained net flow of energy from surface to space matching the rate of latent flux.
Perhaps one could subtract some degree of kinetic dissipation in latent flux by simple approximation of the pristine system efficiency. We have knowledge of the average hot-end and cool-end of transport i.e. 288K and 255K, and latent flux rate 80 Wm-2.
such that 80 Wm-2 * (1/255K – 1/288K) = 0.04 W K-1 m-2.
And so, technically, it could be argued <100% of latent flux is radiated considering a small fraction (a few % points) is accounted for in turbulent dissipation.
My interpretation is that there is an overarching assumption here that humanity cannot, and does not, interfere directly with latent flux process, evaporation, condensation, heat transport, and dehumidification.
It should also be noted that while the Earth is deemed a blueish planet, the oceanic surface operates close to equilibrium partitioning at al times i.e. soley temperature dependent. It is the terrestrial landscape which deviates from such simple assumption, and the blueness says nothing of condensation/dehumidification process.
“It should be noticed that while the earth is deemed a bluish planet..””
Is primitive and pointing away from all that can possibly put data and knowledge together the efficient way and give consceiveable answers to the questions the easier way.
Such actions and behaviours have also been termed “red herrings” intensionally misleading and confusing.
What about all the wite clouds over that blue marble shifting with the winds? as if the seas were a steady blue marble in balance. And winds & storms yes or no make a most dramatic difference to how fast it evaporates and the seas are being cooled again by evaporation and icy rain.
The dry lands,… the solid state mineral and botanic surfaces, its albedo and evapotranspiration and human interaction with that is hardly what matters and decides over most of it.
What about the extreeme albedo and whiteness of snow? and what about human interaction to the atmospheres content of essensial climate catalyzers by large atmospheric bulk volume? what about CO2, CH4 N2O and SO2?
The riddles are much easier cracked and given more efficient practical answers if you can rather learn about that and take that for serious,…. conscider that and discuss that,
Not minimize it or deny it or hide what really weighs and matters and the keye functional details to that, because in your alian privileged class situation you never learnt about it..
Science is quite much the art of setting problems on possibly solveable form, so why do you rather further fameous cunning political actionisms against that?
Is that for the questions not to be given right answers and for the problems not to be solved and for possibly faster, cheaper, and better, more adequate politics not to be understood?
JCMsays
“” “It should be noticed that while the earth is deemed a bluish planet..””
Is primitive and pointing away from all that can possibly put data and knowledge together the efficient way and give consceiveable answers to the questions the easier way.””
no I don’t think so. The average oceanic partitioning of LE and H is simply approximated by use of saturation vapor pressure curve and psychrometric constant (for a distributed ocean surface). Higher temps, increasingly higher rate of LE.
John P.
The downward ‘off the graph’ plot in the tweet you link-to shows a compound effect of the slow freeze-up of the Antarctic ice in 2023 along with the variation of past years’ freeze-ups for the time of year. Thus the y-axis is being measured in s.d. A more realistic measure of the anomaly in sq km is show in here in Fig 3a.
John P.says
Thanks, MA Rodger. I see what you mean now after looking at your graphs: it does look like the lower sea ice extents at the end of 2021, 2022, and then 2023 have ‘compounded’ to creating this anomaly in July.
Chuck Hughessays
@WeatherProf
Think July was hot in the desert SW? Aug says hold my beer. A monster heat dome likely by next weekend – the most intense yet this summer. Magenta indicates where all-time record heights are forecast. This on top of PHX so far beating its hottest month on record by almost 4 Fahrenheit!! 1/
So far in July PHX avg temp is 102.9
Old record 98.9 in 2020. To beat your hottest month’s temp by ~4 degrees is remarkable. Enter August… This next heat dome is forecast to be around 4 sigma. These heat “ridges” measure the column heat by how high the 500mb pressure sfc is 2/
@WeatherProf
Since hot air expands, the hotter the column is, the higher it pushes the height in which you would have to ascend to reach a pressure of 500 millibars. Now, this is just a forecast. It may not verify. But the models have had significant support for it. So it seems legit.
Since 1970, average summer temperatures have increase by 3.8F. The hottest major city in America continues to get hotter due to greenhouse warming and urban heat island effect.
John Pollacksays
Is WeatherProf a forecaster?
I advise not to count your vultures before they’re hatched, and drink your beer instead of holding it. It is a lot more common for models to produce extreme 500mb heights (say, 6000m) in the out periods of a model run than for those to actually occur at verification time. This is especially true if you pick the most extreme member of an ensemble, but also applies to many control runs. The 0.4 degree resolution in your figure is probably the latter. My forecast is for a verification time of 00 UTC Monday Aug. 7. That’s six hours later, which will make little difference in the actual 500 mb heights, but it will have the advantage of actual upper air soundings for verification – available at 00UTC but not 1800 UTC. I predict heights about 70m lower. Instead of having an approximately 6030m high centered somewhere near in northwest New Mexico, I expect a more sprawling high along an east-west axis centered farther south by about 300 km, with a central height of 5960m. You can knock off about two sigma from the extreme. The result would be a scattering of daily records, but few or no monthly records by that time. Let’s see who comes closer.
Phoenix is not representative of the Southwest U.S. as a whole. It’s observations are from an airport in the middle of a sprawling metropolis with a large heat island. That heat island gets larger and more intense as the populated area expands. It is even more intense when the whole thing is heavily air conditioned in a heat wave. For comparison, I’ll take Blythe and Needles CA. Both are low desert locations, but not subject to the same heat island as Phoenix. For July through July 29th, Needles averaged 102.1F, 3.5F above the 30-year normal. Blythe averaged 99.2F, 4.2F above normal. Phoenix averaged 103.0F, 7.3F above normal. All very hot, but that extra 3 to 4F departure at Phoenix is probably due to enhanced heat island.
That said, over 5 million people now live in the Phoenix metropolitan area, 20% more than a decade ago.
It’s a lot of people who are experiencing these extreme conditions.
“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-812735
To be clear, this is known as the First Law of Thermodynamics – the Conservation Of Energy. You can move the heat around, but with the roof on the whole will get slowly hotter.
IOW, No plan to mitigate the heat that doesn’t ALSO address the carbon we have added the the atmosphere and continue to add to it (the “roof” I refer to) will work well. It’s addressing the symptoms while avoiding the main cause, though deforestation is also involved.
“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” https://www.ipcc.ch/srccl/ and https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-59088498
See again also:
https://news.mit.edu/2015/ocean-acidification-phytoplankton-0720
https://theconversation.com/acid-oceans-are-shrinking-plankton-fuelling-faster-climate-change-121443
Mitigation schemes are merely bandages on a gaping wound, cynically designed so as to keep us addicted to FF by the fat, greedy, FF companies. Maybe (like filters on cigarettes) we should require them to build huge air filtering machines around the world to clean up the globe’s FF additions that we’ve added because their anti-alternative energy, anti-progress shenanigans all this time have kept us addicted to it (as a whole)..
I did something akin to this when I was a kid. Made a cake on my own. Too salty, so I “fixed” it by adding a bit more sugar. Then it was too sweet! Hmm. So I added a bit more salt. Rats! Then again it was too salty!! So I tried adding a bit more sugar. and so on. It eventually became a thick, greenish, rubbery, inedible mass that had to be thrown out. D:
Geoff Miell (UV thread June),
I would suggest that, unlike you, Kevin Anderson understands entirely what is being said in Box et al (2022) ‘Greenland ice sheet climate disequilibrium and committed sea-level rise’. I do not see how his statement that SLR will sit in the range 1m to 2m under +3ºC to +4ºC of AGW says otherwise.Note that he talks of “only” 1m to 2m SLR by 2100 in such circumstances, contrasting this with the multi-metre SLR commitment such a level of AGW will bring.
And while it is true that “Past performance is no guarantee of future performance,” it is no reason to ignore such “Past performance” in some demented appeal to ‘common sense’ Such ignorance is entirely non-scientific.
Perhaps I should draw your attention to the excellent NSIDC ‘Greenland Ice Sheet Today’ page. While the 2023 Greenland Surface Melt Extent did manage a daily record on 27th June (that described by Jason Box as “punching off the charts” which is perhaps overly dramatic description given the record set in 2002 for 28th June), this was not such a spectacular daily record as to yet detract from the headline message of the NSIDC post of 26th June <i<'Greenland melt season off to a modest start.'
MA Rodger: – “Note that he talks of “only” 1m to 2m SLR by 2100 in such circumstances, contrasting this with the multi-metre SLR commitment such a level of AGW will bring.”
It seems to me you are having difficulty with the comprehension of the meaning of what Kevin Anderson actually said: “So we may only across this century see one or two metres, which will be devastating for many of our coastal cities.”
The words “may only” link with “across this century”, NOT with the SLR height range.
It seems to me you only want to see what aligns with your dismissive “SLR blather” narrative.
I’d suggest “multi-metre” SLR – “multi” by definition being more than one – begins at two metres, which as Kevin Anderson said, “would be devastating for many of our coastal cities.”
I’d suggest Kevin Anderson’s statement about likely 1-2 m SLR within this century doesn’t align with 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.”
There are none so blind as those who will not see.
MA Rodger: – “And while it is true that “Past performance is no guarantee of future performance,” it is no reason to ignore such “Past performance” in some demented appeal to ‘common sense’ Such ignorance is entirely non-scientific.”
IMO, your use of the phrase “demented appeal” is ad hominem – entirely non-scientific.
Kevin Anderson said: “We have no historical precedent in human history for these sorts of temperature changes,” Thus I think the phrase I invoked; “Past performance is no guarantee of future performance,” is entirely appropriate. But it seems to me you would rather invoke insults.
MA Rodger: – “Perhaps I should draw your attention to the excellent NSIDC ‘Greenland Ice Sheet Today’ page. While the 2023 Greenland Surface Melt Extent did manage a daily record on 27th June (that described by Jason Box as “punching off the charts” which is perhaps overly dramatic description given the record set in 2002 for 28th June), this was not such a spectacular daily record as to yet detract from the headline message of the NSIDC post of 26th June <i<'Greenland melt season off to a modest start.'”
Thanks for the link to the ‘Greenland Ice Sheet Today’ page – it seems an excellent resource.
The Greenland melt season may well be off to a modest start, but I’d suggest it’s still early days. With North Atlantic SSTs at record seasonal high temperatures since early March 2023, and daily NH 2-meter air temperature also high, I’d suggest it would not be at all surprising to see modest melting rapidly change to record ice loss in the coming few months. Perhaps the Canadian wildfire smoke may moderate temperatures over Greenland? We’ll see soon. Then there’s next year, which is looking likely to be hotter still.
https://climatereanalyzer.org/clim/sst_daily/
https://climatereanalyzer.org/clim/t2_daily/
It seems to me you are having difficulty with the comprehension of the meaning of what Kevin Anderson actually said: “So we may only across this century see one or two metres, which will be devastating for many of our coastal cities.”
The words “may only” link with “across this century”, NOT with the SLR height range.
It seems to me you only want to see what aligns with your dismissive “SLR blather” narrative.
Yes. MA is exceedingly conservative in his interpretations of climate science literature. Always has been. This causes very poor analyses on his part on the regular because climate change is beyond rapid at this point. Two good examples were:
1. Regarding ASI, I predicted *on these pages* back in Aug. 2015 ASI Extent would be among the lower bounds based on the El Nino beginning that year and the assumption a. any warming phenomenon would have to have an impact on ASI and b. Pacific waters flow through the Arctic Ocean.
He, and everyone else, told me I was wrong and there was no scientific support for this. Turns out, six years later “heat bombs” from the Pacific flowing into the Arctic Ocean exist according to a study via Scripps.
2. A few years ago, we had some somewhat unusual CO2 spikes in February. Something about them struck me as a possible shift. The magnitude of them, and the timing, and that I didn’t remember them from the past. Of course, MA barked at me, “Nothing to see here, folks!” To his credit, he showed such things had occurred in the past. Of course, that doesn’t nullify a shift happening during the time we were observing.
The next year they started in February. I pointed to them again, added in other correlations (such as the somewhat unexplained low ASIE of 2020), and suggested maybe this was a more systemic change than he thought. I was correct, of course, as Winter CO2 excursions have continued.
This is a situation I predicted: A system changing faster than ever before other than bolide impacts, human actions debilitating all ecosystems simultaneously, climate sensitivity *having to be* higher than 3C, and little or no hysteresis in the system. This is completely anomalous in human and Earth history. I have issued this warning on these pages for well over a decade. Still, MA pulls back on the reins as if you and I were two crazy people whipping the horses as we approached a hairpin turn along a cliffside trail.
It’s all well and good, even necessary, to have one conservative voice among the choir for balance, but MA is dismissive, patronizing, and very much overly conservative given the risk assessment. If MA kept some balance and wasn’t so goddamned judgmental, his input would be more valuable – even though his style of analysis is downright dangerous at this point because he shouts down outlier analyses rather than working with them.
Suffice it to say, speaking as a long-time teacher of English communication and as a person that always scores in the top few percentiles of standardized tests on the verbal sections of standardized tests, your analysis of the language was spot on and MA’s was clearly biased in his editing, sadly, because to claim otherwise is to ask us to believe he uses language at an elementary school level, which he most certainly does not.
As to the science, if I am not mistaken, Kevin Anderson has stated more than 2M SLR is possible this century, as have others, including Box. I am happy to be wrong about this, but am quite sure I am not.
Cheers
Geoff Miell,
In June’s UV thread, I characterised a comment interchange on SLR as “blather” as it was effectively long-winded talk with no real substance. This resulted in a ding-dong between you and me in which you have seven-times attempted to defend such “blather” while I have attempted to correct you. I don’t see any progress is made in either endeaviour. It seems “blather” is the name of the game with you.
I could continue pointing out your error.
☻ In this latest defence of yours, you kick off by failing to note the context of Kevin Anderson’s video. He asks ‘What heve we done since 1990 (to mitigate AGW)?’ and points out that we have managed to increase annual CO2 emissions by 60% (that’s +63% annual emissions from FF 1990-2021 according to the GCP numbers) so the present trend is “we are heading towards 3 or 4 degrees centigrate of warming this century. … That is the direction of travel. Now that direction of travel doesn’t have to continue…” Anderson points to such 3 or 4 degrees centigrate AGW resulting in multi-metre SLR through the next millennium when even the 1m-to-2m SLR such warming would deliver by 2100 would be devastating.
So the “direction of travel” is not actually multi-metre SLR by 2100 (although metre-plus will be devastating enough) and that is a metre-plus SLR by 2100 which is not inevitable.
☻ You invoke the lack of precedence of the climate change resulting from AGW which is more-than a bit silly given that lack of precedence was being used to ignore data plotting said AGW.
☻ And finally, you describe the 2023 Greenland melt season as “early days” when we are about a week shy of the peak of the season (so the “early days” are now almost behind us) and then invoke the very likely ‘scorchyisimo’ 2024 resulting from the coming El Niño which is again entirely bonkers given the data plotting AGW mentioned above was demonstrating the lack of correlation between El Niño and Greenland melt.
So I could continue pointing out your error, but you evidently are not able to adjust your grand vision of the coming Armagedon to match the evidence. I see no point in continuing.
Two is multi. Your word games to defend your own scientific reticence are a disservice to the audience. Based on the 2.77 average SLR/year from 1993~2002 and the 4.62 average SLR/year from 2013-2022, I used a simple formula of a 50% increase in mm/per decade to get the same pattern we have seen over the last thirty years extrapolated to 2100. Note, this is without any increase in rate, which is extremely unrealistic.
Result? 251 centimeters by 2100.
This is a *conservative* estimate, not an apocalyptic one.
Here’s my data, done very, very simply, of course. If I’ve done the math incorrectly, please revise the result.
1993 2.77 2.77
1994 5.54 2.77
1995 8.31 2.77
1996 11.08 2.77
1997 13.85 2.77
1998 16.62 2.77
1999 19.39 2.77
2000 22.16 2.77
2001 24.93 2.77
2002 27.70 2.77
2003 31.395 3.695
2004 35.09 3.695
2005 38.785 3.695
2006 42.48 3.695
2007 46.175 3.695
2008 49.87 3.695
2009 53.565 3.695
2010 57.26 3.695
2011 60.955 3.695
2012 64.65 3.695
2013 69.27 4.62
2014 73.89 4.62
2015 78.51 4.62
2016 83.13 4.62
2017 87.75 4.62
2018 92.37 4.62
2019 96.99 4.62
2020 101.61 4.62
2021 106.23 4.62
2022 110.85 4.62
2023 117.78 6.93
2024 124.71 6.93
2025 131.64 6.93
2026 138.57 6.93
2027 145.5 6.93
2028 152.43 6.93
2029 159.36 6.93
2030 166.29 6.93
2031 173.22 6.93
2032 180.15 6.93
2033 189.39 9.24
2034 198.63 9.24
2035 207.87 9.24
2036 217.11 9.24
2037 226.35 9.24
2038 235.59 9.24
2039 244.83 9.24
2040 254.07 9.24
2041 263.31 9.24
2042 272.55 9.24 27.255
2043 286.41 13.86
2044 300.27 13.86
2045 314.13 13.86
2046 327.99 13.86
2047 341.85 13.86
2048 355.71 13.86
2049 369.57 13.86
2050 383.43 13.86
2051 397.29 13.86
2052 411.15 13.86 41.115
2053 429.63 18.48
2054 448.11 18.48
2055 466.59 18.48
2056 485.07 18.48
2057 503.55 18.48
2058 522.03 18.48
2059 540.51 18.48
2060 558.99 18.48
2061 577.47 18.48
2062 595.95 18.48 59.59
2063 623.67 27.72
2064 651.39 27.72
2065 679.11 27.72
2066 706.83 27.72
2067 734.55 27.72
2068 762.27 27.72
2069 789.99 27.72
2070 817.71 27.72
2071 845.43 27.72
2072 873.15 27.72
2073 900.87 27.72
2074 942.45 41.58 94.24
2075 984.03 41.58
2076 1025.61 41.58
2077 1067.19 41.58
2078 1108.77 41.58
2079 1150.35 41.58
2080 1191.93 41.58
2081 1233.51 41.58
2082 1275.09 41.58
2083 1316.67 41.58
2084 1358.25 41.58
2085 1420.62 62.37 142.062
2086 1482.99 62.37
2087 1545.36 62.37
2088 1607.73 62.37
2089 1670.1 62.37
2090 1732.47 62.37
2091 1794.84 62.37
2092 1857.21 62.37
2093 1919.58 62.37
2094 1981.95 62.37
2095 2044.32 62.37
2096 2137.87 93.555 213.7875
2097 2231.43 93.555
2098 2324.98 93.555
2099 2418.54 93.555
2100 2512.09 93.555 251.2095
This is what ChatGPT came up with given NOAA data and data in a recent article on SLR.
Total sea level rise from 2002 to 2023: 10.1 cm (or 101 mm)
Current rate of sea level rise: 3.99 mm/yr
Sea level rise in 1992: approximately 2.77 mm/yr
First, we need to calculate the rate of increase per year from 1992 to 2002. To do that, we can subtract the sea level rise in 1992 from the total sea level rise from 2002 to 2023 and divide it by the 10-year period:
Rate of increase per year from 1992 to 2002 = (Total sea level rise from 2002 to 2023 – Sea level rise in 1992) / 10 years
= (101 mm – 2.77 mm/yr * 10 years) / 10 years
= (101 mm – 27.7 mm) / 10 years
= 7.23 mm/yr
Now, let’s extrapolate the sea level rise to 2100 based on the current rate of increase per year and the rate of increase per year from 1992 to 2002. We will assume a linear extrapolation for simplicity, although it’s important to note that sea level rise projections can be subject to various factors and uncertainties.
Extrapolated sea level rise in 2100 = Sea level rise in 2023 + (Current rate of increase per year + Rate of increase per year from 1992 to 2002) * (Year in 2100 – Year in 2023)
Extrapolated sea level rise in 2100 = 101 mm + (3.99 mm/yr + 7.23 mm/yr) * (2100 – 2023)
Extrapolated sea level rise in 2100 = 101 mm + 11.22 mm/yr * 77 years
Using a calculator or spreadsheet, we can evaluate this expression:
Extrapolated sea level rise in 2100 ≈ 101 mm + 865.94 mm
Extrapolated sea level rise in 2100 ≈ 966.94 mm
Therefore, based on the given information and assuming a linear extrapolation, the extrapolated sea level rise in 2100 would be approximately 966.94 mm, or approximately 96.7 cm.
I repeat:
“Durch nichts trägt sich die Mangel an matematischer Bildeung deutlicher zus Kenntnis wie durch masslosse Genauitgkeit in den Rechenschaften!”
SANN!
Killian,
You are here actually addressing me rather than just bad-mouthing my judgement. So perhaps your comment warrants a reply.
You insist “Two is multi.” which is true. And five and seven and ten are also “multi.” So I would suggest describing a projected-or-whatever SLR of 2m as ‘multi-metre’ is a very poor description.
I’m not sure what all the rest of your comment is inspired by our new friend ChatGPT.
Identfying the acceleration in SLR is not so straightforward. (See this CarbonBrief ‘explainer’ from 2019 which suggests the acceleration is a linear 0.1mm/y/y, a value matching the satellite data 1993-2022 and yielding a 1993-2100 SLR of +0.75m.). I don’t see any evidence for an exponential increase in the satellite SLR data but that doesn’t stop such a fit. (See this NASA graphic which is showing an acceleration of 2.6%/y, yielding a 1993-2100 SLR of +1.2m.)
But do note the 2100 SLR is strongly dependent on the level of AGW we inflict on the world between now & then. Note the final graphic in the CarbonBrief ‘Explainer’ which shows strong acceleration only under RCP8.5.
In that context, your big long column of numbers presents a curious mix of stepped linear and exponential SLR increase, the exponential section providing the heavy lifting and, with a doubling-time of 20y, it is far from the *conservative* estimate you describe it as.
The calculation below the big long column of numbers is entirely incoherent in application. If a linear ΔSLR is adopted with SLR(1992)=2.77mm/y and ΣSLR (2002-23)=101mm, then surely SLR (2002-23)=2.77 x 21y + [11 x 21y + 0.5 x 21y^2] x ΔSLR or ΔSLR=0.95mm/y/y. So that would not be greatly different from the 1993-2100 SLR = +0.75m of the linear acceleration presented above of 0.1mm/y/y.
MA Rodger: – “But do note the 2100 SLR is strongly dependent on the level of AGW we inflict on the world between now & then. Note the final graphic in the CarbonBrief ‘Explainer’ which shows strong acceleration only under RCP8.5.”
Professor Jason Box posted on 16 Jul 2023 another informative YouTube video titled insane flooding rain to Greenland – rapids in an atmospheric river, duration 0:11:26. Prof Box talks about 16 extreme rainfall events (i.e. ≥300 mm of rainfall within a 24-hour period) observed in Greenland since 1991. Extreme rainfall ‘darkens’ the surface snow, inducing more heat adsorption on following sunny days, elevating melting rates for days/weeks. IMO, this is an excellent presentation discussing atmospheric ‘river’ rapids that instrumentation is now observing in greater detail in southern Greenland (and apparently also in Antarctica).
Prof Box suggests extreme rainfall events on the Greenland & Antarctic ice sheets, already being observed, and the consequent impacts, haven’t been accounted for in the ice sheet melt rate modellings.
As global mean warming inevitably continues more extreme rainfall events are likely, softening the snow/ice faster, inducing surface ‘darkening’ and hydro-fracturing the ice, which will likely accelerate ice sheet melt rates (faster than the modelling that the CarbonBrief ‘Explainer’ shows), thus substantially increasing SLR contributions in the years/decades to come.
I note that below the CarbonBrief ‘Explainer’, in the comments section, included from John Englander (bold text my emphasis):
Geoff Miell,
For myself, I am not very interested in the rabbit holes you present here to investigate.
Your commenter of from 4 years ago on the CarbonBrief SLR Explainer page sits alongside others that I wouldn’t give the time of day. Mind your commenter John Englander is published and co-authored Siegert et al (2020) ‘Twenty-first century sea-level rise could exceed IPCC projections for strong-warming futures’ which concludes that the now-significant ice-loss contribution to SLR from the polar ice caps is tracking along the upper IPCC projections (see their Fig 1) and with other considerations…
MA Rodger: – “Your commenter of from 4 years ago on the CarbonBrief SLR Explainer page sits alongside others that I wouldn’t give the time of day.”
Are you saying you wouldn’t give the time of day to John Englander? Why?
MA Rodger: – “This is far from a doomsday prediction.”
As you note, John Englander is a co-author together with Martin Siegert, Richard B. Alley, Eric Rignot & Robert Corell of their 18 Dec 2020 paper titled Twenty-first century sea-level rise could exceed IPCC projections for strong-warming futures. Thanks for highlighting this paper. The paper’s summary included (bold text my emphasis):
And just below Box 1 (bold text my emphasis):
I don’t think you are helping support your original argument that: “I would characterise SLR blather in this comment thread with talk of doubling times as being multi-metre blather and rather pointless.”
ICYMI, CNN reported in an article headlined Long-lost Greenland ice core suggests potential for disastrous sea level rise on 20 Jul 2023, including:
https://edition.cnn.com/2023/07/20/world/greenland-ice-sheet-melt-sea-level-rise-climate
MA Rodger: – “There is no reason to be complacent and simply assume that balance will continue with the positive with the negative matching so closely.‘
I’d suggest accumulating evidence/data for multi-metre SLR by 2100 is increasingly likely.
I would like to bring an additional perspective to the discussion about SLR and melting of continental ice sheets (Greenland, Antarctica).
I am heavily influenced by these two publications showing a very rapid sea level rise toward the end of the last interglacial, approximately 119k yr ago. The SLR earlier in the interglacial already brought the prevailing sea level about 3m higher than present levels. The final surge brought sea level to at least 6m https://www.nature.com/articles/nature07933
and probably 9m https://www.nature.com/articles/ngeo1890?proof=trueMay.
above present levels! This surge happened rapidly enough that coral growth couldn’t keep up with SLR.
We are in the early stages of a very large SLR. There is a natural mechanism for destabilizing the Greenland and/or Antarctic Ice Sheets that is fairly fast-acting on a human time scale. We don’t know if that mechanism has actually been inevitably triggered yet, or we’re merely getting hints of it so far. In either case, it seems pointless to focus on what limited SLR has occurred up to now, and whether it fits a linear, quadratic (acceleration) or exponential model. I suggest that the real world is telling us that the process is chaotic, regardless of what the early stages look like. We don’t know just when it will really hit hard, this time around. I’ll have more about glacial models in another post.
The driver of SLR this time is of course the abrupt rise in greenhouse gases. Talk of equilibrium climate sensitivity seems premature when we’re going to be out of equilibrium for a prolonged period. In the last interglacial, the big driver seems to have been increased obliquity. This has the effect of providing higher incoming insolation at high latitudes during the summer, with less available at low latitudes. This apparently allowed a warmer polar climate than we have currently, even with a maximum CO2 concentration around 300 ppm. This would have also have led to enhanced ice-albedo feedback as darker surfaces absorbed extra summer solar radiation.
Note that even though the poles were somewhat warmer than at present, (evidenced by 3m higher sea level) it didn’t set off a large carbon bomb. We know that from CO2 levels in Antarctic ice, which don’t show any drastic peaks. Qualitatively, the big melt this time will be driven relatively more by heat transport from lower latitudes. This would include both ocean currents and atmospheric rivers, of course. It also suggests that the tropics could already be as hot or hotter than during the last peak, and are still on the way up. The greenhouse gas levels we’ve already reached are very frightening from this perspective. However, society in general seems to be little motivated to put on the brakes, regardless of future consequences.
John Pollack,
(Do note that the ding-dong you describe as “the discussion about SLR and melting of continental ice sheets (Greenland, Antarctica)” was in my understanding specifically wrestling with the SLR by 2100 from Greenland given today’s level of AGW (so the ‘baked-in’ SLR and not any further projected AGW to 2100) and whether it was accurate to say the science was showing this SLR by 2100 as being ‘multi-metre.’)
