This month’s open thread on climate science topics. It’s been a warm summer, dontcha know? Expect ERA5, the satellite data and then the surface data products to confirm this in the next week or so. Sea ice minimum in the Arctic will also occur soon, as will a record low maximum in the Antarctic. El Niño still building in the tropical Pacific. Interesting times…
First CarbFix Mineralization Summit, 14-15 Sept., Reykjavik. Virtual participation open to all.
https://www.carbfix.com/
Columbia Earth Observatory was one of four founding partners of the CarbFix project in 2007.
https://www.carbfix.com/our-story
@ all and everyone
September here also. It is very fine weather today,. It normally seems to sette a bit and clear up in September here where I live.
We have the first apples and believe it or not, some sweet wine grapes in the sunny wall and there will be a lot more.
But there are high temperatures rather above 20 celsius, that is normal summer warmth and bathing waters, good for the tomatoes and for the wines. The apples can take a bit more harsh autumns and come in any case. But they show red chins on the sunny side now, all over as I only am using wild sorts known as Malus X-domesticus from wild seeds..
There suddenly is Plenty of oaknuts this year on my tiny tree that came by the birds several years ago. .
Wild apples and oaks seeding out is a fameous gardening isoterm in the Köppen climate system.
As other people are discussing Death walley, we are referring to Upstairs at the University of Uppsala in Uppland, U U U U , with Celsius the astronomer and Carl von Linnaeus on this side of the Atlantic.
The UUUU system delivers the Nobel prices.
Moral, Keep up with Celsius and Linnaeus Upstairs at the University in Uppsala in Uppland, not with the Jones.
To think is great marvellous
To think right is higher…
SANN!
(= Motto at Uppsala)
So that everyone gets it
Linnaeus died at last, and his only son linnaeus Jr. was not quite on the levels. He is told to have had more interests in bunny artificially perfumed roses, than in those beautiful natural wild ones in the swedish landscaper uphill and downhill and in between, on the rocks, and in the gardens & underwater and abroad. .
And could hardly state it in binominal LATIN with L. either, as we are brught up to in school..
The new queen of Sweden also had no interest so the King could not spend further money on it .
So after some years all the works of Linnaeus that were packed down,
But, papers and herbariums and everything, was luckily bought up at the flea market next by and sent by horses and togboats via the Gøta kanal over to Gøteborg, and there by sailboat over to London and up the river Thames.
Where they founded https:/The/Linnaean/Society./of/London.
At that society, that must have been tolerant, Charles Darvin was able to proceed his rainworms and finches on Galapagos and claims about the origine of species by struggle for life and survival of the fittest!
That is still forbidden in public school here and there, over there in the US..
Moral:
Linnaeus, Celsius Berzelius and Atrrhenius,…., never forget them!
Linnaeus founded Kungliga Akademin, the royal acdademy, that came to control and deliver the Nobel prices . under which you rather aspire if you want to to score prices.
Today, it is controlled by Kronprinsessan Victoria, who were allways there, interested, at the annual festivals..
I have seen Queen Silvia telling of Baroque royal Theater and Gardening at Haga. Quite good.
……..Fjäriln vingad syns på Haga…….
Comes with notation on swedish Wikipedia,, further on Youtube.
It is about the Lepidopterae L ( about all the butterflies and moths in the real climate at Haga). A very fine song about the climate at Haga royal manshion. .
Tell it and state it so that Victoria also can get it and appreciate it at the Nobel Festivals. Then you can also possibly score a price.
There are important footprints of the Uppsala school over there in the states by a certain Johnny Appleseed, who shows to have been carrying out missions and appleseeds according to https://Emmanuel/Swedenborg., the fameous Swedenborg church.
Whoose marble sarcophag I have seen side by side of Linnaeus in the chorus of the arcbishop see Cathedral Upstairs in Uppsala,
So there is heritage and wild appleseeds of Malus x-domesticus also over there in the states in New England and westwards.
Better look out for that because,
An apple a day also keeps the doctor away.
Today I have shaled the first ones for apple cake and apple pourre for desert to my fameos birthday party every year. As I am grown up in an apple garden and carry out missions here on behalf of that.
And because, we cannot have surrealisms and denialisms in the climate.
“That is still forbidden in public school here and there, over there in the US.”
Er, no. While wacko creationists keep trying to carve out space for “Creationism” (now re-named “Intelligent Design”) in the curriculum (and mostly failing), there is to my knowledge no place in the US public system banning the teaching of Darwinian principles. (Private ‘Christian’ schools are another story though, I suspect. And then there’s the home-school movement.)
My favorite dumb design is the drainage of the human maxillary sinus. It drains up and not down. An intelligent designer would have designed it to drain down.
To all of you who doubt in intelligent design:
I tend to believe that an intelligent design such as the human body fot instance, is intelligently thought and designed, but often what we call ” a monday work”…. in a hangover or something after the weekend festivals. .
I have been discussing this in musical technology and baroque design and architecture and used plant and biological tissues as examples.
“When God created the maple leave he thought geometrically, wherefore he could also allow himself quite a lot of artistical freedom in the practical performance!”.
The same is a good advice for artists and musicians. as for carpenters and blacksmiths. .Keep order and consciousness in your geometrical and stereometrical and basic prime numeral and proportional thoughts, then you can work quite much better free handed on eye and ear and finger measurement..
It rules for humans if not for God also. Have orders in your thought fist, befrore you can possibly have it in your fingers.
Indeed.
BTW, you never taught at Cranbrook School, MI, did you? Had a teacher there of the same name.
Don’t denigrate God by accusing him of having anything to do with the creation of humanity.
How comes clouds are cooling? (NOT talking about feedbacks)
I have my take on it, but just let us discuss it. To arbitrarilly quote the NOAA:
“The figure at right shows that cloud conditions exert a global and annual SW CRE of approximately -50 W/m2 and a mean LW CRE of approximate 30 W/m2. The net global mean CRE is approximately -20 W/m2..”
That seems pretty fair and simple. -50 + 30 = -20
Next we could discuss the exact magnitudes of these figures. The SW CRE may be lower, like 45W/m2, the LW CRE is only 22.5W/m2 in model by Schmidt et al 2010.
“Also, net LW CRF is 22.5 W/m2 compared to the observed estimate of 31 W/m2”
I have no position there, why would I? Let us just assume the LW CRE is 30W/m2, but it could be lower, whatever.
What actually complicates the subject is the term “net LW CRE” as in the quote above, and what it means. If there is a net, there will also be a gross. Alternatively we can use the term SFR and SFA, as otherwise used in the paper. The “gross LW CRF” is about 2.5times larger then the net. In this paper the figures are 22.5W/m2 net, and 56.3W/m2 gross. If we follow the canonical figure of 30W/m2 net, it should be 75W/m2 gross. This perspective alone is interesting, as then clouds in a way would make of about 1/2 of the total GHE.
Either way, the albedo effect of clouds (or SW CRE) is larger than the net LW CRE and smaller than the gross LW CRE. So the question if clouds are cooling or warming will depend on which LW CRE we compare it to. How comes the net LW CRE is used and the gross LW CRE is obviously getting ignored?
E. Schaffer,
Concerning your questioning the term “net LW CRE” and what it means.
You are actually mis-reading the term “net LW CRE” although the LW Cloud Radiative Effect is in the context of the two references you appear to be making (the NOAA-GFDL page Cloud Radiative Effect and Schmidt et al (2010) ‘Attribution of the present‐day total greenhouse effect’) the same: LW CRE = net LW CRF.
The term used by Schmidt et al is “net LW CRF” thus Cloud Radiative Forcing and in this form, the idea that clouds warm the planet by blocking the OLR but also are a source of OLR at their upper ‘surfaces’ would lead to a modeler talking of “net LW CRF”. Mind the LW CRE appears as you might expect, always positive (warming) as shown by the graphics of Calisto et al (2014)
CO2 may obscure the H2O satellite imagery from 15 to 30 THz, 61 to 70 THz, and 130 to 103 THz (2.3 to 2.9 microns, 4.3 to 4.9 microns, and 10 to 20 microns) because they both capture and emit radiation at those ranges of frequencies.
Each range of CO2 interference of H2O observed imagery occurs at the warmer side of the water vapor emission peak so any filtering of CO2 in the imagery may make the water vapor imagery seem colder.
https://www.e-education.psu.edu/meteo3/l2_p7.html
I could not resist the low-hanging SchweizerEnglish fruit that appeared alongside Stefan’s Klima-Briefing :
Kipppunke im Klimasystem: Wie ordne ich sie richtig ein?
https://vvattsupwiththat.blogspot.com/2023/09/meet-zurichs-new-climate-gnomes.html
The Other Fossil-Sourced Greenhouse Gas:
https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2023/08/28/climate/groundwater-drying-climate-change.html
https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/2023GL103509
Obviously, this is exacerbating the GHEffect by increasing the intensity of the water cycle:
https://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/images/145357/water-cycle-is-speeding-up-over-much-of-the-us
And of course it isn’t just the US, but worldwide… for example India subsidizes diesel fuel so its small farmers can irrigate… a double whammy.
Since increased water vapor accounts for about half of the energy gained by the climate system over the pre-industrial equilibrium, perhaps more attention should be directed to the issue.
Has anyone done modeling on this?
Crop termination/drydown is well underway. Buyers in Canada are being encouraged to crack down on certain desiccants popular since 1980s. This has co-benefits for soil organic development. https://keepitclean.ca/tools-resources/pre-harvest-glyphosate-staging-guide/
Is the PDO broken?
August 2023 – minus 2.47
July 2023 – minus 2.50
June 2023 – minus 253
JCH,
You ask “Is the PDO broken?”
In recent months PDO has been as low as minus 3.07. but the PDO record shows it has been lower in the past, down to minus 3.65 back in April 1859 as it did in July 1950.
Over recent decades, a comparison between PDO & MEIv2 shows PDO doesn’t respond immediately to the arrival of an El Niño. So while MEI has now turned positive, PDO would not be expected to immediately follow suit. And MEI values have been increasing into the coming El Niño from a lower value than has been the case in recent El Niño transitions. So the continued low values in the PDO would not be unexpected.
MA Rodger,
Thanks. It’s a fish cycle. When looking at SST maps of the Eastern Pacific Ocean, they appear to already be very warm. The maps used as examples of a negative PDO look nothing like the maps being made from observations. The fish should be doing very well, but news reports suggest Alaska salmon may be struggling whereas Russian salmon is booming.
Ladies and Gentlemen
Now we have it again, the rain in Spain
The internet tells of flood cathastrophy all over, as the surrealists are selling broken water cycles, aridifications , and spraying of freshwater drinkwater on the ground to counterr the politicians and the misconsceptions of the climate researchers and meteorologists.
And if that is not enough, further rumor news of mud cathastrophy in Utah where they should sell a quite safe desert festival.
Thus once again, where does it rain?
I am fed up with all this, having had 2 cellar floods in August 2023, that drank our refrigerator electronics, so I am sawing and building a 30 cm high “CATETER” of choisest, recycled wreckboards and rusty flooded nails for the next one to stand on, It will will come tomorrow evening, they have said.
We were out in the supermarket buying it and my eldest son commented on the climate.. I could sustain that this is just a beginning and early warning, But look at the forest and the trees, it is greener than ever, having had the advantage of it wherever the earth is not flat, Which is mostly not the case..
Let us set on the green values, the photosynthesis that is our only serious carbon sink, and a higher and rougher and wilder vegetation to meet this situation!.
I repeat….!
Who did ridicule Aristoteles and Claussius Clappeyron and the vapour pressure & dewpoint curve of water?
Shame and blame on you, I repeat…
Landcrabs I say, Landcrabs. Flat earthers, blind believers in the scriptures, and desert walkers!
W-W and W, “Wilder Warmer and Wetter! ” That is the formula.
For the most part, I’m not clear what you are saying–which is usual.
But for the record, Burning Man is in Nevada, not Utah.
Do I allways have to explain my jokes to you Hr. McKinney?
Apparently. Also your serious points (if any).
The domain climatestate.com is for sale. Main reason, there is no longer the need for the site with my limited resources. The site got about 650k views, and went from a basic blog to a sort of video article site.
Today, climate coverage is on ervery channel and usually done by the experts. Perhaps someone with a professional team likes to establish a new beacon under this prime addess, while tapping into a link network grown since 2011.
In the future you will find the 1500+ posts and over 1k videos at my new site earthclimate.tv, where everyone can contribute.
From the “mitigating emissions” bureau:
https://www.cnn.com/2023/09/04/africa/spiro-battery-swap-africa-electric-bikes-spc-intl/index.html
There’s a certain tendency to think that solutions must come from the ‘enlightened’ West, and that developing nations must be dragged along. Here’s a data point to the contrary.
I am not arguing with the main point in this post, but the first sentence in the linked article refers to “fuel-guzzling motorcycles and scooters”. Give me a break.
Back in the 70’s I used a Honda step-thru (technically an underbone motorcycle, but functionally a scooter) for home-to-university-and-back commuting. My fuel consumption averaged around 125 miles per imperial gallon, so 100 miles per US gallon, and engines have gotten more fuel-efficient since then, (Which of course often goes into providing more power rather than better fuel consumption.)
Moving towards electric vehicles in general is a worthy aim, but I’m not sure this is the area to focus upon.
Hr. ozajh
There are several horizons and dimensions to this.
I have also looked at handicaps electric waggons that can also go indoor. With very ugly and heavy lead acid batteries.
Trucks could moove indoor at the railway stations and under deck in big ships driven by 4 stroke Ottomotors on propane gas, and even sublimely “clean diesel” just by having all big doors open.
So why not a tiny combustion engine in those handicap wehicles and a blue butane- box for mooving outdoor at least?.As a splendid combustion engine can burn clean as a candle in church by also having fuel as clean as odourless lamp kerosene or lighter gas..
What should rather be done, to my opinion, is systematically resign on unnecessary freight and traffic,…. and first of all, drive carefully!
Todays electric wehicles are also really fashionable. For local and urban trafic, smokeless and noiseless odeourless, you can again hear the wheels rolling on the road and the birdsongs outside. But it is really not the best for long distance highspeed and for offroad.
Think of that instead, and a lot can be improoved.
They are so silent and smooth that they should have horse- whinny under their cower so we can hear them come.
We crossed the Sognefjord last summer in an electric ferry. Engine and Propellar noise was clearly reduced to absolute minimum by modern stealthy submarine propellar techniques, and no smelling of cheap stinky heavy ship bunkers on board. A large electric contact for cheapest hydroelectric power on both sides. Quite an improovement, we could really rather smell the fresh summer airs in the fjord and listen to the birds.
But sublime and updated diesel should also remain at sea wherever that is better.