It would be surely difficult not to agree that increasing AGW threatens to destabilize Antarctic/Greenland ice sheets and thus that it would deliver multi-metre SLR as witnessed in the Eemian SLR data.
Yet linking-in the evidence of the Eemian SLR into the 2100 SLR ‘discussion’ requires the evidence of how quickly such ‘destabilized’ SLR will be. (One of the two sources linked above appears to give some information on this. Blanchon et al (2009) with its 119kybp SLR of 3m talks of 36mm/y although the references given supporting this value give different values, ie +45mm/y.)
There is also a need to check that the ice sheets present prior to this rapid 119kybp SLR are ‘equivalent’ to the Antarctic/Greenland ice sheets under threat from AGW today. What we don’t know well with the Eemian is the start-point of this 119kybp SLR in terms of the Antarctic/Greenland ice sheets. So the likes of Yau et al (2016), in saying ”Greenland likely did not contribute to anomalously high sea levels at ∼127 ka, or to a rapid jump in sea level at ∼120 ka.” may be indicating the threat of a repeat of the Eemian rests in Antarctica, but that would be an Antarctica with presumably a lot more ice stacked on it relative to today (as there was a lot less ice stacked on Greenland back then).
The likes of the long review paper Noble et al (2020) ‘The Sensitivity of the Antarctic Ice Sheet to a Changing
Climate: Past, Present, and Future’ point to an urgent need for more research on the subject.
Again, temperatures, both in history and prehistory, have been very well correlated:
https://midmiocene.files.wordpress.com/2023/05/fullsizeoutput_1c16.jpeg
patrick Jun.30: I do disagree that clouds are the only contributor to surface cooling response”
I didn’t say that – I responded to your “[The RC water cycle geoengineering proponents ] – are not completely wrong: [because] of cooling effect ( w/ significant contribution from cloud cover) from irrigation.”
by pointing that calculations by both Kalisz and Shurly implicitly excluded the effect of irrigation on cloud cover).
patrick: “One study (cited in Puma and Cook) used ~100 times the irrigation amount to achieve a global land average cooling of 1.310 K
Which again supports my point. Based on Tomas and Shurly’s assumption that 1oo% of latent heat escapes into space, Tomas calculated that to counter GW we need latent heat from 13x the current irrigation. I pointed that only a fraction of latent heat escapes to space. Since only ~1/3 of all energy put into atmosphere is radiated into space – if we were to use this number to the latent heat – then instead of 13x irrigation, we would need 40x irrigation. To reduce the temp. over land by 1.31 K, i.e. not that far to the current warming over land –
your source (Puma and Cook) used ~100x the irrigation, thus proving my point that Tomas with his 13x – severely underestimated the amount of water that would have to be evaporated to “neutralize”.
And the higher the volume of water that needs to be evaporated – the bigger the difficulty and the more massive the cost. Which puts a dent in yours:
“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”
since if we devote such massive resources to B (increasing the irrigation by 100 TIMES!), then it would divert a lot of resources from doing A (=GHG mitigation), meaning we won’t be able to commit to A regardless“
Yes, my comment was a bit sloppy on a few points. I had thought Kalisz had mentioned clouds. You allowed that the LH flux itself can have an effect on sfc T. I noted my position on geoengineering in a few other Jun comments, with more clarity (I’m open to marginal usage of various ideas, but not the large-scale massive irrigation increase, especially not in the Sahara; of course wetland restoration (unfortunately limited by our land usage needs) and reducing UHI, etc. make sense for additional reasons; we will need to irrigate our crops to some extent anyway – but efficiently; etc. – For big impacts, my preference is for CO2 sequestration itself (which should continue even after getting completely off fossil fuels, etc., and on that point, ocean fertilization – if it works – would still involve messing with ecosystems, so adverse side effects are still a possibility; OTOH, it could become a sort of quasi-sustainable(?) aquaculture for feeding people (at least until population levels fall back to ?)… I had suggesting a solar geoengineering scheme just to limit SLR, not to cool the whole globe – to be employed later – if it could be done; not counting on it:
https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2023/06/unforced-variations-jun-2023/#comment-812722 ). …
On that last idea – I was thinking of horizontal area when I noted the tendency for OLR effects > SW effects at higher latitudes; of course an area facing the sun would be better in terms of this and materials/etc.
I recently found this RC post: https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2022/09/a-ceres-of-fortunate-events/ (**macias shurly might like to see this)
– where your comment:
https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2022/09/a-ceres-of-fortunate-events/#comment-806119 – last paragraph, shows a willingness to allow a limited application of geoengineering as a “stop-gap” measure, which is somewhat like what I was thinking regarding doing B with a commitment to A.
—
Puma and Cook ( https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1029/2010JD014122 ):
https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2023/06/unforced-variations-jun-2023/#comment-812414
Clarification: The 100x figure was they’re citing Lobell et al 2006:
Biogeophysical impacts of cropland management changes on climate
https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/2005GL025492
But on my point regarding the role of LH, I think your analysis using the 1/3 escape to Space ratio doesn’t quite apply here, because:
When an additional LH flux from the surface is initially ‘turned on’, setting aside changes in atmospheric and surface composition (or texture, etc.), there is no radiant effect because temperatures have not changed. So the surface cools and the troposphere warms. There is no effect on OLR initially. As the temperature changes, emission of radiation changes; this increases the upward emission to
Space from some of the troposphere, and the backradiation AND reduces the upward emission from the surface; it would (I expect) also reduce the SH flux from the surface. A new convective lapse rate is being established wherein the surface and some part of the lower troposphere are cooler and upper troposphere is warmer. The OLR may change; assuming a greater heat capacity at the surface (and the equilibrium warming of the upper troposphere is not too large relative to the cooling below), OLR may tend to increase during the transition to a new equilibrium (this is when the ‘escape to Space’ may be considered to occur). When equilibrium is achieved, the OLR is back to what it was before, with the net radiant cooling vertically redistributed (column total = OLR flux); the change in LH flux (at every vertical level) must be completely balanced by opposing changes in net LW flux and SH flux, because solar heating is the same (until we consider the radiative effects of H2O vapor, clouds, etc.). The ratio of atmospheric emission to Space to combined [direct atmospheric solar heating + emission of LW radiation absorbed in the atmosphere + LH and SH (net) fluxes from the surface] could be different in this new equilibrium, and I’m not sure if the 1/3 ratio would come up during the transition.
Patrick: JUL 5 “But on my point regarding the role of LH, I think your analysis using the 1/3 escape to Space ratio doesn’t quite apply here, because
Except that my goal was NOT to give the exact value of LH escaping into a space (your “OLW”?),but to explain to Tomas and Shurly why their implicit assumption that 100% of LH escapes into space – is wrong. For that, I deemed ~1/3 of averaged over all sources of heat to the atmosphere, as sufficient.
Of course, this ratio for any of the 4 individual fluxes (solar SW, Earth’s LW, LH, Sensible H) may be different than 1/3. In general – if the heat can It depends on the height where a given flux is first reradiated from : the higher it happens, the higher the % that would ultimately escape into space, as the will be fewer absorption-reradiation events on the way toward the space,
E.g. ozone layer is quite high, so for solar SW absorbed by stratospheric ozone that % probably considerably higher than 1/3. LH that does not make it into stratosphere hence should have value than ozone.
To get the exact value for LH would require a realistic model to quantify the changes
in outgoing into space LW from incremental changes in LH. But again – this was not
my goal – all I needed was to show to Tomas and Shurly that is not the 100% they assumed in their calculations.
In fact, if we take Shurly’s own calculations using radiative of Schmidt et al. 2010 paper
and take LH from Trenberth (78W/m2)
– then within Shurly’s own argument unless more than 94% of LH
is escaping into space – the net effect would be the net warming, thus questioning
Shurly’s confident claim: “The earth is a water-cooled planet – whether you like it or not”.
Again – I am not claiming that Schmidt et. al paper, accounted for all the indirect effect you are talking about – I merely question the calculations and conclusions by Shurly from that Schmidt et al paper he used, i.e. within Shurly’s OWN argument.
And it seems effective since after that Shurly …. has abandoned his own calculations based on Schmidt et al., in favour of … some graph that …. lumps irrigation with albedo change ;-)
But about the problems with his interpretation of that graph – I’ll write separately.
@ Thomas Kalisz
Your last remarks of June 23 are interesting, but then the month was over.
I share your concerns and worries on many points, but I phantacize in terms of different solutions.
As for climate research communication, I have been concerned that the IPCC guidelines for decisionmakers have been too simple and rigid and without uncertainty concerns from the beginning, but I see also the semantic question and for whoom it is meant to be understood, namely the enlighted highscool student with legal Baccalaureus 1 Diploma from worldwide, and by that wiew it seems OK.
The mobsters on their side and who shirked their education and diploma and rather had that from the Party with P will feel heavily frustrated and feel in charge to throw themselves on the cateter and start teaching against it..
Al Gore was quite ingenious. Just because of a microscopic election loss in Florida, he drove up the very hollywood and took strangle grip on
1, the american way of life
2, the Chineese way of life and
3, the oil pipeline between Saudi Arabia and Pentagon.
Strangle grip, beat that!
Ad did set Guinness world recotrd of conspiration.
And that may feel ugly for millions and other millions of incureable Partisans with P in the west as in the east.
I am also in high doubt about the love and popularity of batteries mega windmills and solar cell parks, its full material and environmental costs and footprints, and actually believe more in the combustion engine, especially the Diesel, that is updated and refined to its limits in our days by rather easy means. It only needs better fuel now, and that is a task for chemistery. I believe solar and nuclear can solve it. .
Together witt resigning on unnecessary and sinful, luxurious misuse of materials and energy, and especially its performance against the premise conditions of wind and weathers day and night summer and winter.
Necessary heating processes should be located where waste heat is needed especially in winter and there is also icewater enough for cooling.
Todays luxurious lifestyles were developed and consceived to the premisses of James Watts doubble action steam engine with a huge expensive boiler and mechanical delivery of energy to a “factory” where all the “workers” must assemble at 0700 and home again at 1900 with 1/2 hour eating pause in between . And one week vacation each year at Costa, at Krim. ( or Yugoslavia).
when will we have time for blueberry strawberry raspberry and mushrom – picking?
During the Covid 19 campaign people were told to have “home office..” and not come together in their “factories”. The “Tramvajs” of Praha must have suddenly stood still in the rush hours
As if there is any such thing as the common worker anymore? and ever were? and as if every common worker of today is an intellectual clerk officer at a table in an office with a laptop computer and papers ? who can make “home office” ?
There is obvious and …… manifest…… silli- ness round about most elementary things and that is a worst and most accute environmental problem that must be settled first.
That is my humble opinion.
It follows from the industrialization of thought in pre- electrical time to keep up with the steampressure of James Watts enormeous one and only iron horse in the one and only “factory” at the one and only assembly line inside there. that should ease all the peoples work and earnings. . .
One must learn again tom CARPE DIEM and wait for the opportunity, stay ready and wait for the wind for when to sail and for water for when to mill and know how to rather do something useful in between.
In Re to
https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2023/07/unforced-variations-july-2023/#comment-812872
Dear Carbomontanus,
In my opinion, you may be correct in that Diesel engine has not said its last word yet, and may be still among relevant technical means for the future, hopefully more sustainable human society if run with a suitable “environmentally friendly” fuel.
I do not think that such fuel can be a hydrocarbon, because I do not believe in possibility of an energetically (and economically) feasible carbon dioxide recycling.
Nevertheless, American inventor Stephen Skala
https://worldwide.espacenet.com/publicationDetails/biblio?DB=EPODOC&II=30&ND=3&adjacent=true&locale=en_EP&FT=D&date=19770503&CC=US&NR=4020798A&KC=A#
https://worldwide.espacenet.com/publicationDetails/biblio?DB=EPODOC&II=34&ND=3&adjacent=true&locale=en_EP&FT=D&date=19751007&CC=US&NR=3911288A&KC=A#
https://worldwide.espacenet.com/publicationDetails/biblio?DB=EPODOC&II=44&ND=3&adjacent=true&locale=en_EP&FT=D&date=19830111&CC=US&NR=4367698A&KC=A#
https://worldwide.espacenet.com/publicationDetails/biblio?DB=EPODOC&II=49&ND=3&adjacent=true&locale=en_EP&FT=D&date=19820713&CC=US&NR=4338785A&KC=A#
proposed in time of the first oil shock that such fuel might be molten sodium (or a sodium-potassium alloy that needs less sophisticated thermal insulation for fuel tanks because the eutectic point in the Na-K phase diagram is below 0 °C).
The sodium metal can be re-cycled by direct electrolysis of NaOH which is product of its reaction with water and oxygen:
https://worldwide.espacenet.com/publicationDetails/biblio?DB=EPODOC&II=40&ND=3&adjacent=true&locale=en_EP&FT=D&date=19830621&CC=US&NR=4389287A&KC=A#
Sodium and/or potassium are thus true “electrofuels”, directly recyclable by electrolysis, in contrast to hydrocarbons that are still obtainable from carbon dioxide only indirectly, by a series of laborious irreversible chemical conversions causing huge energy losses and consequently low efficiency of such energy storage.
Greetings
Tom
P.S.
For further details and a broader context, see also my orgpage to energy storage in abundant alkali metals:
https://orgpad.com/s/5BfLP-cxj-7
Hr Kalisz
Yes, but metallic sodium and potassium is extreemly dangerous, corrosive and inflameable.
I like the alkali metals more in the carbonate and bicarbonate form., eventually in the form of pure potassium nitrate for gunpowder..
Bohemian cristal is a speciality as they hardly had Soda, but enough of Potash in the glass factories and could refine and use that instead. It showed to be the finer luxury glasses.
But “Potash” it is not K2CO3. “Potash ” is rather a sodium potassium phosphate Na K H PO4 . x H2O. with some colloidal SiO2- hydrate carbonate. It just makes the soaps better and the glasses finer.
Weinstein, Potassium tartrate , the tartaric acid salt of potassium settes in the finest white wine bottles, and is a signal of highest pure quality on Eiffel volcanic ash ground.
Potassium is essencial for human and animal health and welfare in the climate,
But not necessarily in the form of Vino Biancho. . Apple squash more or less bubbled and preserved may be even stronjger in regard to Potassium, And water melons is further a really good source of potassium.
The cucurbitaceae together with the apples plums and pears are especially rich on Potassium, thus must be intensely recommended in addition to it wherever Vino Biancho is mentioned
When you serve vino biancho and champagne on the table for celebration, put also a bottle of elementary harvested sorted milled and and squeezed and pasteurized apples beneith it and look what people preferre and like, what goes away first.
Advanced, strong autentic especially also choisest stolen wild apples are just as fine in peoples opinions.
Then you must salt it, and there we have crabs and oysters and lobsters unsalted. They are
simply warmed or even “marinated” in their own seawater and served fresh without any further spices.
A Pilsner to it is often what does it especially for shrimps and crabs. It is as simple as that.
Why go to Krim for Sekt if you have all this at home..
But, for this, we must have our climate in order.
I look forwad to being able to run the Diesel engine simply on straw and twigs. As I wrote, we went over the mountains and back again on much less than one tank, in a 4cyl top valved high compression Ford Diesel van… I feel comfortable with that “torch” and sound, and it does not smoke uphill. anymore.
Diesel of today has really high quality and is what Rudolf Diesel intended. They only need better fuel now, and we can gladly pay it as they neither smoke nor drink.
We have got the same in the boat at last. 4 stroke top valved 2 cyl Yanmar with swirl chamber. neither smoking nor drinking just working and the fuel budget has become neglectible for us after so many years..
The coordinated focus of climate communication on forest fire and heat induced respiratory distress may risk collateral damage from two new syndromes; styled FOGO and FOLGO
https://vvattsupwiththat.blogspot.com/2023/06/unbearable-fogo-of-folgo.html
Thomas Kalisz, (your comment on last months UV page @ July 1 on biomass etc, etc.)
Thanks for the clarifications. Your comments in that post most were much more convincing overall with the exception I just see the irrigation and evapotranspiration thing as having very limited application as a mitigation tool. .It will help obviously, but there are huge problems in using at at huge scale.
I agree that burning biomass ( timber, wood pellets etc, etc) does not make much sense as a climate mitigation tool for the reasons you stated. Biofuels made form things like corn also seem to have limited usefulness due to resource limits. Because of the limits in producing biofuels, I believe they should be used for things that are very hard to decarbonise like air travel. Adding them to automobile petrol makes no sense to me at all. It sounds like a feel good political decision and just perpetuates ICE vehicles.
Regarding the challenge of wind and solar power intermittency issues, and and mass energy storage for things like long periods of low wind or sunlight and seasonal issues. Another solution is electrofuels. They are carbon neutral and could be stored long term and used in gas fired plant.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electrofuel
Dear nigelj,
Many thanks for your comment.
I would like to add a remark regarding so called “electrofuels”. I added the quotation marks because no one can directly convert electricity into a hydrocarbon, or oppositely. It has its consequences in poor efficiency and economy of such energy storage.
It is important to keep in mind that if we convert precious “clean” electricity from renewable energy sources into hydrogen by water electrolysis, any further purely chemical conversion thereof irreversibly dissipates a significant part of the saved energy into heat. One-step conversions like HaberBosch ammonia synthesis or Sabatier carbon dioxide conversion into methane thus consume about 25-30 % electricity saved originally in H2.
The only “true” commercially available electrofuel is thus hydrogen which can be produced directly by water electrolysis and directly converted back into water and electricity in electrochemical fuel cells. These devices theoretically do allow efficiencies close to 100 %, in practice, however, suffer from electrochemical inactivity of hydrogen that can be still overcome in a limited extent only, using expensive precious metal catalysts like platinum and with a trade-off between power and size of the device on one hand and its efficiency on the other hand.
Alkali metals like sodium do not suffer from this disadvantage and making the sodium fuel cell commercially available thus can provide a significantly cheaper seasonal electricity storage than hydrogen.
Hydrocarbon “electrofuels” are nothing else than brutal lobbying of the established automotive industry – an enormous wasting with valuable electricity with a practically zero perspective of a competitiveness with fossil fuels, I am afraid.
Greetings
Tomáš
Kalisz
There is still another option valid for worldwide, that should be mentioned.
I was casting bronse in our wooden stove, that is very prasctical. I only do thast now and then and can thus resign on a large bottle 0f propane gas with furnace simply by wreckboards and chopped firewood, a good heating stove and chimney, and resign also on tropical woods.
My wife came and said “Why are you heating fiercely now in summer? do that in the winter!
Which is right. That chopped and pelleted firewood is really very valuable, and should be burnt at high temperatures only at times when one can also take care of the waste heat. and will have to heat for several purposes all the time in any case.
A man, it is told, was living on the top of the main stove in the fameous brick factory, …. in the winter
at least……,… they have obviously known how to use the heat at all its temperatures before. They could not afford anything better……
A smallest glass furnace drains 15 kilowatts all the time all around the clock and the year, That goes right into the chimney and the room to be ventilated in summer.. How many supermarkets or human appartments could be heated by that? Or how many greenhouses in winter?
But they are more aware of it again in modern industry. The artistic glass factory belongs in the cellar of an appartment block where they can sell off the waste heat also. .
The very difficult energy storage problems are largely the product of methods procedures and lifestyles that were consciously invented and designed in order to get independent of wind and weather and water and seasons. Mitigation to climate change should entail some reversing of that, that became possible through coal and cokes industry
Kalisz
Element nr 6 Carbon is also a practical one with all in all 4 oxidation states of high entalphy, and a high and fameous affinity also to hydrogen.
Don`t discriminate the 6th element only for religious, political, and moral progressive reasons. .
For the light metals, I rather believe in aluminium and magnesium.
In Re to
https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2023/06/unforced-variations-jun-2023/comment-page-2/#comment-812854
Dear Piotr,
Thank you for clarifying your objection.
I do understand now that the root cause of continuing misunderstanding between us was my imprecise explanation of the equivalence between global annual precipitation and the average latent heat flow.
If the average air humidity stays constant, 990 mm of the average annual precipitation corresponds evaporation 990 L water from each square meter of Earth surface. It corresponds ca 2.7 L from each square meter per day. As the enthalpy of water evaporation is ca 0.7 kWh/L, the necessary energy is about 1.9 kWh, ca 6 840 000 J. One day has 86 400 seconds, 6 840 000 J divided by 86 400 s gives the average latent heat flow ca 79 W/m2.
I still assume that if the mean annual precipitation is ca 36 times higher than the entire water content in the atmosphere, it can be taken as a hint that water circulates between the surface and the atmosphere quickly – the entire atmospheric water is exchanged in average every ten days. I cannot provide a perfect explanation, I take the decoupling of the water cycle intensity from the average air humidity as an empirical observation.
I therefore assume that whereas the average absolute humidity depends on global average temperature, water cycle intensity depends rather on the rate of water and energy supply.
Greetings
Tomáš
Piotr’s point was that the flux (cycling rate) and reservoir (amount in atmosphere) are in different units so it doesn’t make since to say one is larger than the other. You have compared them by taking the ratio of reservoir to flux, and thus found the residence time, which is a reasonable thing to do. It is much shorter than a year, much longer than an hour.
This does not say anything about the decoupling of the two (reservoir and flux). If the residence time were constant, the reservoir would have to remain proportional to the flux. It so happens that the residence time is expected to increase in response to increased CO2, maybe global warming in general?? – but solar forcing would have a different effect (increased solar heating would tend to increase the flux more than increased GHGs would, AFAIK, if my understanding is correct). So you are at least somewhat correct: the cycling rate and amount depend on different things (energy fluxes and temperature, roughly) – but it is complicated (4+D system), and I expect there are limits – it would be difficult to have any water cycle without allowing some H2O in the air.
Forced surface wetting starts out by increasing LH flux from the surface (for surfaces that are forcibly wetted) and necessarily adding more H2O to the air near the surface. Setting radiative effects of changed H2O+clouds,etc., aside, the shift in convective lapse rate would also tend to, **I believe**, result in more H2O in the upper troposphere. Increased low-level cloudiness could cause cooling overall, counteracting this tendency, but it seems odd to think this could reduce the near surface specific humidity to at or below initial levels given how the mechanism works. But with the 4+D nature of it all (and the when and where of irrigation), who knows?
“ the cycling rate and amount depend on different things (energy fluxes and temperature, roughly) ”
Actually, the cycling rate depends both on net radiant heating and temperature – because the fraction of convective flux from the surface which is LH tends to increase with increasing T.
in Re to Piotr, particularly to
https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2023/07/unforced-variations-july-2023/#comment-813015
and
https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2023/07/unforced-variations-july-2023/#comment-812949 ,
and patrick o twentyseven
https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2023/07/unforced-variations-july-2023/#comment-812966
Dear Piotr, dear patrick,
Many thanks you both for your explanations as regards the residence time of water vapour in Earth atmosphere as well as for your exhaustive discussion of the ratio between outgoing longwave radiation (OLR) flux and the downwelling longwave radiation (DLR) flux.
First of all, I apologize once again for my inappropriate argument for the “decoupling” between water intensity and average air humidity based on an (erroneous) feeling that already the short residence time about 9-10 days can be taken as a hint thereto. I admit that although similar kind of argumentation appears even in publications cited in the IPCC report (e.g. Sherwood et al, 2018 cited in https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2023/06/unforced-variations-jun-2023/#comment-812741), I had to be more careful and not repeat it without a thorough plausibility check.
It would have been more correct if I asked why Piotr assumes that water residence time in the atmosphere shall remain constant (and average air humidity must increase if we increase the intensity of water vapour flux). On my side, I do not see any reason why water vapour residence time must be just 9.5 days and not 3 days or 30 days, at the same average air humidity.
It is my feeling that Piotr infers his view basically from the 1D model that he several times mentioned (Piotr, correct me please if I am wrong). Applicability of this model on the entire Earth is, however, highly questionable, as pointed out by patrick and by John Pollack
https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2023/07/unforced-variations-july-2023/#comment-812888
For this reason, I still do not consider my assumption (that water cycle could be artificially enhanced or artificially weakened without substantial changes in average global absolute air humidity) as erroneous or disproven.
Let us now turn to Piotr`s opinion that only a smaller portion of the heat flux transported in the troposphere by non-radiative mechanisms, particularly by latent energy (LE) flux, shall be considered as actually decreasing the average Earth surface temperature, because a big part of this non-radiative energy flux is in fact re-radiated back to the surface and merely heats colder parts thereof.
Herein, I am still afraid that this interpretation of the global energy budget (GEB) may be incorrect. First, as shown convincingly by patrick, the ratio between OLR and DLR is no fixed quantity, it likely depends on parameters like emission height distribution and lapse rate. Second, the LE is no “additional” energy flowing to the atmosphere, because an increase in the non-radiative flux is compensated by an equal decrease in the upwelling radiation. If we assume just a balance caused by an increased greenhouse effect, then the increase in the DLR must come on the expenses of the OLR, and the difference between both values is the famous Earth energy imbalance (EEI).
If we would like to compensate the increased DLR by an equivalent increase in the LE, to obtain the original OLR and to cancel the EEI, we do not need to suppose that any part of the LE must be re-radiated back to the Earth, because the respective change will be simply achieved by the change in the DLR /OLR ratio, equally as the previous change caused by the addition of the greenhouse gas.
It sounds as a quite bold assumption but I have still a feeling that it is in fact correct. I think there is a strong hint thereto – namely, the equivalence between the annual average precipitation and the mean LE, to that I point from the very start of this discussion and that was so far considered by Piotr as unimportant.
Finally, I would like to shortly comment on the practical aspects of the geoengineering proposal that I allegedly made and that are criticized by Piotr. Please note that in fact, I proposed a practical experiment in urban heat islands, with the goal to test present climate models and to find out which mode of massive solar energy exploitation – the “classical” one, releasing the waste heat mostly as a sensible heat, or the alternative that would have released this heat in form of LE – could be more appropriate.
Greetings
Tom
P.S.
An updated track of this discussion is accessible under
https://orgpad.com/s/7zfynb_y5o7
@Tomas
Consider that the lapse rate diminishes considerably towards the moist tropics. By association the vapor residence time is considerably less than global average at low latitude. 4-5 days only, compared to 9 or 10 globally? This is in-part due to the temperature dependence of the moist adiabatic lapse rate or the equilibrium partitioning.
Using the high magnitude of latent heating over moist relatively warm regions, the surface doesn’t have to warm as much to restore energy balance at the top under greenhouse forcing. The opposite is the case in desert/poles.
The pristine condition of Earth maintains the non-equilibrium steady state condition of 288K surface, with a 255K average radiating temperature. This is accomplished in-part by atmospheric heat transport in global circulation i.e. the magnitude of the latent flux (rate of condensation).
The associated radiative emission from atmosphere results in about 50% from water vapor, 20% from trace gases, and 30% from variable condensate (frequency independent).
TomasGPT(?): why Piotr assumes that water residence time in the atmosphere shall remain constant?
I don’t – my argument does not require constant, nor changing, residence time
TomasGPT: why average air humidity must increase if we increase the intensity of water vapour flux
Have you found a way (perhaps a really long and rather thick chimney?) to move your … 13000 km3 of extra water, in water vapour form, directly from the surface to the condensation height, thus by-passing the undersaturated column of air between the surface and the condensation height?
Tomas GPT: “ Herein, I am still afraid that [Piotr] interpretation of the global energy budget (GEB) may be incorrect”, “It is my feeling that Piotr infers his view basically from the 1D model. Applicability of this model on the entire Earth is, however, highly questionable, as pointed out by patrick and by John Pollack
In my post to zebra I have already mentioned your tendency to play various people here against each other – here by dropping names of patrick and John Pollack you imply that they support you – even though nothing of the sort happened.
You also assume that uncertainty is your friend – you ASSUME that a 3-D model would quash my objections and saved your schemes, but equally, or more likely, it could do the opposite.
And, as you know – I already replied to both patrick and John that using a complicated 1-D model of atmosphere (patrick) and calling for a 3-D approach (John) is NOT NEEDED to falsify your claims, when you don’t understand even a simple 1-D energy budget.
“You could swat a fly with a microscope (3-D model), but why”?
Finally, in science your gut “feelings” that I am wrong, and you are correct – are irrelevant = either you can prove your point, or you can’t.