Air traffic is a problem. It requires high energy density. The birds are especially sporty.
One discusses hydrogen and perhaps NH3. Elon Musk does believe in liquid CH4.
I think the important point is that electrification becomes the default… I don’t know the numbers, but I’m pretty sure motorcycles are what most young people drive in those countries. So when (if) they step up to a car, they will be more likely to choose EV.
Same idea in many ways as having well-functioning localized solar generation. Small villages may not contribute that much to the climate problem even without it, but it is important to leapfrog the centralized coal plant and transmission wires paradigm as economies improve.
Personally I think methane is what we need to focus on over the next few years by eating a plant based diet and closing large monocrop factory farms and replacing them with small local regenerative produce farms so we can regrow dense pristine forests with deep natural forest soil.
We don’t have enough land on Earth to wastefully feed people calories from animal products. Each calorie from animal products takes ten times the land and water and fertilizer that would be required to simply consume the calorie directly from the plant source alone. Get rid of the middle animal. Let nature sequester nitrogen and carbon back into pristine forest soil.
Then we could mandate that all new vehicles sold in the US after 2030 must have a plug-in option.
I own a 2017 plug-in hybrid Chevy Volt and the first two years I only used about $10 worth of gas a year driving it to and from work. Most people only need a small battery to drive 30 miles a day between charges.
Plug-in hybrids are the lowest cost of ownership cars available.
If we don’t make them here then other countries will own the global automobile market.
If you have not read it already here is a paper explaining why methane may be a more immediate problem than CO2:
https://climatehealers.org/the-science/animal-agriculture-position-paper/
Dave Marks: – “Then we could mandate that all new vehicles sold in the US after 2030 must have a plug-in option.”
I’d suggest that’s now TOO LITTLE; TOO LATE!
Dave, what makes you think global supplies of petroleum fuels will remain affordable/abundant in the coming years/decades?
US petroleum geologist Art Berman tweeted on Sep 20 (including an informative graph):
https://twitter.com/aeberman12/status/1704163838436733396
Per the Energy Institute’s Statistical Review of World Energy-2023 (72nd edition), the worlds’ top-5 crude oil + condensate daily mean producers in 2022 included (from page 17):
#1: USA: _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ 11,887,000 b/d (14.6% global share)
#2: Russian Federation: _ 10,669,000 b/d (13.1% global share)
#3: Saudi Arabia: _ _ _ _ _ 10,509,000 b/d (12.9% global share)
#4: Canada: _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _4,868,000 b/d (6.0% global share)
#5: Iraq: _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ 4,446,000 b/d (5.5% global share)
World: _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ 81,157,000 b/d
Includes crude oil, shale/tight oil, oil sands, lease condensate or gas condensates that require further refining. Excludes liquid fuels from other sources such as biomass and synthetic derivatives of coal and natural gas.
https://www.energyinst.org/statistical-review
USA crude oil + condensate production peaked at over 12.3 Mb/d annual average in 2019 (peaked at about 12.9 Mb/d in Nov 2019) just before COVID. Is this the all-time peak, or is there some further peak still? See figure 2 in:
https://www.artberman.com/2023/01/18/theyre-not-making-oil-like-they-used-to-stealth-peak-oil/
The Permian basin is about the only US shale play remaining with any promise of further growth – all the others are in decline or not growing.
US shale oil is not suitable for producing diesel. See Figure 5 at:
https://www.artberman.com/2022/10/13/energy-aware-3-u-s-energy-independence-and-other-dumb-memes/
Saudi Arabia has been at peak oil production for about the last decade. A maximum output of about 12.0 Mb/d was briefly achieved in Apr 2020, but it seems 11 Mb/d cannot be sustained for very long. Is Saudi oil production now beginning the process of a sustained decline?
Has Russia peaked too? Will the consequences of the Ukraine conflict permanently damage further prospects for future growth?
US shale oil output is currently weak, compounded by supply concerns from extended production cuts by Saudi Arabia.
Is US oil dominance about to begin receding? Are the Saudi oil production cuts because they cannot actually sustain higher production quotas? Is Russia in decline too?
The party is now over – the era of cheap and abundant crude oil and petroleum fuels has ended forever!
I’d suggest we/humanity will be playing catch-up. Even if we/humanity can rapidly increase sales of new vehicles/vessels/aircraft that don’t use petroleum-based fuels, there will still likely remain a huge fleet of legacy vehicles/vessels/aircraft that do beyond this decade.
https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2023/03/unforced-variations-march-2023/#comment-810221
Meanwhile, the Earth Energy Imbalance (EEI) just hit a new record high for its 36-month running mean, at 1.46 W/m².
https://twitter.com/EliotJacobson/status/1705576952332190066
I’d suggest it’s only a matter of perhaps a few years to about a decade when (not if) the Earth System stays mostly above the daily +1.5 °C global mean surface temperature threshold.
https://twitter.com/EliotJacobson/status/1703401122281791567
Mandating all new US vehicles to have a plug-in option in 2030 may be moot; with the California mandate for all new vehicles to be BEVs by 2035, plus the growth of battery tech and deployment, I suspect the plug-in target will in fact be too conservative to have any effect.
https://www.edmunds.com/car-news/california-mandates-electric-cars-for-2035.html
Just adding some graphs of long term trends in crude oil prices.
http://chartsbin.com/view/oau
https://www.economicshelp.org/blog/1919/oil/effect-of-higher-oil-prices/
The first graph shows many decades of falling crude oil prices from about the 1870s to 1960 and since then prices have become elevated for a variety of reasons. Some were geo – political like the Arab / Israeli oil crisis of the 1970s, but there is no sign of a return towards the low point in the 1960s suggesting extraction costs have also increased indicating supply of oil may have peaked or is now heading that way.
Fracking is scraping the bottom of the barrel and very deep sea oil extraction is expensive. It looks like just a matter of time before oil becomes uneconomic to extract. Perhaps not much time.
According to Our World in Data, in 2016, road transportation accounted for 11.9% of CO2 emissions. This is slightly higher than that for residential buildings at 10.9%. So, yes, it’s worth considering.
The point I was making (probably with insufficient clarity) was that the benefit from replacing a petrol scooter with an electric scooter is most likely small compared to that from electrifying a larger vehicle.
Especially given that the scooter is likely to travel a much smaller distance overall.
Yes, I agree that reducing and eventually eliminating CO2 emissions within road transportation is necessary. I’m just not sure that going after scooters in developing countries is the best use of their scarce resources, although as Zebra points out above there might well be merit in establishing an electric paradigm going forward.
If scooters are now, and appear to be for the foreseeable future, the predominant form of mechanized transit in a given market, and if that market is sizeable and growing, then it would appear pretty axiomatic to me that electrifying said market is a Good Thing.
And in the case of Kenya–the locus of the innovation linked at the head of this subthread–is currently experiencing population growth at a clip of about 2%, for a population of 55 million+.
Regarding the size of market thing, there’s this:
Now, I’m sure that the overall impact of that is low compared to, say, the US vehicle fleet. But I ask you, does it make any sense to leave even relatively minor leaks unplugged, even as they grow?
Sure, ‘opportunity cost’ is a thing. But as for the question of “scarce resources”, note this bit:
Electric tech is inherently simpler. And then there’s the air pollution reduction benefit, and the imported gasoline supply issue:
https://theconversation.com/kenyas-fuel-crisis-how-the-countrys-subsidy-system-works-181361
UAH have posted for August TLT with a “scorchyisimo!!” global anomaly of +0.69ºC, up on July’s “scorchyisimo!!” +0.62ºC and only just shy of the highest anomaly on the UAH TLT record, Feb 2016’s +0.70ºC.
The record-breaking July & August anomalies promotes 2023-to-date from 7th warmest Jan-Jun to 5th last month and now to 4th Jan-Aug, this after a particularly cool start to the year in TLT. Further high monthly nomalies like July & August will easily propel 2023 into hottest-year-on-record spot, requiring an Sept-Dec average of +0.54ºC to claim that top spot and +0.42ºC to claim 3rd. The warmest Sept-Dec in UAH TLT has been 2019 which managed +0.40ºC.
…….. Jan-Aug Ave … Annual Ave ..Annual ranking
2016 .. +0.45ºC … … … +0.39ºC … … … 1st
1998 .. +0.44ºC … … … +0.35ºC … … … 3rd
2020 .. +0.37ºC … … … +0.36ºC … … … 2nd
2023 .. +0.31ºC
2010 .. +0.27ºC … … … +0.19ºC … … … 6th
2019 .. +0.26ºC … … … +0.30ºC … … … 4th
2017 .. +0.22ºC … … … +0.26ºC … … … 5th
2022 .. +0.16ºC … … … +0.17ºC … … … 7th
2002 .. +0.11ºC … … … +0.08ºC … … … 11th
2018 .. +0.10ºC … … … +0.09ºC … … … 10th
2021 .. +0.09ºC … … … +0.13ºC … … … 9th
2015 .. +0.09ºC … … … +0.14ºC … … … 8th
2007 .. +0.08ºC … … … +0.02ºC … … … 15th
The boost to temperatures from the coming El Niño is being cited as the major factor of the “scorchyisimo!!” of recent months. The last couple of weeks (so at time of writing, yet to be worked into the ENSO forecasts) has seen SOI & NINO3.4 looking a bit more like a proper El Niño is upon us.
Have NOAA STAR posted thier August TLT yet? That is the new favourite data set for climate change deniers along with UAH.
Oliver,
NOAA STAR TLT posted for August? It appears so. Try HERE
I suppose the numpty denialists are happier with NOAA STAR TLT than they are with RSS TLT but NOAA STAR has been trending warmer significantly more since 2000 than the trend-defying UAH TLT has managed.
RSS … .. +0.216ºC/decade
NOAA . +0.188ºC/decade
UAH … +0.154ºC/decade
Oliver: – “That is the new favourite data set for climate change deniers along with UAH.”
Dr Robert Rohde, Lead Scientist at Berkeley Earth, posted a tweet today:
https://twitter.com/RARohde/status/1702036328756490595
The graph included with Dr Rohde’s tweet indicates the UAH satellite-based temperature of the global lower atmosphere for August 2023 is was at +0.69 ºC (relative to ’91-’20 average).
Berkeley Earth’s August 2023 Temperature Update, published 13 Sep 2023, indicates there is now even a significant chance (~55%) that temperatures in 2023 exceed the +1.5 °C threshold (relative to 1850-1900 global mean temperature baseline).
https://twitter.com/RARohde/status/1701951145772523576
The Copernicus ERA5 reanalysis< has been posted for August with a “scorchyisimooo!!!!” global SAT anomaly of +0.71ºC, the warmest August on record by some considerable margin. The previous top-ten Augusts run 2016 (+0.40ºC), 2019 (+0.36ºC), 2021 (+0.31ºC), 2017 (+0.30ºC), 2022 (+0.30ºC), 2020 (+0.27ºC), 2015 (+0.24ºC), 2018 (+0.21ºC), 1998 (+0.14ºC) & 2014 (+0.14ºC).
Aug 2023 is the second highest monthly anomaly on record being a squeak less than July’s +0.72ºC anomaly. The year-to-date average now ranks second. For the full calendar year to gain top spot, the Sept-Dec average would have to exceed +0.39ºC, something which has been seen in three previous years – 2015 (+0.41ºC), 2019 (+0.44ºC) & 2020 (+0.40ºC).
…….. Jan-Aug Ave … Annual Ave ..Annual ranking
2016 .. +0.48ºC … … … +0.44ºC … … … 1st
2023 .. +0.47ºC
2020 .. +0.45ºC … … … +0.43ºC … … … 2nd
2019 .. +0.38ºC … … … +0.40ºC … … … 3rd
2017 .. +0.36ºC … … … +0.34ºC … … … 4th
2022 .. +0.30ºC … … … +0.30ºC … … … 5th
2018 .. +0.26ºC … … … +0.26ºC … … … 7th
2021 .. +0.22ºC … … … +0.27ºC … … … 6th
2015 .. +0.18ºC … … … +0.26ºC … … … 8th
2010 .. +0.16ºC … … … +0.13ºC … … … 9th
1998 .. +0.10ºC … … … +0.02ºC … … … 17th
The measured SAT records tend to have been less emphatic with their “scorchyisimo!!!” than the re-analyses (Year-on-year graphs of ERA5 & GISTEMP are show here Graphs 2b & 2c) but the continuing sky-high anomalies appearing by the day points to a “scorchyisimooo!!!!” year in all records. And there’s no sign yet of the sky-high anomalies ending.
We have come to the fortnight-long period in the Arctic SIE cycle 7th to 21st Sptember when the annual minimum SIE has occurred throughout the JAXA satellite record (with a couple of exceptions),
2023 enters this period as the sixth meltiest year on record for time-of-year and at 4.29M sq km lower than all but seven past annual minimums. Still showing significant melt, 2023 is very likely to quickly drop below the 2015 & 2011 annual minimums (4.27M & 4.26M respectively). The JAXA record shows past melt-rates and melt-levels through this period which would suggest 2023 won’t melt enough to overtake 5th meltiest year 2007. The meltiest years (JAXA data) run:-
2012 … … 3.18M sq lm
2020 … … 3.55M sq lm
2019 … … 3.96M sq lm
2016 … … 4.02M sq lm
2007 … … 4.07M sq lm
TK,
Sorry this is so late. My wife and I have been through a long bout of illness, including two hospitalizations for me, over the last week or so.
This is in six parts, so I may not be allowed to post them all today.
An Energy-Balance Analysis of the Evaporation Plan. Part 1.
MS, JCM, and TK propose that global warming can be countered by increasing land-based evaporative cooling. We begin with an energy budget for the ground in an extremely simple climate model:
Frad = Fsolar + Fgreen – Fconv . . . . . (1)
Here Frad is the radiative flux density emitted upward by the Earth’s surface, Fsolar is absorbed sunlight, Fgreen is the absorbed atmospheric back-radiation, and Fconv is heat transfer from ground to atmosphere by conduction, convection, and radiation.
I am used to using conditions on the preindustrial Earth as a baseline, for which I estimate Frad = 376 W m-2, Fsolar = 165 (same units), Fgreen = 323, Fconv = 112. I take the mean emissivity of Earth’s surface to be ε = 0.98 and the mean annual global temperature to be 286.81 K.
An expression for the convective flux density is:
Fconv = Fsens + Flat . . . . . (2)
Here Fsens is the contribution from conduction and pure convection (“sensible heat”), estimated at 24 W m-2, while Flat is the contribution from phase change (“latent heat”), about 88 W m-2. I further break the latter up into land- and ocean-based evaporative cooling:
Flat = fland Hland + fsea Hsea. . . . . (3)
where f refers to relative global coverage fraction and H evaporative cooling over that type of cover. Sellers (1965, p. 5) estimates fland = 29.2% while fsea = 70.8%. MS estimates Hland = 38 W m-2, which necessitates Hsea = 108.6 W m-2.