In Re to
https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2023/07/unforced-variations-july-2023/#comment-813144 ,
and also to
https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2023/07/unforced-variations-july-2023/#comment-813212 ,
https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2023/07/unforced-variations-july-2023/#comment-813213 and
https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2023/07/unforced-variations-july-2023/#comment-813182 .
Dear Piotr,
First of all, I would like to refer to my two replies to macias
https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2023/07/unforced-variations-july-2023/#comment-813215
and
https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2023/07/unforced-variations-july-2023/#comment-813219
As you may take therefrom, macias made me aware of a serious mistake in my post. As soon as I realized it, I corrected my nonsensical statement regarding the EEI accordingly.
Let me now return to your objection that supplying ca 13 000 km3 water per year to an area of about 10 million km2 of Sahara desert and allowing it to evaporate there during sunny days will inevitably increase the absolute humidity in this area (and, possibly, even globally).
I think the objection deserves a thorough analysis, because I can indeed hardly imagine any reasonable way how to secure the necessary mass flux without securing certain air humidity in the area. I think that we should therefore ask if an increase of the humidity above Sahara desert above its original level is necessary for enabling the contemplated water cycle enhancement – and if so, if the magnitude of the respective increase may cause a significant change in the greenhouse effect.
If we will assume that the evaporated water will circulate within the said area, then the necessary “reservoir” in the atmosphere above this area will be proportionate to the residence time. For the contemplated flux 13 000 km3 per year and average residence time equal to the global average of the water vapour residence time in Earth atmosphere (which is currently about 10 days), the size of the required water reservoir above Sahara desert is about 400 km3 (if we consider this amount of water as a liquid). If the residence time drops to 5 days, the necessary reservoir shrinks to about 200 km3 water only.
Let us now compare these values with the current available size of this reservoir. As the average atmospheric pressure is about 10 N per square centimetre, the atmospheric column above each square kilometre of Earth surface weights about 107 t (1010 kg). Above the entire considered area of 107 km2, it will be about 1014 t air. If the average relative air humidity over Sahara is 25 %, average temperature 30 °C and absolute saturated air humidity at 30 °C is 30 g water in one cubic metre of air, then the 25 % relative humidity corresponds to mass fraction of water in air about 0.068. Average water content over the entire Sahara area would have been thus about 1014 t × 0.068 = 6.8×1011 t, what corresponds to 680 km3 water. According to this very rough estimation, the average air humidity over Sahara could already represent a sufficient water vapour reservoir for the contemplated huge intensification of the water cycle over this area from current 75 mm of average annual precipitation to ca 1300 mm.
Of course, real numbers may differ, e.g. due to fact that we should consider most of evaporation during the time of the most intense surface insolation. I just tried to show that as regards air humidity, we do not start from zero even over Sahara desert, and that this circumstance may play a significant role in estimations how much the contemplated artificial intensification of water evaporation from the surface may influence the absolute air humidity and the infrared absorption linked thereto.
Finally, I would like to look again on your argument that only a small part of the latent heat flow (LE) actually cools Earth surface, because a majority thereof must be re-radiated from the atmosphere back to the surface.
I think that the latent heat flow about 80 W/m2 as given in various global energy balance (GEB) schemes indeed does represent a neat value cooling the Earth surface (not the entire Earth as such!) and that this value shall not be any way re-calculated or corrected (as you assumed so far), for a simple reason that the redistribution of the latent heat flow, as suggested by you, would have destroyed the GEB.
Let us take your argument for valid and assume that 37 % of the heat transported to the atmosphere by non-radiative mechanisms (as latent + sensible heat) indeed adds to the outgoing infrared radiation (OLR) and 63 % to the downwelling infrared radiation (DLR).
Specifically, in the GEB scheme shown in
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:The-NASA-Earth%27s-Energy-Budget-Poster-Radiant-Energy-System-satellite-infrared-radiation-fluxes.jpg ,
the OLR would have increased from 239.9 W/m2 to 278.7 W/m2. After this recalculation, the Earth would have not been in the present state (a slight positive energy imbalance increasing slowly its temperature) anymore. Instead, it would have suddenly emitted significantly more energy than it obtains from the Sun (if we suppose 287.7 W/m2 as the “enhanced OLR” + 99.9 W/m2 of reflected solar radiation, the EEI would have changed from 0.6 W/m2 to -38.2 W/m2).
If you admit that your assumption (that some values given in the GEB schemes have to be recalculated to reveal the “true” values of the non-radiative energy transfer) was false, the problem vanishes. I suppose that instead, any change in the non-radiative energy flow can be simply subtracted from the upwelling surface radiation, and will result in a commensurate change in mean radiative temperature of Earth surface.
Greetings
Tomáš
Re: Tomáš Kalisz, Jul 19
Your calculations, Tomas, are akin to calculating how many angels can dance on the top of a needle, down to a third decimal point. Sure – it looks precise, but it means nothing.
First, you are making major invalid assumptions, rendering your numbers meaningless – e.g. you assume … no lapse rate, apply GLOBAL avg. residence time to that over Sahara, no horizontal air mass movement over reidence time scale. And all that so you can make a … bizarre claim:
TK: the average air humidity over Sahara could already represent a sufficient water vapour reservoir for the contemplated huge intensification of the water cycle over this area from current 75 mm of average annual precipitation to ca 1300 mm ”
Huh? In what logical system does this have any sense? If the existing water vapour reservoir over Sahara is “sufficient” for precipitation to increase from 75mm to 1300mm – why it haven’t increased to 1300mm already?
Now to your second claim:
TK I think that the latent heat flow about 80 W/m2 indeed does represent a neat value cooling the Earth surface (not the entire Earth as such!) and that this value shall not be any way re-calculated or corrected
So what happens, Genius, to all this latent heat that you put into the atmosphere at the rate of 80W/m2, BUT DO NOT ALLOW it to be moved away from atmosphere?
To give you an idea: the weight of air over 1m^2 ~1o^4 kg, heat capacity of air 700 J/kg/K. At 80W/m2, this translates to warming of atmosphere at 360K/yr.
I.e. under your assumptions, in mere 16 years the temperature of Earth’s atmosphere would be equal to the temperature of the surface of the Sun. You see the problem, right?
@Kalizs says: – ” If we assume just a balance caused by an increased greenhouse effect, then the increase in the DLR must come on the expenses of the OLR, and the difference between both values is the famous Earth energy imbalance (EEI). ”
ms: —
A sentence that proves that you have understood absolutely nothing when it comes to GEB.
Similar to the bullying idiots: piotr, bpl, nigelj, zebra, crap-O-mountain, you’ve been banging around here for weeks – with no sense, no purpose and with the sole, arrogant goal of making themselves important
Shurly to Kalisz: “A sentence that proves that you have understood absolutely nothing when it comes to GEB.” ” with no sense, no purpose and with the sole, arrogant goal of making themselves important”
Ouch, poor Tomas -all that from that Shurly guy you thought would have your back. And for what – for trying to endear yourself to patrick by dropping in terms he introduced. Why, Shurly, why?
Transference? Having humiliated himself again and again when going against the people Shurly assures are “idiots “, the last time in: – Shurly took it out on …our hapless, happy-go-lucky Tomas.
Dear macias,
Many thanks for your kind feedback. I admit that I may still completely misunderstand the entire topics. A hint thereto are also different interpretations of the surface cooling and its relationship to the GEB and EEI that come from various participants in this discussion and that appear, at least from my point of view, often contradicing to each other.
Personally, I would like to find out the correct explanation, not to show myself.
If you can explain the response of the GEB / EEI to a change in the content of atmospheric greenhouse gases better / correctly, it will be my pleasure to learn from you.
Greetiongs
Tom
Dear macias,
Thank you once again for your feedback.
I looked again on my post an now see what a bullshit I wrote regarding the EEI.
I would like to correct the description of my present understanding as follows:
If concentration of a greenhouse gas (e.g. CO2) in Earth atmosphere suddenly increases, it will cause a temporal increase in downwelling longwawe radiation (DLR), which comes at the expense of an equal decrease in the outgoing longwawe radiation (OLR). In other words, my understanding is that deltaOLR = -(deltaDLR) = -EEI.
I hereby apologize to all discussion participants for my original statement which was indeed a very confusing “shortcut” of (or rather “shorting in”?) my thoughts.
Greetings
Tomáš
“In other words, my understanding is that deltaOLR = -(deltaDLR) = -EEI.”
No, the two values are not connected so simply. The instantaneous radiative forcing (IRF = reduction in net upward radiant flux) caused by an increase in any greenhouse gas or clouds/etc., generally is a function of height, as well as local conditions and the vertical temperature profile, of course.
(changes within the atmosphere do not affect the downward flux from Space (~= 0 for LW radiation; SW ~= solar energy) or the upward LW flux from the surface, so the LW radiative forcings at those two locations are -deltaOLR and deltaDLR; more generally, within the atmosphere, there are changes in both upward and downward LW fluxes, resulting in a change in the net LW flux.)
I’m under the impression that increased CO2 IRF tends to be larger at TOA than at the sfc (**?**), implying a net warming of the atmospheric column (includes some cooling within the stratosphere).
EEI(t) = -ΔOLR(t=0) + TOA SW feedback(t) + TOA LW response(t)
TOA LW IRF = ΔOLR(t=0)
ΔOLR(t) = ΔOLR(t=0) – TOA LW response(t)
ΔOLR(t) = increase in upward LW flux at TOA
TOA SW feedback(t) = increase in solar heating (atm+sfc)
TOA LW response(t) = increase in upward LW flux at TOA caused by climate response
correction (negative sign):
TOA LW IRF = –ΔOLR(t=0)
TOA LW IRF = –ΔOLR(t=0)
rewritten:
IRF(LW,toa) = –ΔOLR(t=0)
above assumed only LW forcing.
More generally,
EEI = Forcing(SW+LW,toa) + SW feedback(toa) + LW feedback(toa) – Planck response(toa)
where:
ΔOLR = increase in upward LW flux at TOA
= LW response(toa) – Forcing(LW,toa)
LW response(toa) = – Planck response(toa) – LW feedback(toa)
= increase in upward LW flux at TOA caused by climate response
SW feedback(toa) = increase in solar heating (atm+sfc)
Forcing may refer to IRF, SARF, or ERF, with whatever portion of the LW response and SW feedback associated with going from IRF to SARF (stratospheric adjustment) or ERF being included in forcing and not counted in the LW response and SW feedback to that forcing. I hope I got that right.
The Planck response is itself a (negative) LW feedback but I was counting it seperately from LW flux changes caused by changes in composition or optical properties in general.
changes within the atmosphere do not [directly] affect […] the upward LW flux from the surface,
– assumes perfect blackbody surface
correction (sign):
LW response(toa) = + Planck response(toa) – LW feedback(toa)
@ Thomas Kalisz
To your reply 1 july 2023 at 0953
” Have I clarified this still open subpoint to the climate dispute about the role of laten heat transport…. in earth surface temperature regulation sufficiently? ”
Well, as you state it now, I have a a feeling that it is trivial and no more important than the differende of max day temperature in summer in a rainy and a sunny day.. And I just cannot immagine that it should have been ignored or forgotten or even hidden by conventional climate research and meteorology.
The idea of irrigating and watering the landscape artificially to counteract global surface warming seems ridiculous to me. .
After a very hot and dry June here, summer rain and showers have come the natural way and all water restrictions and bushfire warnings are gone. There is suddenly an enormeous lot of white and gray clouds in the air, and dripping everywhere. The groundwater level in my cellar pump has come up, and the cisternes have been running over. It is simply ridiculous that all this moisture and water and ….. about 5 deg cooling of daytime max temperatures may have come from forest and trees and bushes “evapotranspiration”. sucked up and “evaportranspirated” from that dry ground.
There is no Vltava river big enough in my “Vlast” to have delivered all that moisture so soon. And it is just normal summer rain here swinging around 22 celsius temperature in the fjord.
It has come in frome the now very fameous extreeme temperatures in the north Atlantic and the north sea of course, in freshly distilled form. What was rather lacking for a while was cooling on the condenser. It was absolutely blue sky with no scirrus. When scirrus came, rain also came in 3 days.
Not water on the ground, that is the wrong end, but ice on the top! is what does it.
H2O Latent highly energic water is there all the time and comes from the sea.
A relative of mine crossed the atlantic in sailboat from Spania to west india. He said afterwards that if the jetliner condense stripes dissolve, that means steady clear wether. But if they remain,… that means rain is coming.
I have no hygrometer and should have had it but it was quite dry in june.
Maybe still another good advice from my side (if Ceskoslovensko can tolerate any more now : )
My good advice:
Do not approach the climate and try and roll it up from the wrong end because the climate is like a crochet work , to be untangled from the right end namely from its cool side.
What makes it so infameous for many is that they try and understand globaL warming instead of global cooling.
And it is not the poles, it is BIG BANG all the way around us that is the global heat sink. The cooling element, , not on the ground, but on the top is out of order for sinful human reasons.
Sinful denialists and surrealists who are to be blamed, are then trying to have us looking in the wrong direction.
Good comment, Tomas.
https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2023/06/unforced-variations-jun-2023/comment-page-2/#comment-812861
Part of the transport issue is due to this natural idea of ours of centralizing solar. It makes sense to put panels in tropical deserts as that is where the sun is the hottest because it strikes directly at the planet. Yet the economical transport of energy issue would be very large.
Some few, myself included, have recommended rather having the panels spaced out, not having nearly the same transport issue. “Decentralizing” them. Put a panel on every roof globally that can use one. The rest, those in farthest northern and southern hemispheres can use the solar from the deserts. That’s my idea at least. Decentralizing it would also have the benefit of not having to pay some agency for energy, which agency likely will construe it somehow so that you’ll end up paying the same thing or more than now. It would require some resources, but solar is ever getting smaller., as witness my solar powered watering timer with it’s about 1″ solar panel that can store an amazing amount of power it gets from that tiny panel.
Some of those resources can be harvested by slowing, then reversing the human population growth (which would help with so many other things as well) then eventually recycling the stuff they’ve used. I don’t know about rare earths though. Anyway, it’s would be a “deconstruction economy” I call it in my story. This is more long term though. Will take attrition.
By the way, putting the panels on every roof could be partially (maybe fully?) offset by diverting money away from our massive militaries (how many bombs and bombers do we need anyway).
This is where the Fee and Dividend idea got it all wrong. I said, before F&D was a thing, the government should create grants for all households (not owners) from the fees that *must* be used to achieve a given level of reduction of emissions, in whatever ways was suitable to the specific situation of each household, and particularly to support massively distributed efforts, such as household and small community scales.
My suggestion was this continue till each household reached the minimum threshold before they could begin to pocket the dividend. Of course, anyone in the top 10% would get no dividend.
In the meantime, we don’t need to do everything at once. Well we need to, but because of present circumstances, we are yet unable to as yet. It doesn’t have to be an either/or answer though. Either FF or Solar. We can use both but get off of FF and move to solar as much as possible now. We are doing that, but removing the many obstacles the FF industries have put up, we could be doing it a lot faster.
ms: — Send your full puke bag, preferably peer reviewed, to the IPCC…. Same goes for other fools & stupid desert walkers like nigelj, levenson, zebra, ron r., & crap-O-mountain alias sverre kolberg.
https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2023/06/unforced-variations-jun-2023/comment-page-2/#comment-812859
You’re a religious person(s?) correct MS (I assume fundamentalist protestant)? You might take a look at these verses:
Matthew 6:22-23, 12: 33-35.
@RR says: – ” With the roof on, irrigation wouldn’t let the heat out, only displace it.
ms: — You`re a stupid religious sheep ? — It’s best to put your bible verses where the sun never shines .
If you are looking for more sheep to support you – just ask Levenson, he still has space in the barn.
Small minds like you, who always like to quickly form a mob with other small minds, cannot be convinced with a simple, easy-to-understand graphic from the IPCC.
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/a/a0/Physical_Drivers_of_climate_change.svg/450px-Physical_Drivers_of_climate_change.svg.png
The main message is:
– IRRIGATION & ALBEDO IS COOLING –
So you romantic fool you think you are more competent than the IPCC (LOL).
I wonder how many dozens of times you’ve called people here on Real Climate (and elsewhere?) “stupid sheep” because they didn’t see things your 100% way? Again, you really know how to win friends and influence people huh?. Must be fun at your house.
Anyway, I’d rather be a sheep is better than a goat.
Oops, that’s, I’d rather be a sheep than a goat. Maybe I am a stupid sheep. :)
Me too :-)
Macias Shurly: 4 JUL: “Small minds like you, who always like to quickly form a mob with other small minds, cannot be convinced with a simple, easy-to-understand graphic from the IPCC The main message is:– IRRIGATION & ALBEDO IS COOLING.
So you romantic fool you think you are more competent than the IPCC (LOL)”
Well, Rob doesn’t have to be more competent than IPCC, he merely needs to be more competent than Macias Shurly, not that high of a bar to clear – note the fate of Shurly’s OTHER proof of
claim “ The Earth being a water-cooled planet – whether you like it or not.“:
It’s the failure in that proof to defend his assumption that 100% of LH is emitted into space, which forced Shurly from claiming support from Gavin, to claiming the support from IPCC, e.g.:
M. Shurly: “ Hello Piotr – whether you are viewing an IPCC graph or replying to my post – please always do it with due attention.”
I.e. do as I tell you, not as I do: it was Shurly who hasn’t figured out that “IPCC graph” wasn’t … the
original IPCC graph, but a Wikimedia version, which CHANGED the one thing Shurly based his confident claims upon: in the actual IPCC graph, we have “LAND USE REFLECTANCE AND IRRIGATION”, instead of “Irrigation and albedo” in Shurly’s Wikimedia graph.
Which was crucial to Shurly’s argument, because he claimed that that albedo was just a PART of the irrigation effect:
ms: “ additional cloud albedo naturally produced by additional irrigation”
i.e. that the ENTIRE -0.15C is attributable to irrigation.
However, “Land use reflectance” IS NOT “additional cloud albedo from irrigation” – so it cannot be subsumed into the irrigation’s effect, In fact, irrigation lowers the land use reflectance because moist soil and vegetation have LOWER albedo than unirrigated dry soil/sand, which warms the Earth.
The non-irrigation changes in land use are the opposite – typically increase albedo , as forests have much lower albedo than than croplands and pastures that replaced them.
I haven’t seen any breakdown between the LAND USE REFLECTANCE and IRRIGATION” – in the original IPCC graph, but given:
a) the net warming effect of water cycle unintentionally proved by Shurly’s failed attempt to use Gavin’s 2010 paper to provide him credibility
b) the land use typically increasing the land reflectance
c) irrigation decreasing land reflectance
it. is NOT very likely, that the land use reflectance is … ZERO – as the Shurly claim of irrigation causing cooling of the Earth by 0.15C, on which he based his derision toward opponents:
MS: “You`re a stupid religious sheep ? — It’s best to put your bible verses where the sun never shines. Small minds like you, who always like to quickly form a mob with other small minds.
So you romantic fool you think you are more competent than the IPCC (LOL).”
Macias Shurly, at his truest…
Ron R.
Good point.
And speaking of angry, hot air and swampy vapors, I don’t know if it will add anything to the conversation, but I thought this was interesting from The Guardian:
‘It was an accident’: the scientists who have turned humid air into renewable power
https://www.theguardian.com/science/2023/jul/02/it-was-an-accident-the-scientists-who-have-turned-humid-air-into-renewable-power
Interesting article, Radge. Thanks. Might have some unintended consequences longterm, that funneling of energy to turn the atmosphere into a giant useable battery – Tesla’s dream – (I hope not), but what do I know?
But it reminds me that there have been so many alt-energy proposals, yet here we (mostly) all still are. Still stuck with the polluting, prehistoric, internal combustion engine! Still burning oil and coal from ancient plankton and trees! Unbelievable! I remember similar articles about the paint on a house also acting as solar panels and urine as alternative energy and lots of others. Where are they now?
By the way, I’m a hypocrite in that I use ’em too. Have too. The POB have ensured that, so far at least, clean alternatives are expensive and unavailable (for the most part), and I have a life to live. But, alternatives are stubbornly progressing, and I’m trying as well.
I agree, speculative solutions do make good fodder for science fiction though– or grist for the mill: which reminds me to wonder if Dr. Schmidt is working the Silurian Hypothesis into a novel yet?
Anyway re: hypocrisy?
Take heart, here are some students who have a really polished take on that (at 3;20 ) while dunking on climate denial:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I9zZZDARQ7s
I’d love to read that novel!
Hilarious video by the way!
@ Ron R
No, Matthias Schürle alias Macias Schurly is definitely not a fundamentalist protestant, but you may have other conscepts of what protests fundamentally over there in the states.
Schürle is rather a runaway child frrom Kindergarten and Freie Deutsche Jugend Jugendweihe, Junge Pioniers behind the iron curtain in the late DDR. German Democratic Republic.
He is teaching like a DDR Deutschlandsender in East Berlin, the pioneering and dia- lectic materialistic way with patent from the Soviet scientific academy in Ljeningrad.
German lutheran he aint not. Western protestand calvinist neither. That is the Levenson type. And Anglican… he denies both King Charles and the Cambridge University and is teaching the alternatives damning and swearing, fighting the flies and the sparrows and the kits and the dogs and the school teachers frrom the west and from the british empire when frustrated.
That is clear Maoism and marxist leninism of progressive Adolf Prussian pedantic blood, and earlly pioneering soviett style, even selling himself as an “artist” for it..
It is 1923- 33 pioneering racial revolutionary Surrealism.
Russian orthodox? No. He is planning a large communal and privat rainbarrel, heated with all the advantages for the people instead of the orthodox christus our saviour cathedral in Moskva, that is to be demolished again because being not sustainable.
If I know him right, he will vote fror Trump also next time and applaud the climbing of the capitol hill again. Damning and swearing he is good at. .
.
Hmm, I thought perhaps he was also JCM (with his “ja ja ja” Spanish – ha ha ha in English – or maybe just supposed to look like Spanish?) they sound very similar for venom. If I am wrong I apologize to them. I also thought perhaps evangelical fundamentalist because of his previous Bible allusions, but who knows?
JCMs Ja-Ja-Ja is swedish yes yes yes.
JCM has been good enough to tell of his grandfathers / “bestefar”s obviously swedish and only swedish name and his way of career through the fameous Oslofjord paper mills and swedish communist labour union colleagues brought with him onto the Ontario river papermill successes.
It is swedish Rallare or engl http://www.navvy blood. in 3rd generation
Look up Mendels beans and laws of possible bloody heritage of that. I call it the Bloodgroup P for Pure and Party & cetera.
Mendels laws sustains in an interesting way the 10 amenments §2 as statede in original about Gods revenge in 3rd and 4th generation.
Ah, ok Carbo. Swedish. Thanks.
Ron,
I don’t think JCM’s “ja” or “Ja ja” was supposed to be Spanish. Unless JCM is a German, his “ja ja” toward people who are likely NOT German (“Ron”, “Piotr”) – is to compare them to Nazis. I.e., according to the Godwin’s Law – JCM’s admission of running out of arguments.
I also thought perhaps evangelical fundamentalist because of his previous Bible allusions, but who knows?
Or maybe some flavor of protestantism? There are sooo many.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Christian_denominations
Considering the many comments from last month concerning water, water vapor, and atmospheric energy, I am struck that the threads were proceeding almost as if we weren’t living on a rotating planet with a 3-D atmosphere and a surface consisting of over 70% ocean. Simplifications of complex processes can help one grasp the essentials, but for a more detailed consideration, it is necessary to take a more realistic approach at some point.
If air is rising in one place, it is descending somewhere else. This is reflected in the equation of continuity.
Once latent heat is converted to sensible heat by condensation or freezing, that heat energy may have other fates than being radiated to space or back to earth. It can be converted to mechanical energy, resulting in horizontal winds and forced vertical motions. That includes storms, tropical cyclones, and persistent circulations that move both heat and water vapor from one location to another. You can provide copious water to a surface area that is in a region of persistent downward vertical motion without generating a lot of clouds and precipitation. The shores of the Persian Gulf are incredibly humid in the summer, and Saudi Arabia irrigates, but there is very little rain. The Galapagos Islands are surrounded by tropical ocean, but are near-desert. California gets little summer rainfall, no matter how much they irrigate the valleys for agriculture. Oceans interact with the atmosphere, and have their own circulations.
It’s a big world. You won’t fit it all into a 2-D model.
Yes!
Hr Pollack
Yes, this is elementary things We learnt it in public school and I later found Theo Löbsacks Atem der Erde in translation. He was reaaly very good.
Thor Heyerdahl once turned a big Globus the right way and said:L “Look, this is not the planet earth, it is the p0lanet sea, Can`t you see that?” and NASA has taken and published colour pictures of it from outside. through Nationalo Geographic Magazine. and people will not believe that.
Flat earthers, desert walkers, blind believers in the scriptures, I say. How often shall I have to repeat it?
It is even worse when it comes to material sciences and deep microchosmos. They discuss it in terms of what they are told to believe in. Sheere LEGO, and air as a dry sandstorm with spiral springs between tghe grains. So dry that even the ETER has evaporated. With gunsmoke. and bullets flying. Typical hollywood wild west moovies. on their brains. And call it statistics confidence peer rewiewed and models.
Some related links:
https://atmos.uw.edu/academics/classes/2014Q1/545/545_Ch_1.pdf
http://research.jisao.washington.edu/wallace/545_Notes.pdf (this seems like a completed version of the first; but URL is marked as “not secure”)
I quick skim, and I found ~2 to 3 W/m2 conversion rate, dissipation of kinetic energy, which is similar to what a textbook I have says (from memory, roughly 10% of kinetic energy generated from APE is recycled into APE) – but I think this may be for large-scale motion ie., not cumulus convection or boundary-layer thermals. Another book I have left me with the impression that a similar rate of kinetic energy generation is involved in such small-scale, localized convection; but this is dissipated much faster so most of the kinetic energy in the atmosphere is in the larger-scale motions. IMO, the heat engine efficiency should be given in terms of conversion from convective heat fluxes.
Yefeng Pan, et. al.
Earth’s changing global atmospheric energy cycle in response to climate change
https://www.nature.com/articles/ncomms14367
One thing I’ve been interested in for a while (and still don’t really understand) is how climate change affects extratropic storm tracks and jet streams, and also the Hadley Cells (not just on what happens but why). I binge read several articles on this several months ago. One interesting set of mechanisms is that increased baroclinicity in the upper troposphere (I assume related to the tropical “hot spot” associated with the lapse rate feedback/moist convection) favors development of longer-wavelength baroclinic waves (which are likelier to break anticyclonically…); these propagate slower eastward (in spite of the faster westerlies near the tropopause – although slower in the mid-troposphere?- but also there’s beta (planetary vorticity gradient)), changing the location of the critical (steering) surface, where the waves propagate to and are absorbed, and this would cause a shift equatorward but the storm tracks are closer to the poleward-side critical surface (I mean, where it intersects the height at which the waves propagate to it? – obviously… well I’ll have to come back to this.
zebra at https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2023/07/unforced-variations-july-2023/#comment-812913 :
“John, I recall you schooling me about the 3D nature of the jet stream,”
Sounds like a good read – any idea where I could find this comment?
Dear Patrick,
Thank you very much for the links to the relevant chapters from the textbook written by John Michael Wallace.