An Energy-Balance Analysis of the Evaporation Plan. Part 2.
We now assume a global geoengineering project put into effect by a power-mad worldwide dictatorship–or perhaps, after global warming has become too dangerous and too destructive to ignore any more, even for right-wingers, by a coalition of every nation, even bitter enemies cooperating under duress to save their own lives. Somehow they manage to double the evaporative transfer from all of Earth’s land surface, on average.
(For the record, I do not believe this is even remotely physically possible, but let’s give the Evaporation Plan every chance.)
Hland is now 76 watts per square meter rather than 38. Flat rises to 99.1 and Fconv to 123.1. Because energy must be conserved, Frad from the surface drops by as much as Fconv increased (11.1 W m-2, to 364.9 W m-2. With ε = 0.98, surface temperature TS falls to 284.67 K, a decrease of 2.14 K. Huzzah! Enough to offset over a hundred years of global warming!
At first glace surface energy budget Rn has increased at this step, from 112 to 123.1. However, it seems to be of no consequence in the analysis. Clarification is appreciated.
Evaporation is increased 12.5%, but evaporative fraction increased only 2% accounting for the increased budget.
Some have mentioned feedbacks become more negative with cooling. It seems reasonable then to apply simply a transient response of 0.5 Wm-2 K-1 to arrive at a first order estimate -5K by increasing atmospheric heat transport 11 Wm-2. If not, please advise.
JCM: At first glace surface energy budget Rn has increased at this step, from 112 to 123.1. However, it seems to be of no consequence in the analysis. Clarification is appreciated.
BPL: The overall amount of energy can’t be increased. This is the law of conservation of energy, a/k/a the first law of thermodynamics. It’s the most fundamental law in classical physics.
Or did I misunderstand the question?
Thank you for the response.
Surface net radiation = LWdown – LWup + netSW = sensible heat + latent flux.
Intial Rn
113 = 323 – 376 + 165
Revised Rn
123.1 = 323 – 366 + 165
I do see it’s balanced, but it’s unphysical.
The magnitude of LW down depends on LW up and opacity.
One can turn down the radiative greenhouse effect by decreasing opacity or decreasing LW up.
In the nomenclature here, Fgreen is most sensitive to Frad. Ignoring this and subsequently iteratively increasing Fgreen in a colder environment doesn’t compute, IMO.
A more physically realistic assumption is to hold Rn constant, at the expense of surface temperature, sensible heat, and greenhouse effect.
Additionally, it seems reasonable to assume cloud fraction increases along with evaporative fraction, thereby reducing total solar input.
The temperature dependence matters, and it’s complicated. So I propose to simplify based on a transient response 0.5 K / (Wm-2).
JCM: I do see it’s balanced, but it’s unphysical.
BPL: Not even remotely.
JCM: The magnitude of LW down depends on LW up and opacity.
BPL: No. It depends solely on the temperature and emissivity of the atmosphere. The atmosphere does not segregate radiative heat input from non-radiative. Heat is heat.
JCM: One can turn down the radiative greenhouse effect by decreasing opacity or decreasing LW up.
BPL: See above.
JCM: In the nomenclature here, Fgreen is most sensitive to Frad. Ignoring this and subsequently iteratively increasing Fgreen in a colder environment doesn’t compute, IMO.
BPL: You’re not following the physics. I laid it out very simply.
JCM: A more physically realistic assumption is to hold Rn constant, at the expense of surface temperature, sensible heat, and greenhouse effect.
BPL: That doesn’t even make sense. There’s no reason for net radiation to stay constant when other heat exchanges are changing.
JCM: Additionally, it seems reasonable to assume cloud fraction increases along with evaporative fraction, thereby reducing total solar input.
BPL: Yes, you can complicate the model endlessly if you feel like it.
Thank you once again, BPL.
I assure you the intent is to simplify.
Atmospheric heat transport has increased ~10 Wm-2 by leveraging transfer of radiant energy to and from latent heat reservoirs. The analysis presented concedes this relieves surface temperature to some degree.
A most practical way to slush it all out is to assign the common transient style response factor of 0.5 K / (Wm-2).
Anything more is a complication, I agree!
Supplementary discussion:
In the analysis presented, Earth surface emission temperature (Ts) is reduced.
Every concept of two stream approximation relates the magnitude of the beams to Ts and optical depth, in strict proportion.
Reduce Ts, and so too must the downward beam diminish.
Not too complicated.
On latent flux:
In any sonde profile the latent transport is clearly visible. Within the boundary layer the lapse rate follows the dry adiabatic rate about 10K/km. The latent heating impact upon the lapse rate defines the top of the boundary layer, where the lapse rate tips towards the curving moist adiabats. Often there is a temperature inversion. This latent flux transfer mechanism cools the surface, and heats starting around 800 hPa up through the depth of free troposphere. There is around a 2km gap in depth between surface and free troposphere with practically no latent heating whatsoever. The latent flux is manifest remotely.
There is indeed a distinct difference in mechanism that characterizes latent flux. An inconvenient complication!
Final remarks:
Step 5 is revealing of the active effort to minimize the importance of the effect by the logically inconsistent “doubling evaporative cooling”, when in fact the latent flux is only increased 12% or so in the analysis. I do not understand the motivation for that.
And perhaps most critically, to dismiss cloud albedo as an inconsequential complicating factor has more to do with convenience than physical reality, I think. A cooler system with greater latent flux certainly suggests a cloudier place. It is foundational to the energy budget.
My simplifying tactic is to wrap it all up in 0.5 K / (Wm-2).
JCM: Step 5 is revealing of the active effort to minimize the importance of the effect by the logically inconsistent “doubling evaporative cooling”, when in fact the latent flux is only increased 12% or so in the analysis. I do not understand the motivation for that.
BPL: I’ll lay it out again:
Convective flux (base case) is 112 W/m^2
Of this, 24 is sensible heat and 88 is latent heat
Of this, 0.292 x 38 is land-based latent heat and 0.708 * 108.6 is sea-based.
To double evaporative loss from land 38 => 76
Because this is only 29.2% of the total latent heat transfer, the whole only increases by 11.1 W/m^2, which is 12.6% of the overall latent heat and 9.9% of the overall convective transfer.
@BPL
yes. latent heat transport has increased ~12-13%, not (+100%) and so it seems to me that steps 5 and 6 and the doublings of H20 vapor conjecture does not follow.
In your view, does this 12-13% increased atmospheric heat transport explain the initial substantial decrease in the all sky Ramanathan style apparent radiative-convective greenhouse effect intensity?
Surface up – OLR
initial 376 – 240 = 136
v
new 366 – 240 = 126
I have proposed elsewhere that radiative exchanges with space are likely to diminish in a cooler system, with increased cloud fraction & diminishing solar input & OLR.
This suggests an increased LW opaque mask fraction from cloud and diminishing consequence from clear sky.
To reaffirm the problem with lumped convective term:
Generally turbulent sensible H does not contribute to atmospheric heat transport and really should be treated separately in an energy budget scheme. Turbulent H passes to and from the potential and kinetic energy reservoirs in ascending and descending air with no mechanism to diminish apparent greenhouse effects. Overall the bulk of residual turbulent flux H is directed downwards at night in stable air masses.
thanks
In Re to
https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2023/09/unforced-variations-sep-2023/#comment-814237
Dear JCM,
Barton Paul considered 10.1 W/m^2 increase of latent heat flow, on the expense of the upwelling radiation from the surface.
His approach, however, required solution by stepwise iteration which seem to provide slightlz different valuest than direct arithmetic approach that I tried today – please check in my reply to the fourth part of his analysis.
Greetings
Tomáš
Hi Tomas.
It is only selective reasoning presented in the analysis.
Applying objective logics of proportionality, the following simple relations emerge after increasing global evaporation 12%:
Fix the downward beam to the upward beam in proportion:
0.86 units downward beam per unit upward beam
LW down in surface budget becomes 315 units compared to the initial 323
Fix albedo to evap in proportion:
0.8 units reflected by cloud per unit evap (assuming cloud reflection is about 2/3rds total albedo)
SWup is modified +7 units
Solar absorbed is 233 compared to the initial 240
Fix surface absorbed solar in proportion:
Surface net SW ~70% of solar absorbed
Surface net SW becomes 163 compared to the initial 165
New surface budget = 315 – 366 + 163 = LW down – LW up + Net Solar = H + LE = 112
Proportionally, surface budget is unchanged. H is reduced substantially to produce an evaporation fraction 88% which is unphysical.
It seems to me the scenario for the analysis was selected to appear absurd and easily dismissed, irrespective of the numbers.
In reality these factors are acting in much smaller proportion, in addition to greenhouse gas forcing. I propose this results in an apparent reduced freedom in feedbacks to radiative forcing.
e.g.
Slightly less cloud fraction than otherwise might have been
Slightly warmer surface than otherwise might have been
and so on.
The pertinent question to ask is how much has humanity inhibited latent flux in reality by profound hydrological disturbance. maybe 1 or 2% only. Nobody is measuring it. Qualitatively, we know vast global desertification is real. Inhibited latent flux could be inferred based on disparity in vertical profiles of warming, feedbacks, and other residuals in models vs reality, especially in region 800 hPa to 300 hPa.
Dear JCM,
I must admit that I got lost already in your third paragraph. Downward and upward IR beams? Why 0.86 and which unit? I must apologize.
I am of course aware that any model ignoring possible changes in cloud formation and effect thereof on various energy fluxes is not realistic.
On the other hand, I am afraid that it is also not realistic to expect that we could clarify the influence of clouds in this forum.
Personally, I will be extremely happy if we clarify that absolute air humidity is not necessarily commensurate to water cycle intensity.
Greetings
Tomáš
Hello Thomas,
you inquired about paragraph 3, and also questioned realism. My intent is only to demonstrate a proportionally consistent picture.
Discussion:
Cooling the surface is associated with a diminishing greenhouse effect back-radiation intensity. This should be intuitively obvious, yet it often goes overlooked.
The initial upward longwave (LW) radiative emission from the surface, amounting to 376 Wm-2, is countered by a downward LW radiative term of 323 Wm-2. The ratio of these terms is 0.86.
The initial net LW surface radiation, calculated as LW down minus LW up, equals 323 – 376 = -53 Wm-2.
When the surface undergoes substantial cooling, both the upward and downward LW terms necessarily decrease.
Using proportional logic, the new LW surface net radiation becomes 315 – 366 = -51 Wm-2.
It’s worth noting that the analysis by BPL acknowledges this to some extent, attributing the decrease in window flux to the cooler surface. However, what often goes overlooked is that a cooler surface also reduces the LW down (or Fgreen) term at the surface in similar fashion. To omit this defies foundational theory.
A useful resource for this discussion, altho limited to radiative effects, is the summary in section 4 of Stephens et. al 1994 EARTH’S RADIATION BUDGET.
https://hogback.atmos.colostate.edu/pubs/Stephens-etal-1994.pdf
Whereupon the magnitude of the various radiative terms is fundamentally related to surface temperature.
Eqs 1-7 trace back to the origins of Schwarzschild radiative transfer and should be studied in detail.
In the very same year Hartmann published his 1994 text reiterating the same relations.
Nonetheless, the partitioning of sensible heat and latent flux terms in surface budgets also plays a crucial role in computation of Ts surface temperature. This is minimized in discourse by astrophysics radiation theorists for reasons unknown.
An increasing proportion of sensible H heats things up (i.e. diminishes cooling).
In BPL’s terms the following relation is apparent:
Frad = 2Fup – H
What really happens when latent flux is unnaturally diminished is that a greater amount of the budget is partitioned out to H (and vice versa). The surface warms (cools).
I’m afraid this may in-fact add more confusion but my intent is only to clarify.
kind regards.
JCM: a cooler surface also reduces the LW down (or Fgreen) term at the surface in similar fashion. To omit this defies foundational theory.
BPL: No, you’re ignoring the increased convective flux. All sources of energy need to be considered. The atmospheric back-radiation (the downward radiative flux) proceeds simply from the fact that the atmosphere is warm. The source of the warmth is irrelevant.
To Tomas and BPL:
In the scenario there is no mechanism to increase the surface budget of 112. One can only reallocate energy partitioning between H and LE.
The sum turbulent flux of H + LE is constrained by surface net radiation. Rnet = Net LW + Net SW ≈ H + LE
Increasing latent flux comes at the expense of H.
The partitioning of H and LE strongly influences boundary conditions, Ts, temperature of air adjacent to surface, and many other factors. That’s the whole point.
I look forward to more input.
PS it’s more physical reasonable to associate cloud albedo with fraction LE and temperature in steady state turbulent flux.
Initial fraction LE in turbulent flux = 79% v cloud albedo 0.2; or initial cloud reflection 68 units
Proportionally 0.85 units cloud related SWup per % latent flux
In any scenario presented here evaporative fraction is ↑ and temperature is ↓
in Re to
https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2023/09/unforced-variations-sep-2023/#comment-814430
Dear JCM,
I am not sure that your sentence
“When the surface undergoes substantial cooling, both the upward and downward LW terms necessarily decrease.”
is correct.
Please consider that while enhancing the latent heat flux into atmosphere, the overall energy flow absorbed in the atmosphere remains basically constant.
Accordingly, the discussed examples show that although surface infrared radiation decreases strongly, the same does not apply for the radiation flows re-distributed by the atmosphere in form of upwelling and downwelling infrared radiation (Fup and Fgreen in BPL’s notation).
I am afraid that there is no freedom for adjusting the Fgreen values computed by BPL and me in the provided examples, because they are given by energy balance requirements if the steady state.
Greetings
Tom
@ Tomas
“no freedom….because of the steady state.”
If a fixed steady state is prescribed then the outcome has been pre-determined.
The key is that unleashing the inherent latent flux potential of the Earth system increases freedom to maximize heat transport, maximize dissipation, and ultimately to minimize temperature.
The analysis presented proposes to exceed latent flux potential while simultaneously fixing energy balance terms. Nothing meaningful can come from such a conceptual framework.
cheers
an additional question with respect to
https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2023/09/unforced-variations-sep-2023/#comment-814453
Dear JCM,
I have a feeling that your sentences
“In the scenario there is no mechanism to increase the surface budget of 112. One can only reallocate energy partitioning between H and LE.
The sum turbulent flux of H + LE is constrained by surface net radiation. Rnet = Net LW + Net SW ≈ H + LE
Increasing latent flux comes at the expense of H.