Greetings
Tomáš
… I’ll have to track down that bit about critical surface shifts (which I might not have gotten quite right) some other time, but part of what I said came from this:
A Dynamical Interpretation of the Poleward Shift of the Jet Streams in Global Warming Scenarios
Gwendal Rivière
https://journals.ametsoc.org/view/journals/atsc/68/6/2011jas3641.1.xml
Other very interesting links:
Storm-Steering Jet Stream Could Shift Poleward in 40 Years
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/storm-steering-jet-stream-could-shift-poleward-in-40-years/
Understanding the varied response of the extratropical storm tracks to climate change
Paul A. O’Gorman
https://www.pnas.org/doi/10.1073/pnas.1011547107
Enhanced poleward propagation of storms under climate change
Talia Tamarin-Brodsky, Yohai Kaspi
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41561-017-0001-8
abstract (emphasis mine):
“Earth’s midlatitudes are dominated by regions of large atmospheric weather variability—often referred to as storm tracks— which influence the distribution of temperature, precipitation and wind in the extratropics. Comprehensive climate models forced by increased greenhouse gas emissions suggest that under global warming the storm tracks shift poleward. While the poleward shift is a robust response across most models, there is currently no consensus on what the underlying dynamical mechanism is. Here we present a new perspective on the poleward shift, which is based on a Lagrangian view of the storm tracks. We show that in addition to a poleward shift in the genesis latitude of the storms, associated with the shift in baroclinicity, the latitudinal displacement of cyclonic storms increases under global warming. This is achieved by applying a storm-tracking algorithm to an ensemble of CMIP5 models. The increased latitudinal propagation in a warmer climate is shown to be a result of stronger upper-level winds and increased atmospheric water vapour. These changes in the propagation characteristics of the storms can have a significant impact on midlatitude climate.”
The poleward shift of storm tracks under global warming: A Lagrangian perspective
T. Tamarin, Y. Kaspi
https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1002/2017GL073633
“… I’ll have to track down that bit about critical surface shifts (which I might not have gotten quite right) some other time,”
Found it:
Can the Increase in the Eddy Length Scale under Global Warming Cause the Poleward Shift of the Jet Streams?
Joseph Kidston, G. K. Vallis, S. M. Dean, J. A. Renwick
https://journals.ametsoc.org/view/journals/clim/24/14/2010jcli3738.1.xml
abstract:
“The question of whether an increase in the atmospheric eddy length scale may cause a poleward shift of the midlatitude jet streams is addressed. An increase in the length scale of the eddy reduces its zonal phase speed and so causes eddies to dissipate farther from the jet core. If the eddy dissipation region on the poleward flank of the jet overlaps with the eddy source latitudes, shifting this dissipation to higher latitudes will alter which latitudes are a net source of baroclinic eddies, and hence the eddy-driven jet stream may shift poleward. This behavior does not affect the equatorward flank of the jet in the same way because the dissipation region on the equatorward flank is well separated from the source latitudes. An experiment with a barotropic model is presented in which an increase in the length scale of a midlatitude perturbation results in a poleward shift in the acceleration of the zonal flow. Initial investigations indicate that this behavior is also important in both observational data and the output of comprehensive general circulation models (GCMs). A simplified GCM is used to show that the latitude of the eddy-driven jet is well correlated with the eddy length scale. It is argued that the increase in the eddy length scale causes the poleward shift of the jet in these experiments, rather than vice versa.”
PS the second Tamarin & Kaspi paper above seems to cover about the same subject matter as the 1st (or closely related), and is freely-available.
This provides a good overview of eddy-driven jet shifts:
http://nicklutsko.github.io/blog/2018/10/30/Theories-for-the-Poleward-Shift-of-the-Mid-Latitude-Jets
Note: the dispersion relation for Rossby (vorticity) waves – I believe that beta* (?) may more generally be used in place of beta, to include the effect of all contributions to the potential vorticity (PV) gradient
(PV – eg., IPV (isentropic PV), is a measure of angular momentum in fluids, constructed so as to be conserved by all inviscid, adiabatic processes.)
John Pollack: ‘It’s a big world. You won’t fit it all into a 2-D model.”
Except one doesn’t need big world to show that Kalisz, Shurly and JCM are clowns – they don’t get
even 1-D models – Shurly assumes 100% of latent heat delivered into troposphere escapes into space, Kalisz is perplexed why he can’t compare variables that have different dimensions. Not exactly a 3-D modelling-of-the-world material, aren’t they.
Yes, you could use a microscope to swat a fly, but why?
Piotr, I said basically exactly the same below, addressed to John, Ray, and “others”, which sometimes has included you.
These people are not here to have a serious discussion; they don’t actually care how you answer, as long as you answer.
They are completely wrong about the fundamentals, but as long as people respond about details, they can pretend to be discussing science. Perhaps it is like little children putting on their parent’s clothes and having a tea party, or our USA out-of-shape pretend-men dressing in camo and carrying guns. Perhaps someone with a psych background can offer a formal explanation?
So I applaud your approach below. If you are going to respond at all, repeat the explanation that shows the fundamental error. They will try to make changes to language to suck you back in, but they will never answer the question, as I said last month, which to me is the best demonstration… to others who may be reading… of their insincerity.
Zebra: They will try to make changes to language to suck you back in, but they will never answer the question,
Actually, T. Kalisz went a level up, takes criticisms as agreement and uses one critics agains the other:
T. Kalisz to Ray: “As regards your doubts about significance of the effect for Earth climate, please follow my discussion with Piotr”
which implies that he has already successfully dealt with those criticisms of his claims… ;-)
If you watch Star Trek, Tom Kalisz must be a Pakled.
Yes, very strange… as I said at one point, it is almost as if someone is artificially creating these different personalities for the vapor commenters.
But whether it is them (AI it, whatever,) or Victor and others, I’m still concerned that what they do “works” for them because you guys can’t resist the opportunity to talk about the details instead of requiring them to address the fundamental false premise first.
Consider what Gavin just posted about the WSJ piece….. “But let’s be honest, it’s basically pure distraction and attempts to complicate something that is pretty basic:” Exactly!
But in this venue, it is up to the science commenters to not allow that game to work…. I don’t know if there really are lurkers or visitors who might get fooled to some extent, but anyway, why give the pretend-scientists the satisfaction of feeling that they are “owning” you?
Continuing the thread on trying to maintain a collaborative research forum on challenging climate science problems, e.g. fluid dynamics of ENSO.
https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2023/06/unforced-variations-jun-2023/#comment-812853
My point is that this doesn’t have to be a popular forum in terms of sustaining itself, only that the people interested know that such a thing exists. There was only one time that a troll invaded the Azimuth Project forum, and that was toward the end when the discussion died down. Yet, I can almost anticipate that a troll could generate ChatGPT responses and use these to comment and appear knowledgeable. The key again is that a forum doesn’t have to be heavily populated, but that a handful of engaged participants can make a difference.
I would ask why they would even be interested in understanding ENSO?
T. Kalisz “do understand now that the root cause of continuing misunderstanding between us was my imprecise explanation of the equivalence between global annual precipitation and the average latent heat flow
No Tomas, you still DON’T understand it – I DIDN’T question your calculations of the latent heat flux so there was no point to repeat it.
What I DID question was your attempt to disregard the role of the “content of water in the atmosphere” in the heat budget, as unimportant, because
[TM] the mean annual precipitation is ca 36 times higher than the entire water content in the atmosphere”
You CAN’T compare/disregard variables that have different dimensions/units
Explaining things to you is at the far end of the curve of diminishing returns, so I won’t waste more
of my time, but repeat, what I said the last time:
==
Piotr Jun 30: “You are comparing apples and oranges, well actually more like apples and
photosynthesis rate – one is a reservoir the other is a flux – different concepts, different units – it’s “500 000 km3/yr”, not as you wrote “500 000 km3”.
But why should we use “per yr” and not, say, “per second” – after all, the radiative fluxes are given in W/m2, with watts being J/s. But if we use per sec- your precipitation rate becomes = 0.016 km3/s. The reservoir size is still the same = 13000km3. So who is “small” now?
If two variables have different dimensions/units you CAN’T claim that one is larger or smaller than the other, and therefore you can’t claim that one is more or less important than the other.
==============
If you can’t still understand – ask a colleague or ChatGPT to explain it to you.
In Re to
https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2023/07/unforced-variations-july-2023/#comment-812920
Dear Piotr,
Thank you very much for your reply.
Do I understand correctly that you do not disprove the equivalence between 990 mm of global annual precipitation and the average latent heat flux ca 79 W/m2 in Trenberth’s schemes of the “global energy budget” anymore?
It could allow us to focus on your second objection, that I inappropriately infer that the average global air humidity is basically decoupled from the global water cycle intensity from the circumstance that water is, contrary e.g. to the second most important greenhouse gas CO2, retained in the atmosphere relatively shortly.
I re-thought your objection and admit that you may be right in this respect. Indeed, one could imagine that carbon dioxide cycle is intensified equally on the emission side as well as on the absorption cycle, without any influence on the global mean atmospheric CO2 concentration. The crucial difference between water on one hand and CO2 on the other hand is thus NOT the respective cycle intensity.
I think that my incorrect statement could be rectified as follows:
Contrary to non-condensing greenhouse gases, water emissions to the atmosphere are strongly coupled with water removal therefrom. Water content in the atmosphere does not change unless the average temperature changes. At each average Earth temperature, a broad range of water cycle intensities may be possible.
Could you agree to this corrected version?
Best regards
Tomáš
T.Kalisz: “Do I understand correctly that you do not disprove the equivalence between 990 mm of global annual precipitation”
No you don’t understand it correctly, since I have neither proven or disproven it – I simply have ignored it as irrelevant to my critique.
TK: I re-thought your objection and admit that you may be right in this respect.
Very kind of you, unfortunately the rest of the sentence renders it meaningless:
– you claim an inspiration by the argument that I … wasn’t making – I talked about your ideas of intensifying water cycle, NOT CO2 cycle.
– your self-“correction” is made of 2 banal, hence signifying nothing, statements of the obvious:
-“ water emissions to the atmosphere are strongly coupled with water removal therefrom.”
– broad range of water cycle intensities may be possible”
or not what I was a saying:
you:”Water content in the atmosphere does not change unless the average temperature changes”
in nature true, but we are talking about geoengineering – and here it is not
– if you evaporate water into any air with RH<100%, you would increase the water content in that part of the air column. In fact you would increase this water content in the worst possible place from radiative balance point of view – in the lower part of the troposphere – the closer to the ground you absorb L the, bigger portion of it returns to the Earth surface (I.e. does not make it into space).
And the main point you still don't get – I have shown that your water cycle schemes are either:
* counter-productive i.e. causing net warming, see:
– my recalculation of Shurly’s claim based on Schmidt et al. 2010 showing the net warming
-water cycle is considered a positive, not negative. feedback with temperature
– also the paper brought up by Nigel, in which locally night warming outweighed day’s cooling.
or
* too small and/or too expensive to matter at the global scale: countering current GHG forcing would have required 40x to 100x increase over the current irrigation) i,e, requiring
massive funds that would have been much more effectively used in mitigation of the root cause of global warming – GHG emissions.
Dear Piotr,
Thank you for your swift response.
If you consider the equivalence between mean global annual precipitation and the average latent heat flow irrelevant for our discussion, could you explain in mor detail why?
It is my feeling that without understanding why do you think so, I am not able to grasp other explanations from your side, too.
Greetings
Tom
Tomáš Kalisz 8JuL: If you consider the equivalence between mean global annual precipitation and the average latent heat flow irrelevant for our discussion, could you explain in more detail why?
I said: “is irrelevant to my critique”. If you say: a) 2.1 can be approximated as 2 and b) 2 > 9 – my critique would focus on b).
If your house is built on sand (“b”), the good fit of the roof tiles (“a”) is of marginal importance.
As for why your house is built on sand – see my earlier explanations why most of the extra latent heat won’t escape into space, why the effect pf that that does would be reduced/countered by increased water vapour LW absorption and how this would require increasing current irrgation by 40- 100 times, which would render your ideas ecologically, technically and economically unfeasible, and counter productive for addressing GHG emissions ( the last past of my previous post
1. Solar Jim argued for the enforcement the moderation against the incessant drivel of climate change denialists, that swamps RC, discouraging both participants and readers from using it to educate themselves about, or to advance, new ideas.
2. Paul Pukite called it: “limiting ideas” and to illustrate it offered … his experience with groups working on advancing understanding ENSO.
3. Since neither Solar Jim or me – meant this subject as deserving BoreHole, but the denialist drivel drowning this webpage I wrote:
Piotr June 30: “ 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?”
4. P.Pukite Jul 2:” I would ask why they would even be interested in understanding ENSO?”
??? Shouldn’t YOU be answering this question?
WHY in the discussion about the need to protect the usefullness of this group against the mass production by Shurly, Kalisz, JCM, Victor, KnowitAll, who either cannot, or want not to, understand the answers to their questions, you described it as … “limiting ideas” and brought up your
interests in understanding ENSO… as if it applied to those people?
What happened to my response to Piotr? Where I paid tribute to 2 late collaborators of mine?
Find me on Threads.net/PaulPukite, where I have dedicated threads to each of the climate indices. Perhaps it’s not worth my time here, or as they used to say on the blogs GBCW.
Tomas, in answer to your question about photons outside of the absorption bands of the GHGs, where, specifically would those photons come from? You will likely say “blackbody radiation,” but Earth, especially high in the atmosphere is not a blackbody. It doesn’t absorb and emit all radiation. It only emits and absorbs radiation where it can–that is where there are quantum transitions corresponding to the photon energies–including effects of collisional broadening, etc.
The other thing is that you seem to have a fundamental misunderstanding of how science works. Do you really think that you are the first person to think of the possibility of latent heat transporting energy out of the atmosphere? Do you really think that if a climate scientist thought this might work that they would not jump at the chance to model it and potentially revolutionize not just climate science, but also our industrial economy?
You’ve proposed a mechanism. I’ve pointed out that there are competing factors that suggest your mechanism would not work. The appropriate thing to do at this point with such a complicated system is to model it–taking into account all the physical processes that might be important. If you haven’t done that, then you are wasting the time of yourself and everyone else on this board.
Ray Ladbury
Be aware that clouds and snow are not at all so “white” further in the IR spectrum as it is in visible light.
I have no accute “Data” on it, but I am allowed to assume and to tell about Kirchoffs rule, that emittance = absorbance. That rules obviously for metal casting charcoal and ceramic materials and glasses in the heat. and then invisible IR heat radiation is absorbed very well indeed in white snow and glass clear water. Thus it is obvious that shiny white snow and clouds both will absorb and emit IR very well.
Yes even another argument. I saw a glassblower here for a while, manipulating his glasses in air inside his high orange hot glass furnace to re- heat them again. . Thick glasses that glow only deep red out in the dark room do heat up again frappingly fast,… as fast as black irons, in that orange red Planc Bolzmann situation at 1100 celsius IR.
So there cannot be any doubt, IR radiation right to space from shiny white very high and thick clouds is very natural and trivial and should not be denied.
Moral:
Proper Cumulonimbus and even large tropical hurricanes are cooling down the situation fast and efficiently when the sun has warmed the situaltion for long enough. It is an obvious negative feedback to global warming. That is even orthodox classical meteorology . and should not be denied or disputed.
And look, the hurricanes soften and vanish quickly when they come in over land even green lands with high “evapotranspiration” because their major resource of latent energy input flux in the form of steam is from the especially warm tropical ocean waters. They cool down the tropical oceans again when the summers have lasted for long enough.
Re to Ray Ladbury
https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2023/07/unforced-variations-july-2023/#comment-812894
Dear Ray,
thank you very much for your additional explanation of your view.
You are surely not correct in your feeling that climate science does not deal with Earth surface cooling by latent heat transport to the troposphere. References cited e.g. by JCM, macias, patrick o twentyseven show that it is in fact a standard part of present climate models. I only pointed to the circumstance that present technology offers new options how this important climate regulation mechanism could be exploited.
What is somewhat strange is only the fact that public policies still treat water regime as something secondary, dependent and less important, although it is also a primary „forcing“ driving the climate. This discrepancy is reflected also in IPCC summaries for policymakers that are basically silent about the role of the water cycle in climate regulation, although the same cannot be said about IPCC reports in their entirety.
In my opinion, it is quite unfortunate. I think that this disproportional information about comparably important climate regulation mechanisms may be among reasons why even some colleagues participating in the present discussion are still afraid that dealing with latent heat transport from Earth surface is a kind of pseudoscience contradicting basic laws of physics:
https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2023/07/unforced-variations-july-2023/#comment-812868
Ron R. says
1 Jul 2023 at 11:23 AM
“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-812735
„To be clear, this is known as the First Law of Thermodynamics – the Conservation Of Energy. You can move the heat around, but with the roof on the whole will get slowly hotter.“
As regards the reason why at least the lower layers of Earth atmosphere emit IR radiation in a very broad spectral range resembling the black body radiation, I am not familiar therewith, however, I hope that perhaps the numerous references brought by patrick o twentyseven might be useful. As he summarizes in
https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2023/06/unforced-variations-jun-2023/#comment-812715
water vapour may be the main emitter enabling the IR emission outside the CO2 absorption bands.
Greetings
Tom
Ferchrissake, read for content. I am not saying that it isn’t dealt with, but rather that it isn’t a large effect! And the deltas from changing water use, etc. will be even smaller. If you think I am wrong, prove it. Do the modeling and publish a paper! That’s how science works.
In Re to
https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2023/07/unforced-variations-july-2023/#comment-812939
Dear Ray,
Thank you very much for your kind feedback. Do I understand correctly that you do not dismiss Earth surface cooling by latent heat transport as a nonsense contradicting the first law of thermodynamics anymore? It you admit, similarly as Ron R. in
https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2023/07/unforced-variations-july-2023/#comment-812910
that “the roof (in sense of IR absorption of atmosphere layer in altitudes above usual cloud base) is still porous”, I see it as a major progress in our discussion.
If so, our discussion may now go forward to three more specific questions:
a) How important is the effect in the global energy budget?
b) Is the effect now at its limit, or can it be exploited in an extent exceeding the present level thereof significantly?
c) Are there positive synergies that might attenuate the effect, or negative synergies that may attenuate it?
Am particularly thankful for bringing me to the question b). As regards your doubts about significance of the effect for Earth climate, please follow my discussion with Piotr.
Best regards
Tomáš
Tomas, nothing has changed. It’s pretty obvious to everyone that some % of the sun’s radiated heat is still escaping into space or it would get really here fast. I’ve read that some 70% of the sun’s radiation is absorbed by the earth while 30% is re-radiated back out. With global warming though, more is bouncing back in again unnaturally and thus warming us unnaturally. It’s pretty elementary (if I’m understanding you right). Some light, and heat, are escaping.
Ray would be much more qualified than me to continue the discussion though.
Found a couple of simple charts to maybe explain the greenhouse effect better.
https://www.exploringnature.org/graphics/Environment/global_warming_graphic.jpg
https://d1jqu7g1y74ds1.cloudfront.net/wp-content/uploads/2011/02/Enhanced-Greenhouse-Effect.gif
IOW, normally a portion of the sun’s energy that strikes the earth is absorbed by it. Some of it, a minority, is reflected back out into space by the land, by albedo there, and on the tops of clouds, etc. But due to gasses in our atmosphere enough is trapped that it contributes to a beneficial warming for life. Yea! It’s in evolved balance (life and it’s perturbations keeps it in a general balance). Co2 comes from plant and animal life therefrom. There’s an additional amount of it from volcanos, but it’s all figured in. Some of that is absorbed by the oceans, some by the trees and other plant life. It works pretty well and we’re all happy.
The problem is that because of the rapid (a few hundred years) addition of Co2 from our burning of fossil fuels (created over millions of years millions of years ago – energy which was absorbed for the growth of plants and sea animals living back then) we are causing the earth to warm up unnaturally, pushing it out of that balance, because their carbon is not allowing incoming solar radiation to escape to space as it normally would. It’s keeping it here longer.
Since the sun’s energy cannot be destroyed, it is converted to use by life and by work. Buried too. But ultimately it is still here, especially if we are not allowing what would normally escape to escape back out. Some is trapped by the oceans and plants living now, that’s OK. But we are overwhelming them. They are blanketing our skies and acidifying our seas. To make matters worse, we are cutting some of them down!
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/climate-change-pollution-rising-thanks-to-overwhelmed-oceans/
This is my understanding of it anyway. Ray or BPL or somebody here more knowledgable, and who accepts basic physics, can correct me if I misstated anything and continue if they want.
Ron R,
This might help:
https://bartonlevenson.com/EmissionHeight.html
Re: BPL 9.JUL.
so in your simplified model atmosphere is infinitely thin, just moves up (or down) to the height at which temperature it would produce the right amount of out LW radiation?
In other words – the LW emitted by Earth either directly escapes into space (the window) or is absorbed ONLY once and then half emitted out and half emitted down.
I understand you wanted your model to be as simple as possible, but the infinitely thin atm, misses an important effect of increasing GHGs – that they cause the first absorption to happen closer to the Earth. i.e. In warmer temp -> more of energy returns back to the Earth. That’s why in a thick atmosphere there is asymmetry between the LW leaving into space (165+30 W/m2) and the amount coming back to Earth (the back radiation of 324 W/m2) – hence my ~1/3 number in posts to Kalisz and Shurly (out of all energy absorbed by the atmosphere – only ~1/3 radiates into space while ~2/3 returns to Earth surface).
This also explains why in Gavin’s recent post the Earth surface gets warmer, but the upper atmosphere gets colder.
Piotr,
Yes, it was an extremely simplified model, and left out many of the processes in the real atmosphere. It was just there to illustrate one point–given conservation of Energy, Stefan-Boltzmann, Wien, and an atmosphere that can absorb IR, there MUST be a greenhouse effect. Many more sophisticated models are possible, from semigray models through latitudinally-resolved energy balance models, through radiative-convective models, EMICs, GCMs, etc.
BPL and Piotr,
BPL, Piotr knows I am a big fan of simplification ;-), so I like your piece, and I have a request. Can you do the same magic for a planet with zero water open to the atmosphere? (Other GHG are still present.)
I’m just thinking about the Vapor-boys and how they would explain what would happen if we then added water, and what the numbers might be as we moved up from that initial value of zer0.
(Of course, the most likely response would be “I can’t explain it but I’m just sure I am right and you are wrong”.)
Anyway, I am actually curious.
Z,
The model as set up doesn’t distinguish what greenhouse gases are present. I could make it more elaborate by having some expression for what fraction of the IR is absorbed, based on the different greenhouse agents present, but it would be hard to keep it simple.
BPL,
Okay, so get to work! ;-)
Anyway, I wish I could remember where I saw it… I think a NASA article… but I read that water vapor accounted for 50% of warming. So it is going to be somewhere similar to the value that has been calculated for the planet without CO2, since that condition has all the water vapor condensed out, correct?
Zebra to BPL: “ Can you do the same magic for a planet with zero water open to the atmosphere? (Other GHG are still present.) I’m just thinking about the Vapor-boys and how they would explain what would happen if we then added water .”
Why reinvent a wheel, and a square one at that? What you ask of BPL has been already done, using a much more realistic model, by Schmidt et al 2010. In fact, that model was initially brought up by one of the Vapor boys to defend the scheme of the other Vapor boys:
Shurly: “ Our GranMaster Dr. Gavin Schmidt says https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/2010JD014287”
Unfortunately for him, I used the very same paper to show that unless more than 94% of LH is EMITTED into space, the net effect of adding evaporation is to WARM the Earth, And since based on energy budgets – a more likely number is ~35%,
hence within Shurly’s own argument I have shown that the net effect of increasing evaporation would be to WARM the Earth. E.g.
So what you propose – not only has been done, except with a more realistic atmosphere, but we also already know WHAT the response of the “Vapor boys” was:
– Shurly … stopped referring to his own argument and changed the subject to
a misrepresented by him IPCC graph. I.e. the mole’s strategy in whack-a-mole.
– Kalisz: ignores those results,
dismisses it as … a petty squabble between me and Shurly (“I see little sense in Piotr’s dispute with macias shurly“) and implies that the conclusion – the increase in evaporation warms the Earth – has … no relevance to his schemes to … cool the Earth with increasing evaporation,
And … welcomes your proposal (“ Dear zebra. Thank you very much for your proposal “), as a chance to change the subject from the conclusions of the already existing model, to … potential results, that may, or may not, materialize.
And, in a meantime, by embracing your proposal – Kalisz portrays himself as open to
arguments, and projects the confidence that the results of the possible future model, if ever produced, would support his claims. And if they don’t – the model
can always be dismissed as too much of a simplification.
Weren’t you just warning of a danger of getting “owned” by the denialists? ;-)
Zebra to BPL, Jul 16: “ Okay, so get to work! ;-) Anyway, I wish I could remember where I saw it… I think a NASA article…but I read that water vapor accounted for 50% of warming. ”
Perhaps you saw it in: Schmidt et al. 2010 , Table 1, Single factor removal:
H2O + Clouds 66.9% [of net Net LW Absorbed]
i.e. the paper that has been repeatedly linked to in this thread. And the paper that used
more realistic ModelE (“Space Studies (GISS) atmospheric general circulation model (GCM)”).
And which results you want recreate with … an maximally simplified model by BPL (1-D model with infinitely thin atmosphere), which, if the modification that you requested are implemented, will … no longer be simple, while still not yielding any realistic results, (because of its still extremely simplified nature).
Hence my recurring question: ” Why reinvent a wheel, and a square one at that?”
Jim Steele 27 JUN 2023 Antarctica “greenhouse effect” in Earth’s troposphere is backwards in winter. The GHGs cool Antarctica in winter (Antarctica “greenhouse effect” probably normal but low in summer, I’ll not spend the time getting surface temperatures and calculating it). Arctic Ocean 75N “greenhouse effect” in Earth’s troposphere is forwards in winter but considerably less than global average. ~No sunshine and the warm air arrives high so the CO2 etc.IR molecules manufacture and emit to space (not “re-emit, manufacture and emit) LWR more than is emitted up from the snow surface, as measured by IRIS or whatever since 1964. Antarctica is losing ice because the ocean is warming at ~200 m to ~800 m and the circumpolar wind has strengthened and moved closer to Antarctica because Antarctica surface has warmed less than lower latitudes. Antarctica ice loss below the surface is 600 times as much as Antarctica ice loss at the surface.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=efE2L4XaapU The answer to Yong Zhong’s question at 8:07 to 8:26 is “because CO2 molecules manufacture LWR, and almost certainly decimal orders of magnitude more than the surface emits at 13-17 microns”. Since I pondered and decided this in 2017 I have come across 2 experimental proofs that I’m correct, 1 partial experimental proof that I’m correct, 1 mixed experimental proof but it relies on Appeal to Great Authority (one of Zhong’s academic opponents) and 2 Appeals to Authority (2 of Zhong’s academic opponents).
Barry E Finch,
I’m not sure why you bring the bullshitting YC Zhong into this comments thread. The shite-for-brains fool belongs in a lunatic asylum.
The Climate State website just went through the largest update since the project started. There is now a knowledge base, the old forum is back, and the news page has been reworked. If you write about the climate and want to publish articles at Climate State (no reposts) contact us. Everyone can register, create a social profile, read about and discuss our changing environment.
https://climatestate.com
Can we post citizen science-type, White Paper-esitque essays on things science hasn’t quite figured out, but there is strong evidence for?
Killian
If drunken sailors just could recover and become more scientific, that would be no problem.
Killian
I may reply more formal if you are able to grasp it.
We hardly need more of that ” teaching” style popular science about what is dammned sure because science has prooved it, and all the examples of what von Däniken has come over and there is strong evidence for, but science is helpless or is being sensored.
I have personally studied a lot of new age and para-sciences to be qualified for digging into that also.
What we / the people better need and what I must recommend is to try and qualify as the amateur scientist and secure for yourself methods to find out and methods of observation and measurement….. from many sides and horizons of science so the expertise will not cheat and bluff you so easily. So you rather can look them into their chards and better make up your own mind.
That is, to be sceptical and critical in a qualified way.
And in addition, some knowledge of how to state proof and to show evidence. which is quite an art that must be learnt. That comes under epistemology.
Example:
I bought new trousers at the supermarket and neither I nor the lady could understand the labeled size numbers. “Have you got a tailor measuring stripe” no she had not.
“but have you got anyting like a long thread?”
Yes, she had.
So i laid that thread around my waist, kept it with fingers and laid it doubble, stretched it out, and told her to keep and stretch out the trousers the same way.
It did match.
and that is basic scientific measurement that has got nothing to do neither with inches nor with centimeters nor with numbers of the same.
It is rather the basic elementary scientific way to be sure enough. and to show evidence.
People give a damn to science and to measurement and to comparishion and to counting when it comes to it, and that is quite a problem in our time.
They thrive for their aquainted LEGO. and deny & ridicule anything before they can have those industrial artificial proteses of thought and behaviours, Massproduced labeled and brandmarked from common peoples owners. .
It is the ruin of mentality through classical industrial imprisonment and slavery..
Ladies and Gentlemen
I come to think that due to especially fast global warming caused by human use of fossile fuel first of all, a lot of further known details become physically plausible…..
…….. such as less clouds over lands and desertification here and there but not everywhere. The sea temperatures will lag behind the land temperatrures due to higher specific hear capacity of water compared to dry land.
But Thomas Kalisz must accept the tradewinds and the monsune and sunny seabreeze – effects worldwide and that rain on land has evaporated at sea for the most, and not from “evapotranspiratrion” by trees and green vegetation that would have dried out very fast .
That land- evapotranspirational theory of both rain and snow seems unbelieveable as simply seen and judged from my window in quite normal summer weather after a long period of dangerous drought.
And here is really green forests enough they really did not cause the sudden change of sumjmer weather back to the more normal , Quite on the contrary, they are the quite normal and traditional consequenses of it.. in Köppens climate system.
There aint no Vltava in my Vlast so mighty that it could possibly have supported all that water at that sudden speed of water falling down and filling up the groundwater levels / not being remooved and evapotranspirated from them,
It “evapotranspirates” at sea of course and rains down again over land and sea, depending on winds and on necessay chill on the top of the clouds.
It is conscistent also with what I wrote for Kalisz of paleoclimatology from Wikipedia. A warm global climate situation in balance entails a very green earth even with rainforests and Kaolin formation at high latitudes. And a cool ice age climate in balance entails heavy and frequent duststorms and dustbowls, giving enormeous Loess sedimentation in the tempered even sub- arctic zones worldwide.
Todays situation then becomes an exeptionally fast upgoing rather unnatural climatic transcient where the ocean temperatures are lagging consequently behind due to difference of material heat capacities.
I shall come back to it,
This can explain a wide spectrum of things and events and known data details much easier and in a conscistent way.
C says: “I shall come back to it,”
No don’t. Just shut up.
Please send this clown to the Bore Hole permanently.
Have you no shame Gavin et al? I beg you. Please put us all out of our misery. Thank you.
Have we got another Stalin or Puttler- sprout here?
re Carbomontanus @ https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2023/06/unforced-variations-jun-2023/comment-page-2/#comment-812754
No, I am not an A.I. nor have I used, or do I ever plan to use, ChatGPS or GDP or GPA or whatever. It creeps me out.
Should I take it as a complement or complaint that you thought I might?
But there must be better ways to demonstrate you’re real than using the n-word, etc. (also, an AI could be trained on a bigot…)
It is my predisposition to give people the benefit of the doubt, and in particular, I do not expect people to be familiar with every racial/ethnic/gender/etc. slur/epithet, trope, or stereotype – I know I’ve gone for long periods of time not knowing some common ones from my own country. The bigots have worn potholes in our language/etc. that the innocent may accidently step in.
But I was thrown and shocked when you used the n-word. (I am aware there is a Scandinavian word which bears a superficial resemblance, but I suspect you were not declaring yourself to not be stingy.) I had thought it was widely recognized as perhaps THE most offensive word in the entire history of words, if not at least tied. Perhaps I am wrong? Well, I will explain – for someone of my cultural background (U.S.), it is the Tsar bomb of words; capable of incinerating entire conversations, not to mention the radioactive fallout. If I see it or hear it from a person, I decide to avoid that person – I want nothing to do with them. There are exceptions (Mark Twain,… it’s different when a black person uses it but still…) But generally, you just DON’T use it. Period.
Also, there is a history of comparing black people (and maybe others) with non-human primates, so your “ape manners” discussion could have struck a nerve, especially when combined with saying its in their DNA. And then there’s the going on about Polish personality tendencies…
I get there are cultural variations – ie. the meaning of a thumbs up, how close together people stand when talking to each other; people with my cultural background are more likely to greet strangers with a friendly smile and “hi”, as I understand it – whereas this would be considered odd in other places.
Then you discussed other personality/behavioral traits being hereditary… perhaps you were speaking figuratively?
All of these things together made you seem like a bigot, making your re to Ned Kelly https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2023/06/unforced-variations-jun-2023/#comment-812734
seem rather ironic. But maybe you are just an innocent victim of those potholes?
Also, how do you have dossiers on JCM and ms?
Moderators, please! I object very strongly to C’s use of racial slurs. Regardless of his excuses and accusations, it is clearly way outside your guidelines. It shouldn’t be up to Patrick to point it out, although it can get lost in the other verbiage.
[Response: Sorry – that slipped past us. Now deleted. – gavin]
Carbomontanus:
The poster’s handle was Ned Kelly.
Ned Kelly was a notorious Australian bushranger who was arrested, tried, convicted and executed in 1880 for the murder of a policeman.
I have no Idea why the poster chose that as their handle, though, but it seems unlikely to me that the poster is female.
re John Pollack and Gavin – thank you for taking care of that, and for the other one from last month.
Dear Carbomontanus,
I particularly appreciate your hints to archaeological findings in tropical Africa and Amazonia suggesting that present wet tropical region might have been significantly drier when Sahara was green.
It suggests that while regional precipitation distribution might have changed dramatically, the overall water cycle intensity might have been more stable in the past.
I believe these questions deserve a continuing thorough research.
Greetings
Tom
@ Thomas Kalisz
Yes, and how shall we explain such things without constructing collisions and paradoxes in regard to elementary physics and meteorology?
A more savanna- like central Congo when Sahara was rainy enough?
I would suggest change of major global wind patterns and systems. That may be more dramatic to people and to the økosystems than just a few degrees change of mean temperature.
Dear Carbomontanus,
A Czech paleoclimatologist Dr. Petr Pokorný made me aware of his chapter in a recent book Antropocén (Anthropocene), wherein he mentions these archaeological funds.
In fact, there is a 2500 years long story of agricultural land in Amazonia that ended abruptly in the end of 16th century when infectious diseases brought from Europe killed almost all inhabitants. Consequently, current Amazonian rainforest is a result of a successfull succession of the nature into this ancient agricultural land. I do not know if there already has been any research regarding changes in water cycle resulting from these land use changes. There are some signs (according to analyses of air bubbles from ice cores) of decrease of atmospheric CO2 concentration due to Amazonia reforestation.
The relevant references to the original literature are
Heckenberger, M., Neves, E. G. (2009): Amazonian archaeology. Annual Review of Anthropology, 38, pages 251-266;
Denevan, W. M. (2004): Semi-intensive pre-European cultivation and the origins of anthropogenic Dark Earths in Amazonia. In: Glaser, B., Woods, W. I. (eds.):
Amazonian Dark Earths: Exploitations in Space and Time.
Springer, Berlin.
Levis, C., Costa, F. R. C., Bongers, F. a kol. (2017): Persistent effects of pre-Columbian plant domestication of Amazonian forest composition. Science, 355, 925–931.
Loughlin, N. J. D., Gosling, W. D., Mothes, P., Montoya, E. (2018): Ecological consequences of post-Columbian indigenous depopulation in the Andean-Amazonian corridor. Nature Ecology a Evolution. https://doi.org./10.1038/s41559-018-0602-7
Greetings
Tom
Dear Carbomontanus,
A Czech paleoclimatologist Petr Pokorný made me aware of his chapter in a recent book „Antropocén“ (Anthropocene), wherein he mentions also these archaeological findings.
Very likely, there was no overlap between the era of agricultural landscape in Amazonia and the era of green Sahara, because Amazonian civilization was more recent – it collapsed in the end of 16th century due to infectious diseases brought from Europe.
References cited in the book:
Loughlin, N. J. D., Gosling, W. D., Mothes, P., Montoya, E. (2018): Ecological consequences of post-Columbian indigenous depopulation in the Andean-Amazonian corridor. Nature Ecology a Evolution. https://doi.org./10.1038/s41559-018-0602-7
Levis, C., Costa, F. R. C., Bongers, F. a kol. (2017): Persistent effects of pre-Columbian plant domestication of Amazonian forest composition. Science, 355, 925–931.
Heckenberger, M., Neves, E. G. (2009): Amazonian archaeology. Annual Review of Anthropology, 38.
Denevan, W. M. (2004): Semi-intensive pre-European cultivation and the origins of anthropogenic Dark Earths in Amazonia. In: Glaser, B., Woods, W. I. (eds.): Amazonian Dark Earths: Exploitations in Space and Time.
Springer, Berlin.
Greetings
Tomáš
P.S.
Interestingly, the end of Amazonian agricultural landscape seems to have a certain “fingerprint” in decreasing atmospheric CO2 concentration due to succession of Amazonian rainforest. It may be construed from air bubbles in antarctic ice cores.
There is no mention of the impact on hydrology and / or regional climate. Possibly, no studies in this direction have been made yet.
it should be noted that, as a general rule of thumb for global terrestrial catchments, the evapotranspiration ET is about two thirds of precipitation P, with runoff Q closing the balance at 1/3 in a natural state.
So the ET/Q = 2 globally averaged pristine condition.
Cheng and Lu find that climatologically “62% of continental precipitation stems from evapotranspiration through Lagrangian tracking – a measure is known as the global continental precipitation recycling ratio…… On the 1° grid scale, nonlocal terrestrial sources dominate precipitation in almost 70% of the land areas, most prominent in the continental interior.”.
“Significance Statement
Water is crucial for human civilization. There has been a century-long discussion on the moisture sources of continental precipitation. Using Lagrangian tracking, we show that 62% of continental precipitation stems from evapotranspiration, closing the gap with the budget-based estimate. Terrestrial sources dominate precipitation in 70% of Earth’s surface, especially in the interior of South America, Africa, and Eurasia. Global monsoon regions and the mid-to-high latitudes share a completely different source-regulated hydroclimate. Terrestrial source hotspots for continental precipitation that deserve conservation are identified. Two types of processes that formulate a cascade of regional water cycles are proposed and evaluated. Findings here advance the understanding of the origin of continental precipitation, offering insights into water and land management for freshwater sustainability.”
https://journals.ametsoc.org/view/journals/clim/36/6/JCLI-D-22-0185.1.xml?rskey=2Z8ONi&result=2
My personal observation in a northern mid-latitude continental climate is that the perennial grasses and winter wheat are primed to transpire as soon as the ground thaws in spring. The annuals are taking until early July for knee height stems.
Much of the terrain is like the following online photo through May and June https://assets.corteva.com/is/image/Corteva/corn-young-plants?wid=570&hei=428
Constrained maximum transpiration is not occurring until 60-80 days after annual plantings. Unnatural hot weather pockets in June are certainly to be expected under direct sun.
For the specialty crops, the irrigated almond plantation typically looks like so throughout the season
https://xerces.org/sites/default/files/inline-images/peter%20albright%20woolf%20farming_0.jpg
Here we can see quite clearly that irrigated lands are not resembling pristine catchment of the great central valley of California; such a change to hydroclimate should be considered prior to dismissal..
And take notice that irrigated lands are but 5-10% of cropped area, by fancy drip system or pivot. The vast majority of the disrupted landscape is not being irrigated, of course! Nobody is watering the cash crops or idle tree stands (nor should they).
There is no equal compensating swap of desertification and irrigation. It just doesn’t work like that. Plus the missing drawdown of 10-20 billion tons per year Carbon into soils is not to be dismissed. These are the stable organics which sustain the net energy flows away from the surface, in addition to minimizing greenhouse effects.
As an afterthought of trace gas programs, a renewed appreciation of catchment hydrology and the associated energetic aspects and heat transport is due. If not for policy consideration, at least for scientific curiosity. The active dismissal of such matters is counter-productive. My guess is this is due in part to politics, and quite large gaps in data.
Ladies and Gentlemen
Why is the central valley of California that important? What about Donbas and Kryim, Ukraina and Uzbekistan and the Aral sea under STALIN regime, and what about the mongolians and the turks in central Asia, the Taklamakhan and Lop Nor and Xinkiang situation even with experimental atomic bombs on it?
Almonds and rasins and dried fruits and peppers and rare earths on the silk road…. all the way to Las Vegas and Hollywood. In the golden state.
They are not at charge and not global in the climate. They only believe blindly in their scriptures.
Shall I have to repeat that of desert walkers and blind believers fanatics and flat earthers within their error- bars in their peoples republics?
“With the roof on, irrigation wouldn’t let the heat out, only displace it.”
By the way, before somebody jumps on it, I acknowledge that the roof is sill porous. Some percentage on heat is getting out. It’s just that the Co2 that we are emitting is causing more of it to remain in the atmosphere than otherwise would. And as we continue to emit that will increase. Gotta get serious and do something about the Co2.
John Pollack, Ray, and others:
John, I recall you schooling me about the 3D nature of the jet stream, and your comment here is also very informative. And Ray, the obvious point about emissions is also useful. I would just offer this simple observation:
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/B9780123850409000013
(my bold)
(Fixed blockquote I hope.)
John Pollack, Ray, and others:
John, I recall you schooling me about the 3D nature of the jet stream, and your comment here is also very informative. And Ray, the obvious point about emissions is also useful. I would just offer this simple observation:
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/B9780123850409000013
(my bold)
So before getting lost in the details, how about dealing with the basic reasoning? The hydrologic cycle is intensifying (without purposeful human intervention), and, consequently, GHG water-vapor is increasing, and, as expected, the energy imbalance continues and perhaps is getting worse. How does it make sense to add more??
In fact, it’s reasonable to argue that we should be decreasing evaporation… as I referenced last month, humans have pumped enough groundwater to raise sea level and tilt the axis of the planet. Our ability to do this obviously coincided with the increase in available mechanical energy due to the use of fossil fuels; perhaps it would be good to return to the more natural pre-industrial hydrologic cycle conditions as well as CO2 levels? (Or at least be far more efficient in our irrigation and consumption practices.)
The point being that if you start out with an invalid premise, discussing lots of details is just a form of informal fallacy.
@ all ye rain barrelers, water cyclers, desert walkes, flat earters and blind believers in your dogmatic scriptures , statistics, and “peer rewiewed” iconography and models of the same:
Today on the 5th of july 2023 The internet reports 300 fligthts at least cancelled because of “storm” on Schiphol airport south 0f Amsterdam, their national airport where the earth is especially flat in combination with with Waterstaat, that is Dutch and means waterlevels.
The Nullschool betrays a red storm dash coming in over Den Haag at the Scheveningen dijks and dunes. .
I have once landed there by KLM through 2 thick peasoups at rough winds, The captain said before we went down : ” The weather on Schiphol is a bit rough… , but we shall manage to get down… ”
I heard him grinding his teeth when saying so, thus fastened my seatbelt. .
It went down on one wheel in several jumps, and the very good captain was able to shake it on track along with the landing stripe at Schiphol and on place beneith the Hangar. So we could breathe out again.
That was late autumn, a normal autumn storm in the southern north sea. .
But today 5th of july 2023 it was obviously worse. That is…… unconventional, an extreme even on Schiphol.
It is probably a consequence of Claussius Clappeyrons law and the Montgolfier principle in the notheast atlantic, that is an open system now also with record early sea surface temperatures
It is time for our landcrabs now to learn about where and why it evapotranspirates, and what that may have for large regional, seemingly strange even frustrating consequenses, even for the KLM.
UAH TLT has been posted for June with an anomaly of +0.38ºC, a tad up on May’s +0.37ºC. It was the second warmest June on the UAH TLT record after 1998 (+0.44ºC) and ahead of 2019 (+0.34ºC), 2020, 2016 (+0.21ºC) & 2015 (+0.18ºC). Recent years missing from this list (UAH is a bit trend-denying) are 2017 (+0.09ºC), 2018 & 2022 (+0.06ºC) and 2021 (+0.00ºC).
The start of 2023 remains as seventh warmest, but now closer to a top-five finish for the full calendar year.
…….. Jan-June Ave … Annual Ave ..Annual ranking
2016 .. +0.50ºC … … … +0.39ºC … … … 1st
1998 .. +0.46ºC … … … +0.35ºC … … … 3rd
2020 .. +0.39ºC … … … +0.36ºC … … … 2nd
2010 .. +0.29ºC … … … +0.19ºC … … … 6th
2019 .. +0.26ºC … … … +0.30ºC … … … 4th
2017 .. +0.22ºC … … … +0.26ºC … … … 5th
2023 .. +0.20ºC
2002 .. +0.13ºC … … … +0.08ºC … … … 11th
2022 .. +0.11ºC … … … +0.17ºC … … … 7th
2018 .. +0.10ºC … … … +0.09ºC … … … 10th
2015 .. +0.09ºC … … … +0.14ºC … … … 8th
Public Enemy Number 1.
“The fossil fuel industry is very good at getting what it wants because they get the lobbyists best at playing the game,” Roberts said. “They have the best staff, huge legal departments, and the ability to funnel dark money to lobbying and influence channels.
“This database really makes it apparent that when you hire these insider lobbyists, you are basically working with double agents. They are guns for hire. The information you share with them is probably going to the opposition.”
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2023/jul/05/double-agent-fossil-fuel-lobbyists
The Koch name comes up again and again. It’s unconscionable, imo, to sell the planet and the future simply to make and keep a few people obscenely wealthy. No amount of donating to PBS is ever going to rectify that.
re nigelj, re my https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2023/06/unforced-variations-jun-2023/comment-page-2/#comment-812849
“The Spiral Staircase (bibliographical, “… Oops, I meant autobiographical; I noticed when I did a search the first results were for an old movie, so here’s a link about the book, by Karen Armstrong:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Spiral_Staircase%3A_My_Climb_Out_Of_Darkness
re Killian – https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2023/06/unforced-variations-jun-2023/comment-page-2/#comment-812864
Not entirely sure what you mean; I believe my sense of morality hasn’t changed much since I was a child (presumably morality fundamentally is a matter of instinct and/or a natural product of empathy + awareness (PS remember to include kindness for one’s self), but I continue to learn about global warming and how solar cells work, and how democracy works, etc. There are things I would not really on a book to tell me, and that’s (one place) where I break with some religious people (eg. the Bible/whatever says wives should … oh please, just think/feel about it!). Of course, in order to apply morality, one must have a situation to apply it to (it’s like math; it’s hypothetical until it isn’t). And you need to know how to be nice (eg. what does this person like to eat? What medicine treats their condition? Is this social-economic-political system sustainable? Will it devolve into tyranny? Will it sink under the mass of it’s own pollution?) in order to be effective.
And if I didn’t read such books, I wouldn’t know the humorous story of how ancient Egypt became ancient Egypt:
hey, what should we feed dead people?
How about bread and beer!
“Bread”? What is this “bread” you speak of?… and that’s where Pharaohs come from (okay, I skipped a few steps but it’s pretty interesting).
Also it’s just nice to know what others think sometimes.
patrick;
“how ancient Egypt became ancient Egypt:
“hey, what should we feed dead people?
How about bread and beer!
“Bread”? What is this “bread” you speak of?…”
I see you are in the beer first camp
Copernicus ERA5 reanalysis has posted for June giving the global SAT anomaly at +0.53ºC, the highest anomaly of the year-to-date (previously monthly anomalies spanning from Jan’s +0.25ºC up to March’s +0.51ºC). June 2023 is the warmest June on the ERA5 record by quite a way, previous warm years being 2019 (+0.37ºC), 2020, 2022, 2016, 2018, 2021, 2017, 2015 & 1998 (+0.18ºC) now 10th warmest June in the ERA5 SAT record.
June 2023 is the 9th highest monthly anomaly on the ERA5 all-month record.
A year-on-year graph of the ERA5 record is presented here – GRAPH 2b.
The first half of 2023 has climbed up from 5th spot last month to 4th warmest start-of-the-year, or perhaps that is =3rd. With the coming El Niño, 2023 may well challenge 2020 for warmest-year, although the ENSO forecasts do appear to be showing an El Niño less powerful than 1998 or 2016 (with peak ENSO 3.4 predictions averaging +1.8ºC when the 1998 & 2016 El Niños peaked at +2.7ºC and +2.9ºC respectively).
…….. Jan-June Ave … Annual Ave ..Annual ranking
2016 .. +0.51ºC … … … +0.44ºC … … … 2nd
2020 .. +0.50ºC … … … +0.47ºC … … … 1st
2017 .. +0.38ºC … … … +0.34ºC … … … 4th
2023 .. +0.38ºC
2019 .. +0.38ºC … … … +0.40ºC … … … 3rd
2022 .. +0.29ºC … … … +0.30ºC … … … 5th
2018 .. +0.26ºC … … … +0.26ºC … … … 7th
2010 .. +0.20ºC … … … +0.13ºC … … … 9th
2021 .. +0.19ºC … … … +0.27ºC … … … 6th
2015 .. +0.17ºC … … … +0.26ºC … … … 8th
2007 .. +0.11ºC … … … +0.04ºC … … … 15th
MA Rodger: – “With the coming El Niño, 2023 may well challenge 2020 for warmest-year…”
Berkley Earth’s May 2023 Temperature Update by Robert Rohde, dated 19 Jun 2023 stated:
https://berkeleyearth.org/may-2023-temperature-update/
Meanwhile, the “Daily 2-meter Air Temperature” (World, 90°S-90°N, 0-360°E) has exceeded the 17 °C threshold for the first time in the instrumental records (so far) for:
• Mon, Jul 3, 2023: Observed Temperature 17.01 °C (anomaly +0.81 °C)
• Tue, Jul 4, 2023: Observed Temperature 17.18 °C (anomaly +0.98 °C)
• Wed, Jul 5, 2023: Observed Temperature 17.18 °C (anomaly +0.98 °C)
• Thu, Jul 6, 2023: Observed Temperature 17.23 °C (anomaly +1.02 °C)
https://climatereanalyzer.org/clim/t2_daily/
And SSTs (World, 60°S-60°N) have been at record seasonal highs for more than 3½ months, significantly above the equivalent seasonal temperatures for the 1998 & 2016 El Niño years.
https://climatereanalyzer.org/clim/sst_daily/
MA Rodger: – “…although the ENSO forecasts do appear to be showing an El Niño less powerful than 1998 or 2016 (with peak ENSO 3.4 predictions averaging +1.8ºC when the 1998 & 2016 El Niños peaked at +2.7ºC and +2.9ºC respectively).”
The Australian Bureau of Meteorology (BoM) issued its latest revised Long-range sea surface temperature forecasts, dated 1 Jul 2023, including forecast means for the NINO 3.4 region:
Jul 2023: _ +1.5 °C
Aug 2023: +2.0 °C
Sep 2023: +2.3 °C
Oct 2023: +2.4 °C
Nov 2023: +2.5 °C
Dec 2023: +2.7 °C
http://www.bom.gov.au/climate/ocean/outlooks/#region=NINO34
Barring a major volcanic eruption, nuclear war, and/or major meteor strike, I would not be at all surprised to see a +1.3 °C global mean surface temperature threshold exceedance (relative to the GISS 1880-1920 baseline) yearly average for 2023, and +1.4 °C for 2024.
Geoff Meill,
The predictions for the 2023 full calendar year global temperature will vary with time and method and also by data record. The analysis by CarbonBrief at the end of April (so 6 weeks earlier than BEST analysis) found the chances of a ‘scorchyisimo’ 2023 were 22% with the most likely outcome a 4th place within the range 1st-to-6th, this based on the ERA5 record. The Met Office found a similar result for 2023 with their analysis back at the end of 2022 as did WMO with their Global Annual to Decadal Climate Update published last month.
Myself, I find applying very simplistic analyses do seem to point to a ‘scorchyisimo’ 2023, but presumably these analyses by BEST, CarbonBrief, Met Office & WMO are better informed.
You (again) point to the Ozzie BoM AUS-ACCESS projecting NINO3.4 values for the end 2023 which are not dissimilar to the peak NINO3.4 values for 2015 & 1997. (Repeating similar critique of BoM made before) these values have been revised down by BoM since their June analysis and note back then their projected NINO3.4 values for June (+1.2ºC) ended up measuring significantly lower (+0.9ºC).
And more importantly, the projected values for NINO3.4 from Columbia IRI that I have referenced in previous responses to you do include AUS-ACCESS and show it as a top-end outlier. Note that both the BEST & CarbonBrief SAT analyses linked above show this same Columbia IRI analysis.
The measure you set out for the 2023 calendar year (+1.3°C global mean surface temperature threshold exceedance relative to the GISS 1880-1920 baseline) is also the annual GISS ‘scorchyisimo’ threshold as currently top-spot year in GISS is 2016 at +1.29°C. I don’t see any projections for 2023 saying a +1.3°C outcome would be ‘at all suprising’ so you express nothing novel although it may be that if you were to express it statistically it would be a different story.
I guess most people have been keeping track of recent extreme weather and temp news. Here’s another just in case you missed it. Take care now.
World Health Organization (WHO) Director-General Tedros Ghebreyesus has said climate change will drive a surge in “extreme weather events” in 2023, pointing to record-breaking temperatures around the globe this week.
Speaking during a Wednesday press briefing, Tedros said the “climate crisis” is now among the “major factors determining human health outcomes,” warning that global warming could ultimately produce a “wave of hunger, migration and disease.”
“Over the coming months, we expect a range of extreme weather events, including droughts, floods, hurricanes, and heatwaves, all of which harm human health,” he said, also noting that Monday marked the “hottest day on record” for average temperatures around the world.
The heatwaves across the globe at present seem to be caused by a particular locked in Rossby wave pattern. The UK Met Office deep dive on YouTube went into this in some detail and was very well presented to the general public (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ykC7ZeOa04Q). It is a wave number five pattern that has developed and is known to be very persistent, and is responsible for the location of the ridges which have resulted in extreme heat across the continents. The UK is under a trough which is why it has experienced a cool and wet July in contrast to southern Europe which has seen 40+C temperatures. Last year the UK experienced record breaking temperatures at the same time of year (>40C) which was also down to a wave number five Rossby wave pattern, except the UK back then was under a ridge. It it interesting that you can get completely different weather regimes in one country with the same planetary weather setup. The question is, is climate change making these persistent weather patterns more common? It feels like in the UK we are getting more frequent periods of weather that gets stuck in a rut, It almost feels like I am now living in a hybrid temperate wet and dry climate with random dry and rainy seasons these days.
chris 5 JUN 2023 Stefan Rahmstorf shows at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xITEUv65tj0 at 16:50 a bifurcation zone of 0.10 Sv freshwater forcing with an estimated present location of 0.085 Sv freshwater forcing stopping the AMOC. According to PIOMAS 1979-2020 the freshwater forcing of Arctic Ocean sea ice reduction is:
– 0.0085 Sv freshwater forcing so it’s 10% of the estimated AMOC cessation needs. Then there’s
– Arctic ocean precipitation exceeds evaporation by 5,700 km**3 / year = 0.18 Sv so 3% more water cycle = 0.0054 Sv freshwater forcing, so 6%
– Asia & N. America discharges 4,300 km**3 water / year into Arctic ocean annually = 0.14 Sv so 3% more water cycle = 0.0042 Sv freshwater forcing, so 5%
– Greenland discharges 270 km**3 more water+ice / year = 0.0086 Sv freshwater forcing, so 10%
However, I don’t know whether this freshwater forcing is assigned to varying importances by sub-region and I saw a scientist present that Greenland discharge doesn’t go to where it would provide freshwater forcing to the AMOC.
Corrections: 0.1 Sv S.B. 0.125 Sv and 0.085 Sv S.B. 0.078 Sv so 10% S .B. 11%, 6% S .B. 7%, 5% stat 5%, 10% S .B. 11%, totalling 34% of the freshwater forcing to stop the AMOC based on that pictorial starting at early-mid 20th century.
“Irrigation enhances local warming with greater nocturnal warming effects than daytime cooling effects. Xing Chen1,2 and Su-Jong Jeong1,3. Published 29 January 2018 ”
Abstract
To meet the growing demand for food, land is being managed to be more productive using agricultural intensification practices, such as the use of irrigation. Understanding the specific environmental impacts of irrigation is a critical part of using it as a sustainable way to provide food security. However, our knowledge of irrigation effects on climate is still limited to daytime effects. This is a critical issue to define the effects of irrigation on warming related to greenhouse gases (GHGs). This study shows that irrigation led to an increasing temperature (0.002 °C year−1) by enhancing nighttime warming (0.009 °C year−1) more than daytime cooling (−0.007 °C year−1) during the dry season from 1961–2004 over the North China Plain (NCP), which is one of largest irrigated areas in the world. By implementing irrigation processes in regional climate model simulations, the consistent warming effect of irrigation on nighttime temperatures over the NCP was shown to match observations. The intensive nocturnal warming is attributed to energy storage in the wetter soil during the daytime, which contributed to the nighttime surface warming. Our results suggest that irrigation could locally amplify the warming related to GHGs, and this effect should be taken into account in future climate change projections.
https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/aa9dea
Nigelj
This is important
I have understood it and tried to point at it. Now the chineese seem to have found it.