The partitioning of H and LE strongly influences boundary conditions, Ts, temperature of air adjacent to surface, and many other factors. That’s the whole point.” ,
may possibly address another scheme than that presented by Barton Paul, as he definitely increased the convective fluxes (in other words, the sum of latent and sensible heat flows) from 112 to 123.1 W/m2 in his example.
Could you clarify?
Otherwise, I see difficult to provide any feedback.
Greetings
Tomáš
@ Tomas
“Could you clarify?”
thank you for the inquiry
please review surface budget concepts and the partitioning of turbulent flux.
https://denning.atmos.colostate.edu/ats761/Lectures/04.SurfaceEnergyBudget.pdf
Latent energy is transported out of the turbulent boundary layer to the free troposphere via condensation process. p.2 bottom left tile
relative magnitude of diurnal turbulent flux vectors are depicted schematically on p.3 top left tile.
Idealized diurnal cycle is depicted on p.6 top right tile. LE is net cooling.
Sustained LE cannot be decoupled from condensation for 2 specific reasons. 1) Latent energy is released to free troposphere upon condensation. 2) Condensation dehumidifies the system in order to sustain the vapor pressure deficits which drive LE.
The limiting factor on land is the duration of moisture available to transpire.
To dig deeper into the interconnected mechanisms of evaporation, condensation, and flux partitioning please refer to the novel works of Kleidon where he is proposing how such limits constrain energy balance in non-equilibrium thermodynamic systems.
https://esd.copernicus.org/articles/14/861/2023/esd-14-861-2023.pdf
In Re to
https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2023/09/unforced-variations-sep-2023/#comment-814462
Dear JCM,
Thank you very much for your feedback.
I have an additional question with respect to your paragraph
“The analysis presented proposes to exceed latent flux potential while simultaneously fixing energy balance terms. Nothing meaningful can come from such a conceptual framework.”.
What do you mean by “energy balance terms”?
Please note that in the example discussed by BPL, it is shown that the arbitrarily set increase in latent heat flux leads to a new steady state.
In this new steady state, sums of incoming and outgoing energy fluxes are balanced in the surface, in the atmosphere, as well as in the space, however, all these sums changed in comparison with the original, starting steady state. In this sense, I would not say that these sums are fixed in the example.
Can you clarify?
Greetings
Tomáš
@Tom
in response to: “””What do you mean by energy balance terms””””
What I mean is that these are the terms which constrain the Earth system radiation budget at TOA and surface.
For example, when it comes to analyzing profound unnatural hydrological changes it is illogical to prescribe fixed cloud radiative effects.
Sure, you can prescribe fixed terms to simplify, but the conclusions are meaningless.
Ghausi et al https://www.pnas.org/doi/10.1073/pnas.2220400120
“arid regions are typically warmer due to the stronger solar heating in the absence of clouds”
They ask “How much do soil water limitation and clouds affect surface temperatures across dry and humid regions?”
They suggest that the main effect of water limitation is ultimately about cloud modulation and shifting turbulent flux from evaporation to sensible heat.
“while the availability of water over land strongly affects the partitioning of available energy into sensible and latent heat, it does not alter the total amount of turbulent fluxes, which is primarily constrained by radiative conditions at the surface, top of the atmosphere, and thermodynamics.”
As aridity increases sensible heat flux goes up and cloud cover goes down.
Simple!
in Re to
https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2023/09/unforced-variations-sep-2023/#comment-814486
and
https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2023/09/unforced-variations-sep-2023/#comment-814514
Dear JCM,
Many thanks for provided explanations.
If I grasped your point correctly, you object that in the presently discussed example, Barton Paul neglected partitioning of convective fluxews to latent heat and sensible heat. Am I right?
I am aware of this simplification, and of the circumstance that a change in latent heat flux may be partly compensated by an opposite change in sensiblek heat flux.
Nevertheless, I still do not think that the obtained results are meaningless.
My reasoning for this opinion is: Radiative heat transport depends on fourth power of absolute surface temperature, whereas sensible heat flow seems to be, according to your reference, commensurate to the first power of deltaT between surface and higher atmosphere layers. I therefore assume that a change in surface temperature will mirror mostly in change of the radiative flux from the surface and only slightly in a change of the sensible heat flux.
It would be, of course, amazing if Barton Paul or someone else could implement also partitioning of convective fluxes between latent and sensible heat in the presently discussed simple model and thus shift it a further bit closer to complicated reality.
As regards the new Kleidon reference, the link has not worked for me, but I must admit that even reading your previous references to Kleidon and Fajber is still on my to do list.
Greetings
Tomáš
@Tom,
“”””neglected partitioning of convective fluxes to latent heat and sensible heat. Am I right””””
The sum H (thermal exchange with air adjacent) + LE (latent heat of evapotranspiration) is constrained by available energy Rnet.
The partitioning is usually described by Bowen ratio i.e. Q_H/Q_LE
The partitioning is generally thought to be limited by surface moisture.
By reducing moisture limitation the Bowen ratio decreases i.e. the LE takes a larger piece of the pie.
Without a mechanism to increase available energy the pie is of fixed size. This is the first order simplest description.
One can add complexity by suggesting ways in which available energy Rnet might increase or decrease when dramatically changing the power of LE.
in Re to
https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2023/09/unforced-variations-sep-2023/#comment-814564
Dear JCM,
Many thanks for your reply.
An additional question:
I understand that in BPL example, Net LW is Frad-Fgreen = (376 – 323) W/m^2 = 53 W/m^2.
What is his Net SW in your opinion? I thought it is Fsolar = 165 W/m^2, however, then in BPLs example Fconv = 112 W/m^2 does not seem to fit with the sum 165 + 53 = 208 W/m^2.
Or, have you with your equation Rnet = Net LW + Net SW ≈ H + LE just meant
Rnet = Net LW + Net SW > H + LE, in the sense that Rnet is an upper limit for the sum H + LE?
If so, then I think that Barton Pauls scheme is in accordance with this requirement, because both the original Fconv = 112 W/m^2 as well as the increased Fconv = 123.1 W/m^2 are well under the upper limit Rnet = 165 + 53 = 208 W/m^2.
Could you clarify how you meant it with the fixed size pie? In BPL’s case, the available 208 W/m^2 pie seems to be still much larger than considered sum of turbulent fluxes Fconv.
Thank you in advance and greetings
Tom
@Tom
https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2023/09/unforced-variations-sep-2023/#comment-814599
Please review the reference materials I have provided to advance the discussion.
The net radiation budget at surface consists of the net negative LW flux -53 and net positive 165 avg solar into the surface. This according to the climatological avg scenario provided.
The surface available energy is distributed to sensible and latent heat flux in the non equilibrium steady state. The available energy was -53 + 165 = 112
I am currently in Illinois and responding on mobile.
In reality the surface budget remains unknown to better than 20 Wm-2 last time I checked. The closure of surface budget in terms of flux partioning and magnitude remains an active area of research. Needless to say, humanity imposes profound influence thereupon. To dismiss this as inconsequential is absurd.
Cheers
In Re to
https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2023/09/unforced-variations-sep-2023/#comment-814624
Dear JCM,
Many thanks for your correction – switching signs was indeed a serious mistake from my side.
My understanding, however, is that the sum Fsolar – Fnet does not need to stay constant. In BPL example, the increase in Fconv is exactly compensated by decrease in Fnet, in accordance with lowering the surface temperature.