I have insinuated “Do not hide the decline.” On the contrary, try and become a holist, and judge and integrate the sunsets and the autumns, namely the declines, . and the nights and the winters also.
They are discussing ther. situation and the climate the way they are innaugurated drilled and aquainted, as national sports records and the stock market on Wallstreet, the dow jones index along with rumors, in virtual reality.
Dear nigelj,
Thank you very much for this reference.
I read this open source article and found out that in the assessed area of the North China Plain (NCP), the irrigation is carried out in the dry season which falls in the timespan September – May. It is thus the colder part of the year in the NCP.
The prevailing warming effect of irrigation can be thus in some extent likely ascribed to the fact that during this cold season, evaporation (and, consequelntly, the cooling effect of irrigation) may be relatively weak.
I therefore think that the results of this study cannot be generalized, especially not the way that “irrigation has a warming effect on Earth climate”.
Greetings
Tom
Hr Kalisz
I just come home from a tour across http://www.Hemsedalsfjellet , that is not as high as the high Tatra but anyhow,…..
and there is land on both sides. Norge / Noreg.
Noreg is quite more steep and vertical. Irrigation is seldom relevant there, if at all. Irrigation is a misuse of water due to your living on the wrong side of the Tatras.
There are strawberries ( Fragaria vesca L.) on both sides, both in Noreg and in Norge, but in Noreg they are more plenty.
RSS have posted the numbers for TLT through to June (although their excellent Trend Browser Tool has yet to update from April).
In RSS TLT May & June 2023 both see global anomalies of +0.77ºC, the highest of the year-to-date (which previously spanned +0.45ºC up to +0.66ºC).
June 2023 is the third warmest June in the RSS TLT record (2nd in UAH TLT & warmest in ERA5 SAT reanalysis) behind June 2019 (+0.84ºC) & 2020 (+0.78ºC) while ahead of 2016, 2010, 1998, 2015, 2014, 2021, 2017, 2022 * 2018 (+0.49ºC).
June 2023 is the 29th highest anomaly in the RSS TLLT record.
The first half of 2023 sits in 7th place as the warmest start-to-the-year (7th in UAH TLT & =3rd in ERA5 SAT reanalysis). For the full 2023 calendar year, the strength of the coming El Niño will be more of a factor with the TLT records.
…….. Jan-June Ave … Annual Ave ..Annual ranking
2016 .. +0.96ºC … … … +0.82ºC … … … 2nd
2020 .. +0.86ºC … … … +0.82ºC … … … 1st
2019 .. +0.74ºC … … … +0.76ºC … … … 3rd
1998 .. +0.69ºC … … … +0.58ºC … … … 9th
2010 .. +0.67ºC … … … +0.61ºC … … … 7th
2017 .. +0.65ºC … … … +0.69ºC … … … 4th
2023 .. +0.62ºC
2021 .. +0.56ºC … … … +0.62ºC … … … 5th
2022 .. +0.56ºC … … … +0.61ºC … … … 8th
2015 .. +0.54ºC … … … +0.62ºC … … … 6th
2018 .. +0.52ºC … … … +0.55ºC … … … 10th
Omg BPL, in English please! There’s an audience you know. :D
I like these experiments:
https://youtu.be/9VfPcIYdddw
There’s also,
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=16ywJDBM27o
https://www.metlink.org/experiment/the-greenhouse-effect/
https://royalsocietypublishing.org/doi/10.1098/rsos.192075
https://www.education.com/activity/article/Observe_Greenhouse_Effect/
And others.
https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2022/07/the-cos2-problem-in-six-easy-steps-2022-update/
Pierrehumbert: “Infrared radiation and planetary temperature” https://geosci.uchicago.edu/~rtp1/papers/PhysTodayRT2011.pdf
“I Misunderstood the Greenhouse Effect. Here’s How It Works.”:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oqu5DjzOBF8
“Why CO2 cools the middle atmosphere – a consolidating model perspective”Helge F. Goessling, Sebastian Bathiany : https://doi.org/10.5194/esd-7-697-2016
links here: https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2023/05/cmip6-not-so-sudden-stratospheric-cooling/#comment-811964
I like to approach the GHE by visualizing what you would see in heat vision: the atmosphere would be an incadescently-glowing haze/fog, with opaqueness depending on the concentration and characteristics of greenhouse gas molecules, cloud droplets/ice crystals, etc. The LTE approx. holds well for the vast majority of the atmosphere (by mass) and surface material, so (at each point in the spectrum (and if ever necessary, each polarization)), each unit of material emits a glow with a brightness = the Planck function, over an effective area (σa = absorption cross section, which accounts for net absorption = direct absorption – stimulated emission) which absorbs and thus hides whatever glow comes from behind…
(noting that this is a mathematical equivalency – generally you would not be able to discern individual cross sections, and they may represent the average effect of a class of particles/units – particularly important for molecules/etc., which at any given moment are individually generally either absorbing, emitting, or niether).
…so when the concentration is increased, you can’t see as far. (see also my series of comments from Sept 2020 and my Update/Progress on How to See the Greenhouse Effect; Diagram ideas, diagrams done so far (including Seeing Cross Sections – Screen & pinhole camera views); all of part 12?; portions of parts 2 and 13. – this introduces part 12)
Depending on how temperature varies over space…
(by lowercase space, I mean the general concepts of length, area, volume, etc., as opposed to Space, the space above Earth’s (or whichever planet/moon/star/etc. is the subject) atmosphere)
…Increasing the concentration of abs. cross-sectional area will thus change the spectral brightness (spectral radiance) of the glow you see, eventually coming to approach the Planck function of your local temperature as the distance you can see goes toward 0 (this may be called saturation) – unless you are looking up from TOA (top of atmosphere).
The net (spectral) flux through a (horizontal) area depends on the variation of this (spectral) radiance over direction; a net upward flux (per unit horizontal area) through your location requires that it look generally brighter below you and generally dimmer above you (flux = area * integral of (radiance * cos(θ) ) over solid angle, with a +/- depending on your conventions)). Thus increasing the concentration of GHGs/etc. will eventually reduce this variation in brightness and reduce the net upward LW flux.
… to be cont., see also links I put here https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2023/06/unforced-variations-jun-2023/#comment-812815
Resubmitted with better formatting:
https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2022/07/the-cos2-problem-in-six-easy-steps-2022-update/
Pierrehumbert: “Infrared radiation and planetary temperature” https://geosci.uchicago.edu/~rtp1/papers/PhysTodayRT2011.pdf
“I Misunderstood the Greenhouse Effect. Here’s How It Works.”:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oqu5DjzOBF8
“Why CO2 cools the middle atmosphere – a consolidating model perspective”Helge F. Goessling, Sebastian Bathiany : https://doi.org/10.5194/esd-7-697-2016
links here: https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2023/05/cmip6-not-so-sudden-stratospheric-cooling/#comment-811964
I like to approach the GHE by visualizing what you would see in heat vision: the atmosphere would be an incadescently-glowing haze/fog, with opaqueness depending on the concentration and characteristics of greenhouse gas molecules, cloud droplets/ice crystals, etc. The LTE approx. holds well for the vast majority of the atmosphere (by mass) and surface material, so (at each point in the spectrum (and if ever necessary, each polarization)), each unit of material emits a glow with a brightness = the Planck function, over an effective area (σa = absorption cross section, which accounts for net absorption = direct absorption – stimulated emission) which absorbs and thus hides whatever glow comes from behind…
(noting that this is a mathematical equivalency – generally you would not be able to discern individual cross sections, and they may represent the average effect of a class of particles/units – particularly important for molecules/etc., which at any given moment are individually generally either absorbing, emitting, or niether).
…so when the concentration is increased, you can’t see as far. (see also my series of comments from Sept 2020 and my Update/Progress on How to See the Greenhouse Effect; Diagram ideas, diagrams done so far (including Seeing Cross Sections – Screen & pinhole camera views); all of part 12?; portions of parts 2 and 13. – this introduces part 12)
Depending on how temperature varies over space…
(by lowercase space, I mean the general concepts of length, area, volume, etc., as opposed to Space, the space above Earth’s (or whichever planet/moon/star/etc. is the subject) atmosphere)
…Increasing the concentration of abs. cross-sectional area will thus change the spectral brightness (spectral radiance) of the glow you see, eventually coming to approach the Planck function of your local temperature as the distance you can see goes toward 0 (this may be called saturation) – unless you are looking up from TOA (top of atmosphere).
The net (spectral) flux through a (horizontal) area depends on the variation of this (spectral) radiance over direction; a net upward flux (per unit horizontal area) through your location requires that it look generally brighter below you and generally dimmer above you (flux = area * integral of (radiance * cos(θ) ) over solid angle, with a +/- depending on your conventions)). Thus increasing the concentration of GHGs/etc. will eventually reduce this variation in brightness and reduce the net upward LW flux.
… to be cont., see also links I put here https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2023/06/unforced-variations-jun-2023/#comment-812815
re Barry E Finch @ https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2023/07/unforced-variations-july-2023/#comment-813073
re my: “Thus increasing the concentration of GHGs/etc. will eventually reduce this variation in brightness and reduce the net upward LW flux.”
I was trying to be very general. In the simplest case that temperature only decreases with height from the surface up through the atmosphere’s optical depth and into Space (based on the brightness temperature as seen from below, ie., near 0 K), Then the net upward LW spectral flux is reduced by any increase in GHG or cloud particle concentration (of a given size/type – swapping one gas for another is obviously a different matter), approaching 0 net flux in the limit of saturation – except where there is a discontinuity in temperature over optical depth (eg., TOA) where the limit would be given by the different blackbody fluxes corresponding to the temperatures on either side.
It gets more complicated when there are inversions and/or the surface is not a perfect blackbody (the later being generally true, but perhaps more significant when over barren land surfaces, from what I’ve read – less important over snow, ice, and wet surfaces, I believe). The net spectral flux may switch signs before ultimately approaching the saturation limit, and net spectral radiant heating or cooling likewise may vary in a complex way before ultimately approaching the saturation limit of 0. (see https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2023/06/unforced-variations-jun-2023/ , https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2023/06/unforced-variations-jun-2023/#comment-812838 , and links therein, eg:
…” 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.)“
“The net spectral flux may” [ increase before decreasing, or even ] “switch signs“[ etc. ]“ before ultimately approaching the saturation limit,“
Clarification: except where there is a discontinuity in temperature over optical depth (eg., TOA) where the limit would be given by the different blackbody [spectral] fluxes [(ie, Planck function * pi sr)] corresponding to the temperatures on either side.
Note – I have been refering to the forcing progressing over ranges of GHG concentrations, etc., not the changes in LW fluxes that occur in the climate response to the forcing. The forcing involves extra/perturbation net radiant heating/cooling, which creates temperature changes over time…
(which don’t necessarily or generally align with the forcing because as each layer changes temperature, it will brighten or dim its emission, and some of that may be absorbed by other layers, thus spreading out the temperature response. Eg., Part of stratospheric cooling can remain in part due to its not absorbing all of the increased LW flux from below.)
… which then leads to changes in LW and possibly convective fluxes; then there are feedbacks (not seperated in time, generally), which may include SW changes, and then the temperatures and temperature-dependent fluxes must respond farther (or less if feedbacks are negative).
PS transfers of kinetic energy (or any mechanical energy that is not embodied in enthalpy**?) can be, for the sake of elegance here, simply included in the convective fluxes.
(see also my series of comments from Sept 2020 and my Update/Progress on How to See the Greenhouse Effect; Diagram ideas, diagrams done so far (including Seeing Cross Sections – Screen & pinhole camera views); all of part 12?; portions of parts 2 and 13. – this introduces part 12)
my series of comments from Sept 2020, combined, with some editing, and another comment:
I’ve been working on some adjustments to my color guesstimates, but first… re 108 Philippe Chantreau
If we could see infra-red, I imagine that the GH effect would cause an ambient “glow” of IR light, most intense close to the surface, and decreasing in intensity with altitude, until reaching a threshold altitude. With an increase in GH effect, I expect that the glow would intensify and the threshold altitude would increase. What I can’t quite put in words is what happens at the threshold altitude. …
… I believe what you’re refering to is the concept of an effective emitting level, which, by analogy with the Sun, is a vertical position that is representive of the Earth’s own photosphere…
…
Imagine the opacity is produced by many opaque particles; they are blackbodies, absorbing whatever light reaches them and emitting according to their temperatures [hotter = brighter]. For each, you see a cross-sectional area source of radiance [σa = absorption cross section]. You can’t see all of them because the closest ones hide some of those farther away, etc. The more densely packed or bigger they are, the less far you can see, and so the light you see matches temperatures closer to you.
Generally the size of the blackbodies depends on the material/substance they represent, frequency, and pressure and temperature (via line broadening, and the ratios of different energy states).
(… PS, more generally, there can also be ‘little mirrorballs’ (scattering cross sections) – in this case consider the reflections (and reflections of reflections…) of blackbodies. Also they may vary with direction and polarization, but that’s not of much concern here…)
You need to be able to see temperature variations in order for there to be a net radiant flux of heat through where you are; it has to look brighter in one direction than it’s opposite. If it is transparent where you are, the flux passing by you depends on conditions somewhere else (and there can be no net radiant heating or cooling at your location). Adding opacity gives the material influence on the radiation, and the potential to radiantly warm or cool. At a certain point, increasing opacity hides the temperature gradient and so everything looks the same where you are; there is no net flux.
—- —- —-
… anyway, a distribution of all the blackbody cross-section area that you can see is called an emission weighting function* [EWF], and looking down from space, that would be the Earth’s photosphere.
caveat: emission weighting function* may be defined for a single direction; for a whole hemisphere of directions up or down, you have to weight by the cosine of the angle from vertical and integrate over solid angle.
Anyway, due to various potential nonlinearities (Planck function not linear over temperature, temperature not linear over optical path,…?), the temperature of the centroid of the emission weighting function won’t necessarily match the brightness temperature of the radiance or irradiance – even at just one frequency.
ignore this: The concept of an effective emission/radiating level most easily applies for a greybody atmosphere, where the opacity is constant over the thermal IR band…
see this instead:
From my: https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2023/06/unforced-variations-jun-2023/#comment-812164
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.)
—- —- —-
cont. from my series of comments from Sept 2020:
(re 178 patrick027 – there are a few unstated caveats in all that, in case anyone wants to get nitpicky (ie. wouldn’t the closer objects look bigger? Well that matches up with contributing to a larger range of directions reaching your pupil…))
The net upward LW (thermal IR) flux at any level, in the global time average for an equilibrium climate, must combine with the net upward convective flux (which is [global time average: relatively small] above the tropopause) to balance the net downward SW (solar UV, visible, solar IR) flux.
… and so the divergence of the net upward LW flux (increasing with height), which is LW cooling, must balance the solar heating and the convergence (decrease with height) of the upward convective flux (convective heating).
Oops, forgot to italicize the quote from 108 Philippe Chantreau (Sept 2020)
…
I’ve now block-ified my blog post, so I can link directly to sections, eg:
From Part 2: Geometry of Light I: the Measures of Light
Diagrams for Directions, Angles, Solid Angles
Part 12?: Geometry of Light II: Going the Distance
From Part 13?: Heat Vision Tour along a Line of Sight
(Absorption) Cross sections: Screen views
Another set of diagrams
Now some more detailed diagrams
Unfortunately, the slide show format has changed; I liked when the images faded into each other, as it gave a bit of an animation-like impression, for comparing the images.
Atmospheric water includes both vapor and liquid/solid phases.
A reduction of transpiration sourced precipitationsheds (“green water”) appears to result in more infrequent or variable continental precipitation events.
A reduction of precipitation efficiency inevitably results in increased atmospheric water duration. Temperature is only one factor in the lower atmospheric water abundance, and clausius clap only deals with a saturated vapor phase.
Increasingly persistent haze condensate is not a removal of water. “Green”-water is suggestive of the biologically mediated components of water flows.
The addition of water by ET and active removal of water by precipitation does indeed depend on biophysical conditions.
Invisible water security: Moisture recycling and water resilience
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6910651/#b0020
“Humanity has already unintentionally and substantially engineered precipitation patterns through land-use change, and conscious protection of the terrestrial water cycle is now urgently needed to achieve sustainability and build resilience.”
“we must understand how changes in land use, modification of surface and groundwater systems, agriculture and urbanization are not only changing terrestrial landscapes, but are altering vital planetary water flows.”
Rainfall recycling needs to be considered in defining limits to the world’s green water resources
https://www.pnas.org/doi/10.1073/pnas.1903554116
“On average, a drop of water entering the atmosphere over land from the ocean falls 2.6 times as rainfall before returning to the ocean in river flow. There is, in fact, no compelling reason that the 2.6 value, and thus the amount of recycled rainfall, cannot increase or decline based on future land use change”
Overview of biological ice nucleating particles in the atmosphere
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0160412020321528
“Biological particles in the Earth’s atmosphere are a distinctive category of ice nucleating particles (INPs) due to their capability of facilitating ice crystal formation in clouds at relatively warm temperatures. Field observations and model simulations have shown that biological INPs affect cloud and precipitation formation and regulate regional or even global climate, although there are considerable uncertainties in modeling and large gaps between observed and model simulated contribution of biological particles to atmospheric INPs”
Try Kungliga Akademin and Linnes system instead.
Some impressions from spain (some days ago):
https://www.itemfix.com/v?t=qursqt
https://www.merkur.de/welt/verzweifelt-auf-auto-festklammert-unwetter-spanien-video-ueberschwemmung-frau-die-sich-92389756.html
https://www.zdf.de/nachrichten/heute/bilder/bildergalerie-schweres-unwetter-in-spanien-120.html
I guess, “this also existed in the past” is, what climate warming deniers would like to say,
but I’m not sure if this would convince too many people….
Really?
I was not there but we had a phaenomenal summer trip vacation last weekend over the mountains in southern Norway last weekend. The weather is rather steady stable. Holland had an exeptional summer storm, and there is record warm water now in the northeast Atlantic. That ougtht to have consequenses.
patrick o twentyseven 9 JUL 2023 AT 9:45 PM It seems tome that:
Thus increasing …… will eventually reduce .. upward LW flux.
S.B.
Thus increasing …… will instantly reduce .. upward LW flux.
Ladies and Gentlemen
As the more intelligent of you may be able to see, even I got a brilliant idea, that was published here on 3 juli 2023 d/o
A Ned Kelly (who is she?) demanded me permanently boreholed for it also with a deep, moral plee to Gavin Schmidt for doing so.
I am obviously able to touch the nerves very deeply after all, , by making people aware of rather very elementary rain and destillation physics in the climate, that must be grasped first as one of a very few basic principles, before we can discuss earthly climate.
It is as elementary as can be, known in several versions, for instance “the rule of the coldest wall”.
If given a chamber, a greenhouse, a car, or let us say a chemical flask, with air and water. Where will the dew and the frost settle down? and where will it rather evaporate and sublimate? the temperatures being not even all the way because the system may be large and unevenly heated..
And in general, if the very room or system is being heated up or cooled down ,…. where will it evaporate and dry out?. and where will the water moove over in invisible, gaseous form from A to B and make B soaking wet?
That principle of distillation and greenhoses cars and livingrooms seems to be appliciable to the very earthly climate also when for instance there for some reason is a rapid global warming going on. It will be desertification and drought here and there on land at rapid temperature rising because the sea is more thermically inert than the lands.
But if or when that rapid overall temperature rise curves down and it all stabilizes, there will be all in all more rain on land everywhere. That effect is also seen everywhere in the monsune rains and in the day and night summer and winter swingings…… and with a characteristic time- lag.
I hope that this understanding can help your speculations and phantacies in a critical and more realistic direction.
I learnt it in public school to bring our tiny thoughts in order for lifetime. .
It rules further on how to dress and for how to build , to heat, and to ventilate and how to cool a house, and to get the drought and the moisture and the fresh air to where we want it. It has been human stone- age wisdom allready, and surely denied, ridiculed, etnically politically cleaned out, forbidden and boreholed in stoneage allready.
(Who should therefore rather be our whitchdoctors, rainmakers, shamans, politicians, high priests and teachers?.)
Thus, another example of typical timeless wisdom even from my side, . Beat that.
ResearchGate (ResearchGate.net) is a legitimate venue for scientists and students to upload and discuss papers at. Unfortunately, it has been invaded by climate deniers. Some of the scientists present try to argue with them.
Yesterday, Dr. Alain Robichaus, senior researcher at Environment and Climate Change Canada, was forced out because the deniers contacted his employer and lied about him, saying he was there during his hours of employment, which he was not. I knew deniers used threats, intimidation, and harassment to try to silence scientists, but I had never seen it happen right in front of my eyes before.
Is there any way we can support Dr. Robichaud? Would letters of support from other scientists help? The man broke no ResearchGate rules because ResearchGate took no action against him; but his employers seem to have caved. What can we do?
Levenson
A strange case. He must have violated, seemingly illegal rules of his employment, as if he was isolated in jail, in psychiatric isolation, or employed a peoples republic behind an iron curtain , for this to be true. But if so in Canada, having a TUTOR representing and holding his interests.
Article 19
“Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression, this includes freedom to hold opinions without interference, and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers.”
Re: deniers denouncing Alain Robichaud to his employer.
Those who can’t disprove the message, try to silence the messenger. I have seen that on other (non-climate) discussion forums, once even being a target of one myself. And is not limited to the denunciation to the employer – others will post online information on where to find you, and would “compliment” your kids, stopping just short of saying that it would be such pity if something were happen to such cute kids.
I wonder – do we know the name of the denunciator? I’ll presume denunciation to the employer have to be signed with a name to be even considered. May be useful to know with whom we are dealing, if we encounter them in the public space. Somehow, I doubt it’s their first time …
Sorry, the man’s name is Robichaud, not Robichaus. Typo on my part.
Would love to be able follow a @realclimate user on Mastodon that posted title, link, and short desc, when new articles go up here.
[Response: I’ll look into it. – gavin]
GISTEMP & NOAA have posted SAT for June, both with the highest monthly anomaly of 2023-to-date and both with the warmest June on record, both emphatically so (as does BEST).
“Scorchyisimo!!!” has returned.
The GISTEMP June anomaly of +1.07ºC tops previous warmest Junes 2022 (+0.92ºC), 2020, 2019 and 2021 (+0.84ºC), these then the last five Junes.
June 2023 is the 17th highest anomaly in the all-month GISTEMP record.
2023 has now claimed 3rd spot in the warmest start-of-year table and the full 2023 becoming warmest calendar year on record appears much more likely. (BEST now put it at 81% likely.) So all eyes on the developing El Niño.
…….. Jan-June Ave … Annual Ave ..Annual ranking
2016 .. +1.12ºC … … … +1.01ºC … … … 2nd
2020 .. +1.11ºC … … … +1.01ºC … … … 1st
2023 .. +1.01ºC
2017 .. +0.98ºC … … … +0.92ºC … … … 4th
2019 .. +0.97ºC … … … +0.98ºC … … … 3rd
2022 .. +0.91ºC … … … +0.89ºC … … … 6th
2015 .. +0.85ºC … … … +0.90ºC … … … 5th
2018 .. +0.84ºC … … … +0.85ºC … … … 7th
2010 .. +0.80ºC … … … +0.72ºC … … … 10th
2021 .. +0.78ºC … … … +0.84ºC … … … 8th
2007 .. +0.75ºC … … … +0.66ºC … … … 13th
@ all and everyone
It is time for http://www.noctilucent clouds. They have been absent all this spring,… but I saw themj last night. They tend to come rather in july august. Opposite on the southern hemisphere.
It is the only wiew that we can have of the really higher atmosphere, exept for meteors that shine up at the same levels and believed to give the necessary dusts for cloud formation up there, so it is actually real and visualized stardust also. Partly, real extraterrestrial.
Check it up on Wikipedia, it is really interesting and readable geophysics and chemistery there, so you will have a refreshment training on that also.
Methane CH4 from earthly sources is believed to be the H2O-gas water source, but I suggest also SO2 and NH3. under hard UV and x-ray so that possible sulphuric and nitric acid is also formed, alltogether extreemly hygroscopic and giving nanoparticles in the magnitude of 100 nanometers and downwards.
The colours are further very interesting if seen in the light of traditional spectroscopy, diffuse reflection of direct sunlight, and Goethes theory of colours.
Nocilucent clouds form at 75 to 85 Km heighth and are the highest of allo clouds in the extreemly cold mesopause.
the lower Pearlmother clouds at about 20 Km have been analyzed chemically by weather balloons and highest turbo jet airplanes and shown to be stöchiometric ice- cristals of H2SO4 .HNO3 .nH2O frost falling out of that extreemly thin air. Air pressure halves for each 5.5 Km upwards along with Bolzmanns barometric law, so it must be extreemly cold for any possible cristallization.
The situation trice as high for the fameous Noctilucent clouds seems ……. unbelieveable….. and thus represents an important correcture to our conscepts, views, visions, and scientific beliefs and speculations, in the Real Climate.
The latest from Dr. James Hansen
https://mailchi.mp/caa/the-climate-dice-are-loaded-now-a-new-frontier
Dear Chuck,
Thank you for sharing this reference. I read the article and found a point to that I can hardly agree. It does not pertain directly to climate science – what I see as somewhat strange was Dr. Hansen’s evaluation what is “science” and what is “dogma” in a field that, in my opinion, is purely political.
In remark 2, he refers to an article analyzing lack of public suport for nuclear energy exploitation through so called taxonomies. I read the article and found that its authors admit that there is also another reason for businesses that they are not interested in investing into nuclear energy: lack of economical profitability.
I think that assuming that decarbonization of world economy can or must be achieved by subsidies from public funds may be a legitimate political view but I do not agree that it should be presented as “science”. I personally think that the nuclear industry missed its chance decades ago, and their lobbying cannot disprove the basic fault of their outdated technology – lack of economical competitiveness with newer ones.
Personally, I am very sceptical as regards all recipes “how to save the planet” that suppose that money are something like inexhaustible renewable resource. They are not, I am afraid, and I am afraid that policies based on this assumption may fail. I do not see anything scientific in promoting such questionable approaches.
Greetings
Tom
in Re to
https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2023/07/unforced-variations-july-2023/#comment-813158
Dear zebra,
Thank you very much for your proposal.
My personal guess:
If we managed to merely prevent evaporation (e.g. by covering the Earth surface by a vapour-tight plastic film), and to keep the present ca 13 000 km3 water vapour in the atmosphere, the average temperature of Earth surface would quickly rise and stabilized somewhere about 30 degree Celsius.
If we then managed to remove this water vapour, too, the average surface temperature on the completely dried Earth would fall and stabilized somewhere about zero degree Celsius, or slightly below.
This assumption was the reason for my remark that I see little sense in Piotr’s dispute with macias shurly, specifically, in setting the question the way “is Earth water-cooled or water-warmed planet”?
I am not sure if present atmospheric models are capable of a such simulation. If so, and if the respective scientific staff will be willing to run such experiments, I am equally curious for the results as you.
Greetings
Tomáš
Tomas Kalisz: “I see little sense in Piotr’s dispute with macias shurly”
Huh? You mean that my proving that within own Shurly’s argument (based on Schmidt et al 2010) – the increased evaporation WARMS the Earth – is … irrelevant to your schemes in which you want to …COOL the Earth with increased evaporation?
Piotr, responding here to your earlier response to me,
I would say that the owning goes the other way, because what I see here from your interlocutor is another demonstration of zebra’s troll test, which states: “They never answer the question.” Clearly, not an honest attempt to deal with what I actually said, but obvious misrepresentation/deflection/obfuscation.
By now you should have figured out, as I said to you earlier, that I honestly do aim my comments at hypothetical readers who don’t necessarily have the background to evaluate detailed analysis. So I am a big fan of what we used to call First Approximations, for people who at least know/accept some basic principles, to show them that they can begin to figure things out for themselves.
In this case, I am thinking of a planet where the GHG maintain the temp high enough for there to be liquid water and water vapor, but no exposed H2O is present. (I’m asking BPL to come up with what that is, approximately, by his simple method.)
So now we pour out some water from the previously sealed containers. Will the system energy increase or decrease?
If we accept the basic physics of the GHG, including WV, I think we can answer the question of “water cooling the planet” without detailed calculations.
Shurly to Kalisz: “A sentence that proves that you have understood absolutely nothing when it comes to GEB.” ” with no sense, no purpose and with the sole, arrogant goal of making themselves important”
Ouch, poor Tomas -all that from that Shurly guy you thought would have your back. And for what – for trying to endear yourself to patrick by dropping in terms he introduced. Why, Shurly, why?
Transference? Having humiliated himself again and again when going against the people Shurly assures are “idiots “, the last time in: – Shurly took it out on …our hapless, happy-go-lucky Tomas.
zebra Jul 17: “By now you should have figured out, as I said to you earlier, that I honestly do aim my comments at hypothetical readers”
Hmm, for the hypothetical readers, they were … strangely specific:
zebra: Jul. 15 “ Can you do the same magic for a planet with zero water […]? I’m just thinking about the Vapor-boys and how they would explain what would happen if we then added water ”
zebra Jul 17: “ So now we pour out some water from the previously sealed containers. Will the system energy increase or decrease?”
I thought I have already answered that in my post you are commenting:
Piotr Jul 16: “ Why reinvent a wheel, and a square one at that? What you ask of BPL has been already done, using a much more realistic model, by Schmidt et al 2010. ”
I.e. their runs without water vapour and clouds. In case if the only other element of water cycle – latent heat changes were not implicitly included – one can add the value from any heat budget. Which I have done.
Your way – asking BPL to add complications by introducing explicit water into his simple model – would have made it more complicated, while still leaving it open to the criticism that it is too much of a simplification (since, for simplicity, it ignores many processes, and some of these are critical to evaluating the role of water).
Zebra If we accept the basic physics of the GHG, including WV, I think we can answer the question of “water cooling the planet” without detailed calculations.
What detailed calculations you speak of? My entire calculations is confined to a single line:
Net GH effect of water = 120W /m² – 47W /m² – Y x 78W /m²
where 120W /m² is the net warming by vapor and clouds
-47/m2 cooling by cloud albedo
-78 latent heat and Y is its % that escapes into space
We can solve the equation for Y, to find that for any Y< 94% the addition of water WARMS the Earth. I think it for your hypothetical readers it would be simpler than what you proposed.
And by proposing, you have already achieved what you warned me about – got owned by Tomas, who by " embracing your proposal – portrays himself to your hypothetical readers as open to arguments, and projects the confidence that the results of the possible future model, if ever produced, would support his claims. And if they don’t – the model can always be dismissed as too much of a simplification.“
Piotr, you are misunderstanding what I said… I only asked BPL to give a number for the planet with water sequestered so it can not evaporate. As I said to you, we know that it would be high enough that water could evaporate. Anyway, I found the reference from NASA I mentioned to BPL:
“Water vapor is Earth’s most abundant greenhouse gas. It’s responsible for about half of Earth’s greenhouse effect — the process that occurs when gases in Earth’s atmosphere trap the Sun’s heat. Greenhouse gases keep our planet livable. Without them, Earth’s surface temperature would be about 59 degrees Fahrenheit (33 degrees Celsius) colder. ”
So let’s say a few degrees C over zero.
The second part, where we de-sequester some water, is what I am asking the hypothetical reader [who accepts the basic premise of GHG], and who is trying to follow the discussion between you and the Vaporistas, to think about… no calculations necessary.
Either the energy in the climate system will increase, decrease, or remain the same. What do you think? (That’s the universal First Approximation.)
Zebra Jun. 19: “ Piotr, you are misunderstanding what I said…”
When I was a kid, when listening to the Moody Blues and their “Nights in white satin”, I thought that their line “ Letters I’ve written, never meaning to send” was: “Letters I’ve written, never meaning the same “… Well, each time I am discussing with you, Zebra – the latter comes to mind … You say A, somebody challenges A, you lecture them that they misunderstood you, since you clearly were saying B …. Most recent example:
1. Zebra’s repeatedly urges RC authors not to engage denialists (e.g. “Vapour boys”), not to be “owned” by them.
2. Z. Jul 15 asks BPL to modify his model to separate the effects of water, to see how: … the Vapor-boys […] would explain what would happen [to a waterless Earth] if we then added water ”
3. I point that he engaged “Vapor boys”, In fact one of them … thanked Z. for his model proposal, used it to draw attention away from the already existing and much more realistic model that contradicted his Vaporist claims, and projected confidence that the results of the proposed model, if ever produced, would support his claims (and if they don’t, can be easily rejected for lack of realism). With that, I suggested that it is the Vaporist, who absorbed and used Zebra.
4. Z., Jul 17: By now you should have figured out, as I said to you earlier, that I honestly do aim my comments at hypothetical readers”
5. I counter p.4 with Zebra’s direct reference to “Vapor boys” in p.2
6. Z.Jul 19,: “Piotr, you are misunderstanding what I said…“, for he he was merely asking for … “a number for the planet with water sequestered so it can not evaporate”
Huh? You say that by asking the Vapor-boys to explain what would happen if we then added water ” you were asking for … a number for the planet with water sequestered so it can not evaporate” ????
Zebra 19: “The second part, where we de-sequester some water, is what I am asking the hypothetical reader [who accepts the basic premise of GHG], and who is trying to follow the discussion between you and the Vaporistas, to think about… no calculations necessary ”
Again, you were asking …. the hypothetical reader ” how … ” the Vapor-boys would explain what would happen if we then added water ”???
And if “ no calculations are necessary” … why ask BPL for the modifications of his model. Isn’t the whole point of models – to do … calculations?
Really, really strange, from somebody repeatedly lecturing others on the effective communication. Isn’t sticking to the subject and addressing the opponent’s points – the very basis of any discussion?
Piotr, I said:
“The second part, where we de-sequester some water, is what I am asking the hypothetical reader [who accepts the basic premise of GHG], and who is trying to follow the discussion between you and the Vaporistas, to think about… no calculations necessary.
Either the energy in the climate system will increase, decrease, or remain the same. What do you think? (That’s the universal First Approximation.)”
Seems pretty clear that I’m talking about educating the reader.
And I’m not engaging with the Vaporists, I’m engaging with you, to point out that once someone accepts and understands the basic principles of GHG, it is easy to see the answer without doing detailed calculations. (And I see you haven’t answered the question, eh.)
Just a definitions point which I know I’ve made before…. “owning” doesn’t mean them referencing what I said in some dishonest rhetoric; it means, as I said re Victor, that when you allow the trolls to “frame” the discussion, they exercise control (own, dominate) as long as you keep responding in that context. That’s what motivates them, not really discussing science.
My advice is always to require them to agree about the basic principles first.
Re: zebra 21 JUL
“[quoting Zebra 19 JUL]: The second part, where we de-sequester some water, is what I am asking the hypothetical reader [who accepts the basic premise of GHG], and who is trying to follow the discussion between you and the Vaporistas, to think about… no calculations necessary ”
Seems pretty clear that I’m talking about educating the reader.
You are calling on your after the fact DESCRIPTION of your intentions, NOT on your original post, where the honesty of this description can be tested (by their fruits, not the descriptions you shall know them). And I have ALREADY challenged your DESCRIPTION in the very post you supposedly “reply” to:
===
Piotr, Jul 19 contrasting the above quote of Zebra 19 JUL – with original words of Zebra to BPL: “Can you do the same magic for a planet with zero water […]? I’m just thinking about the Vapor-boys and how they would explain what would happen if we then added water ”
So you were asking …. “the hypothetical reader” how “ the Vapor-boys would explain ” what would happen if we then added water ”??? And if
“no calculations are necessary” … why ask BPL for the modifications of his model. Isn’t the whole point of models – to do … calculations?
===
The discussion works ONLY, if we address the arguments of the other side, NOT if we ignore them, and just repeat our original statement, as if it has not been challenged.
Zebra: 21 Jul : “And I’m not engaging with the Vaporists, I’m engaging with you”
Since you asked BPL for a model with which you could stump “the Vapor boys” – the Zebra doth protest too much, methinks. Particularly, that my point was not so much about “ engaging them” – but about being “owned by them”.
And I provided the explanation why I think you have been owned (Piotr Jun 16): “ [in response to your call to BPL to produce the model that would stump the “Vapor boys”] “Tomas … welcomed your proposal (“ Dear zebra. Thank you very much for your proposal “), as a chance to change the subject from the conclusions of the already existing model, to … potential results, that may, or may not, materialize. And by embracing your proposal – Kalisz portrays himself as open to arguments, and projects the confidence that the results of the possible future model, if ever produced, would support his claims. And if they don’t – the model can always be dismissed as too much of a simplification
With enemies playing straight into their hands like you, why would Vapor boys need friends?
Piotr, if you spend so much time responding to them (my definition of “being owned”, which, if you look it up, is more correct than yours), you tend to become like them.
Remember my troll test: They never answer the question.
So like them, you have written lots of words, but avoided the question.
Would system energy increase, decrease, remain the same?
Zebra Jul 25: “my definition of “being owned”, if you look it up, is more correct than yours”
You may be right. But I have already moved on to the more fitting description:
see Piotr to Zebra, Jul.23: “ With enemies playing straight into their hands like you, why would Vapor boys need friends?
And I explained why I think so:
[Tomas to you] “Dear zebra, Thank you very much for your proposal.” and then he used “your proposal” to draw attention away from the already existing, and much more realistic model, that contradicted his Vaporist claims, projected confidence that the results of the your proposed model, if ever produced, would support his claims, (and if they don’t, can be easily rejected for lack of realism)
So which is worse – playing into the deniers hands, or using my time saying on record why the deniers are wrong?
Zebra: Piotr, if you spend so much time responding to them, you tend to become like them.
Didn’t work this way for my spending time responding to you, now did it? ;-)
Zebra: Remember my troll test: They never answer the question.
Does it apply to the people after their original claim was challenged with the quote of their earlier words. move the goalposts and shift to … other things,
as the previous one never happened? If yes, you might … fit your test:
1, 2, etc…
Zebra
Your thought experiment is a calorimeter with voume V and gas pressure P. and temperature T at eqvilibrium.
I think of a glass, vacuum exicator that we often use. And to make the air absolutely dry we place a beacher of strong sutphuric acid or dry P2O5 inside.. That beacher must be closed as we start the experiment by opening beacher of water.. That will evaporate until there is exvilibrium again. No gas and no heat is passing through the walls.
The temperature will obviously sink. due to the evaporation entrophy of water. The process is endotherm.
But also for another reasonn that I saw first. The entrophy E of the system will rise.
As E= Q /T and Q = constant due to tight walls and permanence of energy, T will have to fall for E to be able to increase or Water able to go over from liquid into gaseous form in the room.
As you said, without any detailed calculation.
From that to conclude that water cools the planet is more dubious, because water also condenses and remains in the exicator that is gaseous tight, and condences in the earths atmosphere quite as much as it evaporates..
So all in all, water hardly cools the planet.
And by first approximations that you say that you like, do not “hide the decline!” as they said.
Do not hide half of the truth, but care to mention also the condensation of water.
Question:
Why do we have to use cooling water on the vapour condensers?
is for you to be to be answered without detailed calculations.
Sorry, De- siccator. A common glass, vacuum de- siccator.
@ Tomas Kalisz
You would understand this better if you change your mind the way that I have suggested for you, and go after global cooling instead of global warming
It is not the evaporating water on the ground that cools the earth. That rainy chill that comes down and cools and eases the much too hot sunny days and even deserts is chill from deep space brought down to earth by rainy waters, actually from frozen water, ice and snow on top of the clouds high up in the troposphere even in Afrika in thick Congo and in the Caribians with the sun right from zenith down on it.
Those extreemly white clouds cool in 2 ways.
1, by the white para- sol- effect at bright midday. The planccurve of sunshile has maximum in the middle 0f visible light from 5770 K in the solar chromosphere. Visible is between 800 and 400 nanometers. For yellow, see tyhe sodium lines.
I have an incadescent qvarz halogen lamp on variable power in my lab for black body radiation light- temperature reference judgement. .
It is labeled 2700K. and can turn it down to any black body glow temperature and match by colour vision to a candle for instance. That can be checked by a thinnest copper vire melting point 1200 Celsius. Rather exactly the tip of a candle but an iron nickel wire will not melt. MP 1500 for iron.
White paper in that lamplight looks white indeed at 2700K, . But compare to the snow out of the window at grey dayli9tght,… that is obviously whiter, the lamp is clearly more yellow. Normal colour vision adapts quick spontaneously so you must compare by direct colour match.
I have seen spectrum of common incadescent lamps at full voltage. The max radiation is way out in infrared there. Thus shiny white high clouds are a very efficient white para- s0l. Even showing Fraunhofer lines in the cloudy white.
2 But they are not “white” at all in Infrared, as I also wrote you. They emit very efficiently IR on continuous thermal spectrum out to space from that heighth in the atmosphere.
The snow and the rains fall down from there and mostly at sea. Less in Sahara and on the central continents, So isolating the very earth with a Teflon IR transparent frying foil and stop all rainwater from evaporating again, and you will soon get rid of the very clouds, and earth temperature will rise to clear sky Sahara all the way.
As long as you cannot get rid of the oceans, and the winds, forget about the lands.
We are having temperatures here now in grey weather swinging around the sea temperatures in the northeast atlantic. They have been corrected back to sea the natural way both in Holland and northern Spain now, I read.
Forget that about the wet towel on the ground that cools the world by its “evapotranspiration. What cools that towel is the potencial chill from the t0p of the tr0posphere where IR radiates right to empty space,………….. that has fallen down on earth.
What cools the earth is BIG BANG all around us, not evaporating freshwater on the ground.
Top cloud temperatures on Venus in brigtht sunshine vertically right on it is – 40 celsius. here it is about -65 celsius right over Kili9manjaro at midday. Snow hurricanes and a wite enormeous chilling and condensing capacity atop of the tropical hurricanes. That falls down and cools the summer sunshine seawaters again.
Now comes Jacob Våthatt and Mari Vassause, the fameous “Dog days” from 23 july to mid August, the weightpoint of annual rain in the western european monsune. What cools it down now for autumn is not evap0transpiration on the ground but clouds and water enough in the heighth that can be cooled from BIG BANG and longer nights shorter days. By radiation of IR to space, not by evapotranspiration down low.
I cannot see that it is more of a problem than the difference between moist and dry lapserate. At grey cloudy weather the situation is cooled by chill from high above coming down on earth. Not by the evaporation entrophy -chill of water on the more moist ground. coming up and cooling us.
Moral, water is a very good carrier of heat and chill. Not a chilling or heating material. Chill and heat costs and must be supported from elsewhere.
Moral 2: Chill and heat is of another nature than molecular and massive matter. It has got other sources and causes, and is thereforen measured in newtonmeters, not in kilograms and liters.
( even Aristoteles seems to have understood that).
Kaloisz
I can say even more to it if I am permitted.
Now comes also the morning and even evening fogs and morning dews that evaporates in the sun
I have once driven into quite extreme night fogs in Bohemia at about 14 october, At a period of sunny days. That phaenomenon low fogs over the lakes and meadows at windstill in the night tells us that the meadows and waters are warmer than the air above.
Its evaporation at sunrise do not make the outdoor thermometer temperatures fall,
The summa summarum is what warms the earth and the situation nameliy normal daylight in watts per square meters, and into cubic meters of thick fog.
What cooled down the clear vapours in the bohemian landscape just north of Praha to below the dewpoint was BIG BANG near the ground even in Bohemia.
Moral 3
Better look out for and remark and try rather to give a true physical explaination to such very common and natural details of weather and 0f real climate. And you will need no models and statistics, and you can look the professionaql specialists into their chards and judge them for wherther they are autenic responsible and cunning scientists or maybe rather something very different to that however titles and names.
If they can tell about and explain elementary nature the qualitative and quantitative way that you can control for yourself, , then you can conscider whether to take them for serious and whether you have got the capacity to take their learnings. .
Because we havent got the capacity to poke and remember also all falseness and paradoxes, cheatings and “influenzer ” sales propaganda of our time..
Our late Parish Priest once gave a very vice word: “The truth is the easiest to remember!”.
If you can think of that and rather do that, then you have become a scientist yourself.
That also is our consumer protection against the alternatives.
And, as I have pointed at, you can study such timeless wisdom it in Ceskioslovensko allready.
Hr Kalisz
Whether the present atmospheric models are capale of such simulations………
Yes, i really also have my doubts.
They are as much as bought, cheap and very convincing industrial electro- tools for clumsy dilettants, with half fabricata educative LEGO elements building blocks in virtual reality for the consumers and broad masses.
All nvented and purchased in norder to earn money and to stupidi- fy the people and to own them and squeeze them to pay for further central- stimulant “stuff” and sedatives/ euphorica / narcotica.
It is virtual intelligence, it is classical industrially mass produces http://www.proteses of consciousness and understanding.
Ceskoslovensko has published on it, see the ingenious ROBOT- conscept of Franz Kafka.
Vaclav Havel was also very good on automatic thought in political and social keye- positions in an alian occupied national situation. On both sides of the Tatra and in Bohemia and Moravia.
“Who rules on Hradcany, , rules Europe, Hittler procflaimed.
How true at any time.
Dear Carbomontanus,
Just for the sake of good order, the word “robot” was not introduced by Franz Kafka but by a Czech writer Karel Čapek, in his theater piece R.U.R.
https://web.archive.org/web/20071019024229/http://ebooks.adelaide.edu.au/c/capek/karel/rur/
The word itself, however, was proposed by his brother Josef Čapek
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/R.U.R.
Greetings
Tomáš
Very fine thank you. I checked up Karel capek. really Very interesting.
In fact, without knowing anything about Capeks robot idea, i once had a dream and wrote a long film manuscript about it, that was never published. “The revolution of the infallible”. And how to stop that .
Along with old and rotten scriptures,…. ( shown and referred to as Bark bug bug- prints on an old tree trunk in the summer creek…)….it all took off from Brüssel.
Namely a moovement that made humans totally infallible. By a pill, and a metal helmet over the head with curly leads over into the next network electric pole, and then press the button. Bzzzzzt with sparks,.. and they were made infallible, smiled ,….. and could not make errors anymore.
But, as human breeding is also sinful, in fact an old error according to the scriptures, , they were also unable to breed further the normal way.
, so the system had to clone its people in a special laboratory with cell cultures, from only the best genetic material of course such as fameous winter olympic winners.
. This got more and more intense until there were only a few erroreous sinful persons remaining that had to be on the run for the system control police. they were Harlekin and Pierrot and Couloumbine. Prima ballerina. from Comedia del Arte. Not yet taken. They came together in a ruin. at candlelight, because even turning the electric switch without permission would betray you.
Also Einstein was “not corrected yet” and could show up in person and tell the tiny rest of normal people what was really going on and how possibly to stop it..
Harlekin was the red nosed red haired circus clown with hanging trousers playing fiddle and the film melody all through was “Bro bro brille” where all children walk around in a ring sing that song… through a high gate made by 2 large teaqchers, where one after one is taken and sorted to A or B having to whisper the answer to a a secret question ( will you have apples or pears?) and it ends with a tug of war between A and B who is stronger.
Eistein, also a fameous friddler, borrows the very fine autentic violino from from Harlekino and performs his version. of the Bro bro brille theme for the tiny rest of all erroreous people in the world
After that, Even Einstein and Harlekin are shown taken by a Razzia.
So0 there is only Columbine & Pierrot remaining in the world and Coloumbine has got some secret sugar drops that makes you look and behave infallable alltyhough you are not, so they get through all the ticket controls on the train and Pierrot into the clooning and breeding laborarory at Hamar Coloumbine waiting outdoor on Hamar Stadion. . , where just by one human cell of himself into a Petri breeding shale for perfect cell cultures. The very system is overwon.
Einstein has told it so.
By that only one autentic and normal and sinful human cell into the system that is infallible thus unable to correct itself..
by that decicive secret ande sinful act in the central lab, follows the fameous octavial bro bro brille fanfare on cornetti wind instrument. “The emperor on his highest castle..”
I tend to beleive that the fameous Bro bro brille game is a remaining mideival dance and performedc ballade for scoolchildren aside with Divina Comedia and http://www.Draumkvedet
So it ends with thawing ice on Hamar ice stadion were all records were formerly set, showing Columbine performing figure scating under blue sky at bright daylight, . on rotten ice and new, fresh water, as the very fameous Hamar stadion is thawing away in spring.
PS
I found the music to it also for those who like music. La bergamasca. That is the bro bro brille theme.
English variety of that dance game is London bridge is falling down.
Shakespeare has used it.
La bergamasca can be used, also for solo instrument, rather Violino d amore. with understrings. When cunningly played it can make out a whole orchestra with very simple means
Found on Youtube.
Barkbeetles are called Ips typograpicus.
Would not theater and music be far more scientific than politics in real climate? DS.
China to the rescue:
https://nitter.net/KyleTrainEmoji/status/1680246994072133632#m
I’m glad China is adding more renewable, and I’m even a little glad they’re adding more nuclear. But I would like it very much if they would stop adding coal.
Levenson
I believe there are just as bad or even worse things going on in chi9nese mining industies than coal.
It seems to me that they have acheived world monopoly on “rare earths” in their nortwestern desert areas by the ability to ignore workers and environmental health, having “Gulag” industries on resources that are hardly prophitable” by other methods known to them.
There are traditional turkish settlements there that they seem to treat the cruel way.
It may be fierceful also elsewhere in the world for the “green” revolution. Cobold mining in Katanga, and I am quite in doubt also about massive litium and copper mining in very arid south american landscapes.
USA has also got relevant resources of litium and “rare earths” but they avoid digging them because the consequenses and byproducs are too ugly. They seem ugly enough to rather give China that practical monopoly.
I scratch my head and try and think of better solutions. And have a dispute going on with my wife who dreams of electric heating under our pavement. NO! I say, we better shuffel snow and sprinkle sand .
Setting off pure hydroelectric power in large electric resistors is obsolete, I say her.
I am very proud of knowing and having saved old methods from the museums that were vital before the invention of cash . in very recent years, and that are often faster cheaper and better but takes skill and training..
I have the solid impression that the american way of life has been intensionally stupidifying now for decades, and that must be changed first of all.
It rather takes education and restoration of thought, culture, opinions., and ideas of values. . .
in Re to
https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2023/07/unforced-variations-july-2023/#comment-813299
Dear Piotr,
I am sorry that you assign me as your enemy just because I doubt about validity of your teachings with respect to the function of water cycle in climate regulation. Could you perhaps still look on my last attempt of July 19
https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2023/07/unforced-variations-july-2023/#comment-813242
wherein I strived to deal with your arguments?
Best regards
Tomáš
P.S.
An actualized track of this discussion on my public orgpage is accessible under following link
https://orgpad.com/s/7zfynb_y5o7
Tomas Kalisz Jul24: “Dear Piotr, I am sorry that you assign me as your enemy just because I doubt about validity of your teachings ”
Enemy? This would require an emotional investment in you. And I don’t have a problem with you doubting my arguments, but with your inability to accept arguments even when you have no answer to them, See zebra posts about you.
Then there are your massive gaps in understanding, which make trying to explain to you anything- futile, And yet you still are unwilling to do your homework. You read answers to you and pick only the pieces that fit you, often misconstruing criticism of you as acceptance of your claims. Even more absurd – you expect that top specialists in the field will take time off their busy schedule to explain things to you, or to run models to give you your answers – when you don’t even bother to read their papers. And then there is the arrogance of assuming that without knowing the first thing about the field, you can discover things that no specialist in the field thought of.
You are like a plumber who has strong opinions on COVID and does not trust epidemiologists, and considers reading a textbook on epidemiology too much work…
Pjotr
Thomas Kalisz has another syntax and grammars that is his right and identity..
I do not find that he is a denialist or a troll, but seemingly with other “ways” to get into it than we may be aquainted to. Which entails another form of basic schooling and ideas of evidence and logics.
The common climate denialist and surrealist- Populist is mainly or most oftenly a dia- lectic materialist, a marxist- leninist stalinist in 3rd or 4th generation, lacking due and orderly highschool BACCALAVREVS 1 of western univerity facultary ground, and further immune to christian archetyps and dogmas. Thus easily cathetgorized in Ljeningrad by its deputee in Arbeiter und Bauernfakultät in Greifswald, now taken down. But as we know, the province is conservative (especially in the USA) and the sins of grandfathers are inherited through Mendels laws.
Thomas Kalisz may be a bastard but not of homozygote and dominant pure “race” in that respect. Thus not an incureable dia- lectic materialist- climate surrealist.
I hope that we will be able to take him up to Hradcany in Praha on national ground to the UNIVERSITAS CAROLINVM IV patent of 1348 at least, so we can assemble and concentrate on Paris conventional orthodoxy. .
Carbo
I agree with you that Tomas Kalisz is not a denialist or troll, per se. I asked him whether he accepted the greenhouse effect, and that burning fossil fuels was warming the climate, etc,etc and he agreed and gave convincing, if somewhat convoluted answers. I like to take people in good faith on their answers until they prove me wrong.
However Kalisz tends to minimise the role of CO2 in the warming, (as does MS and JCM) so perhaps he is in the luke warmer category.
Piotrs criticisms of Kalisz’s evasiveness look valid to me. But that is another issue.
I’m not understanding why you think climate denialism has origins primarily in the Karl Mark / Lennon / Stalin dialectic materialism school of thought. You would need to explain a bit. Because this school of thought is on the left end of politics (economically speaking) and generally that end of politics are more accepting of the anthropogenic global warming theory than the right of politics. The Democrats in America are mildly left leaning (and liberal) and polls show they accept that humans are warming the climate more than the Republican Party (on the right and conservative end of politics). This seems to contradict your theory.
Unless you mean that the marxist / leninist school of thought became corrupted away from its original noble intentions, into an abomination of totalitarian state control and dictatorship and failed collectivist experiments and that it demanded conformity of thought making people susceptible to being manipulated by the state. And that Putin has used this to create an army of internet climate deniers and trolls which sounds very plausible. But that looks like a Russian thing to me. I cant see the same forces at work in America, which is more democratic, free market orientated and non conformist in nature (relatively speaking).
The hard core organised climate denialism in America appears to have its origins with free market, capitalist, right wing, and conservative leaning think tanks like the Heartland Institute, driven apparently by a combination of vested commercial interests in the fossil fuels industry and leanings towards small government and deregulation and against big government and environmental rules and regulations. So the Heartland Institute don’t like the implications of climate science that we are warming the climate which leads to the need for environmental rules and regulations, so they attack the science ( and climate mitigation policies).
Conservative leaning groups like the Heartland Institute are somewhat conformist and driven from the top down, and can become captive to dictatorial and populist leaders like Donald Trump, so in some respects they are like Putins Russia I guess.
While the climate denialism clearly has roots in such instincts, belief systems and ideologies peoples jobs are also a factor. A poll was taken of oil rig workers in America, and 95% didn’t believe we were warming the climate. When peoples jobs are dependent on an industry they are understandably often very defensive about suggestions the industry has to close down of course. Turkeys don’t vote for Christmas. This is like the Luddites of the industrial revolution. Of course such things are not simple. They are shades of grey and some people are more accepting of the need for change.
@Nigelj
Thanks for your long and detailed reply
I tells me a lot more of how it is over there in the states.
I judge it all from local horizons on this side 0f the atloantic and there are differences and contrasts. But also clear similarities.
As for the colours, Red is the socialists and the soviet union and the labour party on this side, Blue is fror the burgeoise and the “conservatives”
Liberals and librealism is an own and 3rd party here as in Germany and England, that has allmost vanished as the labour party and the “Right wing” took over and adapted their ideas. They like to present themselves in green or yellow. Formerly there were the tories and the whigs. The “left & liberals” ” dissolved as the labour party took over their voters.
But the Party with P looks very much the same on both sides. The grand old one on behalf of the people with P, the Eagle of the Parties as declared by Lenin, and with absolute majority, with the historical warrant to rule. P for Party, Pork, People , Proletaaaaaa-r and Privileged. Further, the fameous bloodgroup P.. P for Pure , Pamp & cetera.
Kalisz will understand that. They ruled in Ceskoslovensko also in the good old days with absolute majority, hardly with any allowed opposition and kept all social keye positions without being formally qualified for it. . .
As for Heartland, I can identify them easily. It is Palace der Republik behind the wall in East berlin, now taken down.
It is not indifferent from which Chateau and from which Tank that you order your wine. Not from Chateau Heartland in Michigan and not from Thinktank there.
That ware was bought up very cheaply war surplus in large quantities on the free marked after the fall of the Berlin wall, , distilled only one more time and blended with sheere coke from Ayn Rand in California, who was daughter of a pharmacist from old Ljeningrad and who knew how. To refresh you better and give you a new personality.
It is brown coal destilled potatoe- etanol denaturated for technical purposes.
Longtime consumption develops the Brjesnjev syndrome and with sheere c0ke you loose your ground contact also.
Moral: Never tap your wine from that tank at Chateau Heartland in Michigan..
They simply share the same state religion. Pure Kapitalism and consumerism giving a damn to the very atmosphere, that can be cut by knife wherever they are in charge.
Kalisz will also remember this.
It was the dictatorship of dilettantism.
See also King Donald Grozny.
==========000
I have secured 2 stories.
One from Opa Wacker, tavern owner with legal diploma on the wall..
“You see, it goes up and down in this world. First I kept the horses in WW1, but the Emperor failed. Then with some money from home, I bought and drove Taxi in Bremen, and for that money I hired into the pub here in Ottersberg. But it was the worst rascals in the pub who took on credit and never paid back and just sat and boasted. They could not do any piece of honest work, not even carry up a case of beer for me from the cellars. (Then you get a bottle free) But then one day they got fine dressings and began commanding. Then it went downwards with our business.
But then the brittes and americans came and bombed that, and then it went upwards with the tavern again.
It tells us a lot of who they really were..
Next: A group of scientists came to Max Planc and said Professor Planc , we must write and sign under a letter to the Dept. and say that they are badgering some of our very best colleagues who get arrested or they migrate. This is of disadvantage to our land.
To which Max Planc replied sadly:
Meine Herren, if we sign under and deliver that on friday, we will find our offices and jobs taken over on monday morning allready by peculiar personel in fine suits.with brass.
This explains the dictatorship of dilettantism everywhere. It is simply caused by unqualified personel, stupid mobsters and gangsters from that Peculiar Party with P all over in societys keye roles That must be kept under strict control for unqualified and irrelevant , illegal, simple, strict and ruthless reasons..
Nigelj
On Your last section about turkeys not voting for chistmas.
and how that applies to oil rig workers and their opinions about CO2-AGW
Good greef, ththis is really alarming.
That is illegal employment and treatment conditions for the workers..
That shows obvious ( statistically higly significant proof by poll examination) 0f racial ideological and political and class-discrimination at the entrance and exit doors and in between,…. of workers in the oil rig worker industries in “America”.
They are obviously rigorously sorted at the entrance and exit doors and brainwashed in between, for their work.
Whih is illegal.
Kalisz reminded us of Karel Kapeks ROBOT- theory, and I could counter with my own unpublished film manuscript of the revolution of the infallibles, including Einsteins theory of how to stop that.
C: “Thomas Kalisz has another syntax and grammars that is his right and identity.. I do not find that he is a denialist or a troll,”
I already said that Tomas best fits the Lenin’s term “useful idiot”. In this case – a useful idiot of fossil-fuel industrial complex, rightwing politicians, and/or Russia and Saudi Arabia countries whose economies, regimes and the ability to project power abroad would have collapsed without the world buying their oil and gas.
In Re to
https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2023/07/unforced-variations-july-2023/#comment-813432
and
https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2023/07/unforced-variations-july-2023/#comment-813454 ,
referring also to my previous post of July 26
https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2023/07/unforced-variations-july-2023/#comment-813376
Dear Piotr,
Thank you very much for your feedback. Let me shortly comment thereon.
1) Useful idiots
I admit that it often happens that people supporting certain idea finally find out that they helped to achieve a quite different, sometimes exactly opposite effect than they expected. I think that it may happen also to environmental activists glueing themselves on the streets. Many policies adopted under this public pressure that allegedly should counteract the climate change may in fact bring more harm than good.
Subsidies for fossil fuel replacement with so called biomass or biofuels may once quite likely serve as a prominent example. Another example may quite easily become resurrection of technically obsolete, blatantly inefficient and extremely expensive technologies for nuclear energy exploitation, pushed by nuclear industry as an allegedly helpful, „low carbon“ energy source.
I think that in comparison with medialized actions of people unintentionally supporting all this brutal lobbying for various particular private interests that may be exemplified by policies mentioned above, my questions (asked, moreover, on a website that attracts almost zero public attention) can cause a negligible harm even in case that they are indeed totally false as you suppose.
2) Global energy balance (GEB) and latent heat (LH) flow therein
If you under LW mean latent heat, I fully agree to your statement
„ .. the part of your LW (80 W/m2) that returns to Earth is already a PART of the current DLR arrow, while the rest is a PART of the current OLR arrow. “
You may be surprised but this is exactly what I strived to say from the very start of our discussion (if you do not believe, you can check my previous posts in the track of this discussion which is accessible under https://orgpad.com/s/7zfynb_y5o7 ).
3) Remaining open questions
If you agree that we finally arrived at an agreement at least in this single point, I would be happy if we clarify also the remaining misunderstanding between us.
As I already mentioned, I have a feeling that the reason why you reject assertions that LH flux “cools Earth surface” because you think that under this wording, people like me, macias shurly or JCM (“vaporists”) assume or teach that the LH flux “cools the Earth”.
Nevertheless, if you indeed think so, I would like to assure you that we have really spoken about Earth surface and its mean emission temperature, not about mean emission temperature of Earth as a planet.
In fact, I strive to express during the entire discussion an opinion that while (at least in idealized steady state situations called also “radiative equilibrium”) the Earth radiation temperature is defined only by Earth orbital parameters and intensity of solar radiation (which can be with a high accuracy considered constant during the last few decades), the emission temperature of the Earth surface is regulated by additional factors that may have changed.
Among these factors, radiative greenhouse effect of Earth atmosphere strengthened, due to increasing concentration of non-condensing greenhouse gases such as CO2. The persisting disagreement between the “vaporists” on one side and you on the other side seems to consist in following simple difference: Whereas you suppose that the Earth surface warming in the last decades is caused solely by strengthening of the radiative greenhouse effect, the “vaporists” assume that a decrease in the LH flux and/or decrease in Earth albedo caused by reduction of average cloud cover* may have contributed to the observed warming significantly. Am I right?
If so, please try to re-consider a simple example with a given GEB, e.g. such as shown in the scheme under link
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:The-NASA-Earth%27s-Energy-Budget-Poster-Radiant-Energy-System-satellite-infrared-radiation-fluxes.jpg ,
and calculate average emission temperature of Earth surface for a slightly decreased LH flux and a commensurately increased radiative flux from the surface (so that the energy balances of both the surface as well as of the atmosphere remain unchanged). As a result, you will obtain an increase of the average emission temperature of the Earth surface. In an opposite case, if latent heat flux increase enables a commensurate decrease of the radiative flux from the surface, average emission temperature of Earth surface will decrease in the newly established steady state. The “planetary” emission temperature of Earth in both new steady states, however, remains the same as in the original steady state with the original ratio of the radiative and non-radiative heat flux.
In other words, the “vaporists” do not speak about any change in steady state (“equilibrium”) emission temperature of Earth as a planet*. We merely point to the circumstance that the difference between the planetary emission temperature and the respective mean emission temperature of a planetary surface depends, on planets like Earth, wherein non-radiative heat flux plays a significant role, not only on the radiative greenhouse effect but also on the non-radiative heat flux.
On Earth, prevailing part of the non-radiative heat flux is latent heat flux caused by water evaporation and condensation. Although high surface area covered by oceans makes the latent heat flow quite stable, the contribution from the land is not negligible and may be variable.
I strived to show that this contribution may be influenced by human activities in an extent that can be still significant for global steady state. I think that my example assuming an artificial “wetting” of Sahara desert showed that changes in water cycle intensity above continents might measurably change the mean emission surface temperature of Earth.
Best regards
Tomáš
*To be completely correct, if the assumed that changes in water cycle intensity are replected also in changes of the average Earth albedo – due to reduction or increase in the reflectivity of cloud cover as suggested by macias shurly, then changes in regional or global water cycle intensity could indirectly influence also the average “planetary” emission temperature of Earth.
This possibility was, however, not the subject of our previous discussion and I propose to put it aside until simpler issues discussed above are finally clarified.
In Re to
https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2023/07/unforced-variations-july-2023/#comment-813327
Dear Piotr,
Many thanks for your reply, as well as for your reaction
https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2023/07/unforced-variations-july-2023/#comment-813330
to my post of July 19.
Let me comment on your objections.
1) Gaps in understanding and unwillingness to read and/or accept arguments
I apologize for the gaps in my understanding. They are the reason why I am asking my questions. As regards the objected ignorance, I can only say that I strive to read all replies posted by my opponents thoroughly and think about them. As far as I find time, I strive to read the relevant literature as well.
On March 30, in my very first post on this site
https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2023/03/unforced-variations-march-2023/comment-page-2/#comment-810452 ,
I referred to two articles – one that deals with modelling of the water cycle intensity influence on global climate, and another one asking questions if the present models are suitable for such task. Thus, there might be a persisting gap in understanding generally, not only on my side. Unfortunately, no one of the participants in the discussion following this first post and continuing till now addressed these original questions yet.
Instead, there formed a group of opponents, asserting either that
(i) latent heat transport cannot play any role in global mean Earth surface regulation at all (because a modification of mean Earth surface temperature due to latent heat flow would allegedly violate the energy conservation law, or, in another formulation, because the latent heat must „stay in the system“ due to alleged impermeability of upper Earth atmosphere layers with respect to heat transported in the troposphere by LE), or (including you) that
(ii) a small surface cooling effect of latent heat flux may exist, however, it is negligible in comparison with (and effectively overturned by) the greenhouse effect of water vapour, so that it (globally and any time) applies that „Earth is a water warmed planet“.
I admit that although I scrutinize the arguments presented by each opponent quite carefully and that I any time strived to explain the reasons why I do not see specific arguments consistent and convincing, I often struggle with finding the right way how to explain my point of view. Therefore, I am thankful for any feedback that helps me to recognize mistakes or possible weak points in my argumentation.
As regards my ability to accept arguments of my opponent, I am sorry that I still see discrepancies on your side. I believe, however, that as soon as I do not see a reasonable doubt anymore, I am willing to correct my opinion.
2) Water cycle intensity and global annual average of latent heat flow
To become more specific, in previous discussion about the role of latent heat flux in Earth climate regulation, I referred to the second edition (2016) of a standard textbook Physical climatology written by prof. Dennis Hartmann. I pointed to his explanation that the mean Earth surface temperature is about 15 °C (instead of about 30 °C calculated from the simplest model of the greenhouse effect) due to “vertical transport of energy by atmospheric motions” (page 33).
I understood this explanation the way that the difference between the mean Earth surface temperature and the mean emission temperature is regulated not only by surface albedo and by content of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, but also by proportion of radiative and non-radiative heat transport from the surface to the atmosphere.
I further pointed to diagrams explaining the global energy balance (GEB), such as that on page 34 of Hartmann’s Physical climatology textbook or such that is accessible under
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:The-NASA-Earth%27s-Energy-Budget-Poster-Radiant-Energy-System-satellite-infrared-radiation-fluxes.jpg
In these diagrams, the value of the averaged latent heat flow (LE) is about 80 W/m2. I pointed to the fact that this value is consistent with the heat consumed for evaporation of about 500 000 km3 water annually from Earth surface (which is about 510 000 000 km2), and that this amount of annually evaporated water is consistent with global mean precipitation which is about 990 mm.
Nevertheless, the relationship between LE flux and mean global annual precipitation is no way my invention, I only cannot remember the source anymore from that I became aware thereof. I think that the equivalence between the average latent heat flow and the sum of annual global precipitation is seen so obvious by authors of the GEB diagrams that they desist from detailed explanations in this respect.
3) Earth surface cooling by latent heat flow
I still do not fully understand why you so fiercely strive to disprove the simple observation that the latent heat flow is an important factor in Earth climate regulation, because it decreases the difference between the mean surface temperature of Earth and its average emission temperature in comparison with the case that this difference would have been caused solely by the greenhouse effect, without any modification by non-radiative heat transport.
It is my feeling that you somehow mix “Earth surface cooling” with “Earth cooling” – that may be the reason why you so many times repeated that a significant part of latent heat flux returns to Earth surface in downwelling longwave infrared radiation (DLR).
In my opinion, there is in fact no discrepancy between surface cooling by latent heat flux on one hand and the DLR value resulting from greenhouse effect on the other hand. I only emphasized that in the above mentioned GEB diagrams, the returned part of LE is already included in the depicted DLR, whereas you insisted in your opinion that only a small part of the depicted LE actually cools the surface, because more than two thirds thereof “return back”.
In my last post, I tried to find another way how to support my opinion that any attempt to recalculate the LE with the aim to obtain the hypothetical “genuine” value thereof will destroy the entire GEB. If you take the GEB diagrams as they are and accept the LE value given therein as true, there will be only a small Earth energy imbalance (EEI) up to 1 W/m2, and no catastrophic heating or cooling of the atmosphere or any other part of Earth.
4) Decoupling between water cycle intensity and absolute air humidity
Another persisting objection from your side (against the opinion that water is not ONLY a greenhouse gas but, in fact, it plays also other comparably important roles in Earth climate regulation that may, under specific circumstances, also decrease the difference between the mean Earth surface temperature and the Earth radiative temperature resulting from the radiative greenhouse effect which is caused by greenhouse gases in the atmosphere) is that any artificial water cycle intensification must miss its intended goal (reducing the Earth surface warming), because it will be unavoidably accompanied by a commensurate absolute humidity increase.
If I understood you correctly, you assume that this absolute humidity increase will overturn the intended surface cooling (that we strived to achieve by intensified LE) due to enhancement of the radiative greenhouse effect caused by increased water vapour concentration.
I strived to show that for the contemplated water cycle intensity increase over Sahara from ca 75 mm annual evaporation to ca 1300 mm, a sufficient water atmospheric vapour pool may already exist not only globally, but also locally.
I think that the provided example gives a hint that even over hot arid areas such as Sahara (that might be perhaps quite prominent candidates for most effective artificial surface cooling by enhanced water supply), current absolute air humidity may be high enough and no substantial increase thereof must necessarily result if we arrange an additional water supply enabling the discussed artificially increased evaporation. In other words, it appears that (contrary to your assumption), even if we desist from horizontal water transport and simplify the model situantion by an assumption that all evaporated water stays localized in the Sahara region, no substantial increase of the mean regional absolute humidity above existing level may necessarily result from the assumed, heavily artificially enhanced water cycle in the region.
In this respect, I would like to remind you that I introduced the example with Sahara desert (assuming an artificial supply of about 13 000 km3 sea water annually for evaporation therein) to show that a comparable global water cycle weakening in the past might be considered as an alternative (with respect to greenhouse effect of the increasing concentration of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere) cause of the global warming (about 1 K) observed during the last few decades.
5) Concluding remark
I am aware that you can take the preceding paragraph as a further evidence that I am an agent of fossil fuel industry striving to deflect public attention from increasing CO2 concentration in the atmosphere. Nevertheless, putting aside the circumstance that broad public ignores websites like RC, I think that all my posts can be read also as a mere expression of a concern that mechanism of the observed global climate change may be more complicated as it is presented in mainstream media, and that policies based on that simplified view may very easily fail.
I still think that stepwise weakening of global water cycle in the past might be well possible. To me, arguments therefor presented by some hydrologists and biologists pointing to
(i) human caused continent deforestation,
(ii) soil destruction by improper agricultural practices, and
(iii) improper water management including wetland draining and supporting runoff from the land to sea
do not sound implausibly. Moreover, I have a concern that even in case that the global water cycle intensity might have been in fact still relatively unaffected by human activities, possible regional changes in water cycle intensity over the globe may be still very important and potentially destructive.
That is why I still think that the questions and doubts raised by Makarieva et al in their article
https://arxiv.org/abs/2301.09998
(which is cited by me in my first post mentioned above) may be indeed relevant and might deserve much more attention than they have attracted so far.
Greetings
Tomáš
T. Kalisz JUl 26: “I believe, however, that as soon as I do not see a reasonable doubt anymore, I am willing to correct my opinion .”
Your posts say otherwise. E.g.: TK: “In my opinion, there is in fact no discrepancy between surface cooling by latent heat flux on one hand and the DLR”
Latent heat removes heat from Earth surface to atmosphere, but it DOES NOT not accumulate there (if it did – I have shown that in 16 years the temp. of atmosphere would be equal to the temp of the Sun). Instead, practically ALL latent heat deposited in the atmosphere
is radiated – most of it as a part of DLR, minority as a part of OLR. Only the OLR part of LH cools the Earth. Which means that net effect of water cycle is to WARM the Earth, hence increasing water cycle would warm Earth even more.
Which renders all your calculations utterly pointless.
Dear Piotr,
Could you show where I asserted that the LE accumulates in the atmosphere?
This is a continuing misunderstanding on your side, I am afraid.
I merely said that in my opinion, the LE is re-distributed exactly as shown in various GEB diagrams, and that no corrections or recalculations of the energy flows given in these diagrams, as suggested by you, are necessary or appropriate.
I strive to convince you that your assertion (that in fact only a small fraction of the average LE, which is about 80 W/m2, cools the Earth surface) is unsubstantiated and erroneous,
I think so – simply because it appears that any recalculation of the LE will destroy the entire GEB. You unfortunately interpreted this remark the way that I suppose LE accumulation in the atmosphere. If you review my posts, you will find out that I have never said anything like this.
Please feel free to exploit my track of the discussion that is accessible under
https://orgpad.com/s/7zfynb_y5o7
Greetings
Tom
T Kalisz:Jul 28 in my opinion, the LE is re-distributed exactly as shown in various GEB diagrams”
Which proves only the shallowness of your understanding – despite posting 10s(?) 100s(?) of post over several months -and throwing around scientific-sounding acronyms – you STILL DO NOT understand a simple diagram at the base of it all!
You THINK that if the LH arrow is drawn( for clarity!) in a different part of the diagram than the DLR and OLR arrows – then NONE of LH becomes a part of either DLR or OLR.
And if so – since thy draw ONLY one LH arrow into the atmosphere and NONE arrows from LH joining DLR or OLR -> then in your “understanding” NONE of the LH from atmosphere
reradiates toward the Earth and heats it.
Further, since there is only LH arrow IN, and no arrows removing that heat OUT of the atm,,
then you imply that the LH must accumulate in the atmosphere. This answers your:
TK: “ Could you show where I asserted that the LE accumulates in the atmosphere?
TK: “I strive to convince you that your assertion (that in fact only a small fraction of the average LE, which is about 80 W/m2, cools the Earth surface) is unsubstantiated and erroneous,
Good luck with that – see above and below.
TK: I think so – simply because it appears that any recalculation of the LE will destroy the entire GEB. ”
It would do no such a thing – the part of your LW (80 W/m2) that returns to Earth
is already a PART of the current DLR arrow, while the rest is a PART of the current OLR arrow.
In other words ALL SOURCES of atm. heat: absorption of Earth LR, absorption of SW, thermals and latent heat ADD TO EACH OTHER and then are reradiated either out (OLR) or back to Earth (DLR).
Further, we see on your diagram that the DLR arrow is about TWICE the OLR arrows – which means than on average (over all sources of heat to the atm.) 2/3 returns to Earth and 1/3 leaves into space. And that why I said that if the fate of LH is similar to the fate of all sources of heat in the atm. – then only 1/3 of LH cools the Earth by escaping into space – the rest being re-absorbed by Earth.
So much for your proving my argument above “unsubstantiated and erroneous“.
@ Tomas
It should be uncontroversial that the climate system energy balance depends largely on heat transport. The balance is achieved by heat transport from regions with a positive net radiative flux to regions with a negative radiative flux.
I have provided references elsewhere to Axel Kleidon who proposes constraints on the maximum rate of transport. e.g. https://nature.berkeley.edu/biometlab/espm298/Kleidon%202004%20BeyondGaia.pdf
I have also noted elsewhere that Fajber proposes that the magnitude of atmospheric heat transport matches the rate of latent flux.
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
While not explicit in such documents, the transport of water and the corresponding latent heat transport acts also as an atmospheric dehumidifier. In steady state, the upward transport of water vapor in atmosphere must be balanced by a net downward flux of condensed water.
In a static system with atmospheric greenhouse composition solely of trace non condensing gas, the system cannot compensate for the net radiative flux imbalance at TOA. In reality, annually, the balance uses latent heat transport and associated dehumidification mechanisms.
As discussed by Kleidon, the sustained heat transport in non-equilibrium steady state maintains a maximum gradient by atmospheric heating and radiative cooling. Fajber suggests this results in a sustained net flow of energy from surface to space matching the rate of latent flux.
Perhaps one could subtract some degree of kinetic dissipation in latent flux by simple approximation of the pristine system efficiency. We have knowledge of the average hot-end and cool-end of transport i.e. 288K and 255K, and latent flux rate 80 Wm-2.
such that 80 Wm-2 * (1/255K – 1/288K) = 0.04 W K-1 m-2.
And so, technically, it could be argued <100% of latent flux is radiated considering a small fraction (a few % points) is accounted for in turbulent dissipation.
My interpretation is that there is an overarching assumption here that humanity cannot, and does not, interfere directly with latent flux process, evaporation, condensation, heat transport, and dehumidification.
It should also be noted that while the Earth is deemed a blueish planet, the oceanic surface operates close to equilibrium partitioning at al times i.e. soley temperature dependent. It is the terrestrial landscape which deviates from such simple assumption, and the blueness says nothing of condensation/dehumidification process.
thank you
@ JCM
Your last secdtion:
“It should be noticed that while the earth is deemed a bluish planet..””
Is primitive and pointing away from all that can possibly put data and knowledge together the efficient way and give consceiveable answers to the questions the easier way.
Such actions and behaviours have also been termed “red herrings” intensionally misleading and confusing.
What about all the wite clouds over that blue marble shifting with the winds? as if the seas were a steady blue marble in balance. And winds & storms yes or no make a most dramatic difference to how fast it evaporates and the seas are being cooled again by evaporation and icy rain.
The dry lands,… the solid state mineral and botanic surfaces, its albedo and evapotranspiration and human interaction with that is hardly what matters and decides over most of it.
What about the extreeme albedo and whiteness of snow? and what about human interaction to the atmospheres content of essensial climate catalyzers by large atmospheric bulk volume? what about CO2, CH4 N2O and SO2?
The riddles are much easier cracked and given more efficient practical answers if you can rather learn about that and take that for serious,…. conscider that and discuss that,
Not minimize it or deny it or hide what really weighs and matters and the keye functional details to that, because in your alian privileged class situation you never learnt about it..
Science is quite much the art of setting problems on possibly solveable form, so why do you rather further fameous cunning political actionisms against that?
Is that for the questions not to be given right answers and for the problems not to be solved and for possibly faster, cheaper, and better, more adequate politics not to be understood?
“” “It should be noticed that while the earth is deemed a bluish planet..””
Is primitive and pointing away from all that can possibly put data and knowledge together the efficient way and give consceiveable answers to the questions the easier way.””
no I don’t think so. The average oceanic partitioning of LE and H is simply approximated by use of saturation vapor pressure curve and psychrometric constant (for a distributed ocean surface). Higher temps, increasingly higher rate of LE.
Averaged separately for land and ocean gives the following figure. https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s00382-014-2430-z/figures/2
The departure from the aforementioned relation exists for land, not sea.
The relevance is that sea cannot be deemed to simply compensate for profound desiccation of lands in a global surface budget.
Eliot Jacobson goes on CNN to briefly discuss the Antarctic Sea Ice Extent, among other things:
https://www.cnn.com/videos/world/2023/07/25/exp-climate-crisis-disaster-eliot-jacobson-vause-intv-07251aseg1-cnni-world.cnn
I would welcome anyone’s down to earth response (ELI5) to the graph for Antarctic sea ice extent anomaly. He has also posted it on twitter:
https://twitter.com/EliotJacobson/status/1683535568268050432
John P.
The downward ‘off the graph’ plot in the tweet you link-to shows a compound effect of the slow freeze-up of the Antarctic ice in 2023 along with the variation of past years’ freeze-ups for the time of year. Thus the y-axis is being measured in s.d. A more realistic measure of the anomaly in sq km is show in here in Fig 3a.
Thanks, MA Rodger. I see what you mean now after looking at your graphs: it does look like the lower sea ice extents at the end of 2021, 2022, and then 2023 have ‘compounded’ to creating this anomaly in July.
@WeatherProf
Think July was hot in the desert SW? Aug says hold my beer. A monster heat dome likely by next weekend – the most intense yet this summer. Magenta indicates where all-time record heights are forecast. This on top of PHX so far beating its hottest month on record by almost 4 Fahrenheit!! 1/
So far in July PHX avg temp is 102.9
Old record 98.9 in 2020. To beat your hottest month’s temp by ~4 degrees is remarkable. Enter August… This next heat dome is forecast to be around 4 sigma. These heat “ridges” measure the column heat by how high the 500mb pressure sfc is 2/
https://forums.talkingpointsmemo.com/uploads/default/original/4X/4/b/f/4bfde95bcc958a6c2fb5fd01bf8a704a6d392883.jpeg
@WeatherProf
Since hot air expands, the hotter the column is, the higher it pushes the height in which you would have to ascend to reach a pressure of 500 millibars. Now, this is just a forecast. It may not verify. But the models have had significant support for it. So it seems legit.
Since 1970, average summer temperatures have increase by 3.8F. The hottest major city in America continues to get hotter due to greenhouse warming and urban heat island effect.
Is WeatherProf a forecaster?
I advise not to count your vultures before they’re hatched, and drink your beer instead of holding it. It is a lot more common for models to produce extreme 500mb heights (say, 6000m) in the out periods of a model run than for those to actually occur at verification time. This is especially true if you pick the most extreme member of an ensemble, but also applies to many control runs. The 0.4 degree resolution in your figure is probably the latter. My forecast is for a verification time of 00 UTC Monday Aug. 7. That’s six hours later, which will make little difference in the actual 500 mb heights, but it will have the advantage of actual upper air soundings for verification – available at 00UTC but not 1800 UTC. I predict heights about 70m lower. Instead of having an approximately 6030m high centered somewhere near in northwest New Mexico, I expect a more sprawling high along an east-west axis centered farther south by about 300 km, with a central height of 5960m. You can knock off about two sigma from the extreme. The result would be a scattering of daily records, but few or no monthly records by that time. Let’s see who comes closer.
Phoenix is not representative of the Southwest U.S. as a whole. It’s observations are from an airport in the middle of a sprawling metropolis with a large heat island. That heat island gets larger and more intense as the populated area expands. It is even more intense when the whole thing is heavily air conditioned in a heat wave. For comparison, I’ll take Blythe and Needles CA. Both are low desert locations, but not subject to the same heat island as Phoenix. For July through July 29th, Needles averaged 102.1F, 3.5F above the 30-year normal. Blythe averaged 99.2F, 4.2F above normal. Phoenix averaged 103.0F, 7.3F above normal. All very hot, but that extra 3 to 4F departure at Phoenix is probably due to enhanced heat island.
That said, over 5 million people now live in the Phoenix metropolitan area, 20% more than a decade ago.
It’s a lot of people who are experiencing these extreme conditions.