Greetings
Tomáš
@Tom
in response to:
“””My understanding, however, is that the sum Fsolar – Fnet does not need to stay constant. In BPL example, the increase in Fconv is exactly compensated by decrease in Fnet, in accordance with lowering the surface temperature.”””
thanks for the ongoing exchange.
Surface available energy increased in the example provided, by around 10 or 11 Wm-2.
This extra energy is derived in order to increase the ‘surface evaporative’ power, while simultaneously holding the Fsolar and surface sensible heat exchange with atmosphere constant.
Meanwhile, temperature is said to decrease. The scenario logic prescribes the temperature decrease to increasing surface available energy, from 112 to 123 Wm-2, or so.
This is advertised as a natural and trivial consequence of energy conservation thermodynamic law, repeatedly. The appeal is that heat is heat, in spite of the obvious logical flaws of the arguments.
It is evident the implications of energy conservation in Earthly dynamics have been substantially underappreciated and mischaracterized. The selective and unphysical logics appear to be unjustifiable manifestations of the desire to minimize the consequences of profound terrestrial desiccation.
in Re to
https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2023/09/unforced-variations-sep-2023/#comment-814662
Dear JCM,
Many thanks for your feedback.
To avoid further mistake from my side:
Original numbers
Fup = 200 W m-2
Fgreen = 323
Fabs = 75
Frad = 376
Fwin = 40
Fconv = 112
characterizing the starting steady state considered by Barton Paul Levenson in Part 3 of his analysis
https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2023/09/unforced-variations-sep-2023/#comment-814203
changed, by artificially increasing Fconv to 123.1 W/m^2, to new steady state
https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2023/09/unforced-variations-sep-2023/#comment-814267
characterized by
Frad = 366.5
Fwin = 38.0
Fatm = 327.5
Fup = 201.0
Fgreen = 324.6
(all values in W/m^2).
Personally, I do not see any physical principle yet that was clearly violated. The colder surface now radiates 9.5 W/m^2 less than previously, and the net radiation flux shrinked from initial 53 W/m^2 to 41.9 W/m^2. The “available energy” increased from 112 to 123.1 W/m^2 just on the expense of this shrinkage.
Is the reason why do you think it is unphysical perhaps (rather than just in particular energy flow balances that look OK) in the size of the contemplated Fconv change (that might be unrealistic for deeper / finer physical reasons)?
On one hand, I could imagine that even in this new steady state, a further surface cooling by an even more increased convective flux might be still thinkable.
On the other hand, due to the decreased average surface temperature, the Earth might perhaps in fact become effectively unable to drive sufficiently intensive evaporation, although there may be still seemingly enough Rnet remaining therefor in the available “surface budget”.
I can imagine that from such trade-off, a stronger constraint than just the size of the remaining net surface radiation might arise for the additional energy flux (that could be converted into convective flux by providing sufficient water for evaporation from the surface).
Is it perhaps the further constraint Kleidon et al are speaking about?
Unfortunately, I am not able to adapt their teaching to the present case.
Greetings
Tomáš
To Tom,
“”””The colder surface now radiates 9.5 W/m^2 less than previously, and the net radiation flux shrinked from initial 53 W/m^2 to 41.9 W/m^2. The “available energy” increased from 112 to 123.1 W/m^2 just on the expense of this shrinkage.””””
The treatment is a product of analytical imagination rather than a reflection of physical reality. It embodies flawed and circular reasoning.
The cooling is a result of reducing the moisture constraint at the surface, not by increasing the surface budget.
The bulk convective term conceals the critical mechanism. The increased allowance for LE in flux partitioning permits sensible heat to manifest in the free troposphere by latent heating aloft, instead of H flux to air adjacent to surface.
This reduces apparent greenhouse effects i.e. the difference between surface temperature and the radiative cooling to space.
Atmospheric heat transport increases, not the surface budget, when diminishing terrestrial evapotranspiration limits. It frees up the latent flux and other feedbacks.
in Re to
https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2023/09/unforced-variations-sep-2023/#comment-814698
Dear JCM,
Thank you very much for your feedback.
Honestly, I am still uncertain if your requirement (that the “surface budget” should remain unchanged) is indeed justified.
I still have a feeling that whereas the “space budget” is constrained by Earth insolation which can be assumed constant in annual average, both the atmosphere as well as the surface budgets can change, depending on the intensity of atmosphere-surface energy exchange.
I can hardly imagine how to keep the surface budget constant, even in case that we strived to keep Fconv constant by increasing latent heat flux on the expense of the sensible heat flux (in other words, by changing Bowen´s ratio) only.
A parallel change in radiative surface output seems to be unavoidable as soon as the mean surface temperature will change. And, the surface temperature should decrease if we increase the latent heat flux, because latent heat transport is more efficient than sensible heat transport..
That is why I still doubt about general validity of your explanation.
Greetings
Tomáš
Hi Tom,
in response to:
“”””I am still uncertain if your requirement (that the “surface budget” should remain unchanged) is indeed justified””””
It is not a strict requirement. It is, however, a useful constraint to enforce physical continuity in the conceptual framework.
In reality I agree the surface budget is free to change in a radically modified hydroclimate regime. But, the sign of change is not so trivially obvious as you propose. The surface budget is just as likely to decrease as it is to increase when a new steady state shakes out. Why not a cooler and cloudier place?
As a first approximation I propose to split the difference and set to zero. It is meant as a simplifying assumption to allow for meaningful insights and logical consistency.
In a scenario in which we instantaneously “turn on” the increased LE’, the surface available energy is 112. The new H’ + LE’ regime initializes constrained by a budget of 112 Wm-2.
If I interpret your argument correctly, you propose that the surface temperature must first drop to diminish the LW up. This drop in LWup is used to increase the available energy which is then used to drive the enhanced power of LE’. Meanwhile LWdown, Net SW, and H are held constant, and atmospheric energy is analytically conserved.
In my view, it is not logical and it is misleading. There is no basis for such assumptions and it strays quite far from physical meaning. If temperature must first drop to derive the increased power for LE it is causing multiple logical errors.
Overall, however, I am happy for the discussion of the surface properties considering this is essential to our experience of climates. The prevailing assumption here appears to be that humanity is too insignificant to impact climates directly in this way.
Supplemental thoughts:
The budget at the surface is LW down – LW up + SW down – SW up = H + LE
These virtual vectors are what one might observe at the surface-air interface. To meddle with the sum of these terms is not trivial and adds a great deal of complexity. For example, it is not reasonable to only allow compensating changes in LWup.
LWup is certainly not free to vary independently of LWdown. LWdown varies with surface-air temperature, or temperature of air adjacent to surface. And of course, surface air temperature is highly related to the temperature of the surface itself.
The boundary layer is characterized by constant turbulent eddies with continuous physical contact of air and surface. On climate scales, the surface and surface air temperature variations must be quite closely related. The virtual flux of LWdown most fundamentally represents the surface air temperature and emissivity of that air. In cooler places the opposing LW up and LW down terms are smaller in magnitude. In warmer places LW up and LW down are greater.
I am happy to concede the surface budget can change, but we can draw more meaningful insights and minimize logical errors by holding it stable IMO. As you can see, perhaps counterintuitively, the approach of changing the surface budget adds much complexity. Especially considering we have not touched the SW terms. If the intent is to simplify, I see no reason to meddle with it in this context.
correction: K/(Wm-2)
An Energy-Balance Analysis of the Evaporation Plan. Part 3.
I now introduce that fact that Earth’s climate system includes an atmosphere as well as a surface. For the atmosphere, the energy balance equation is:
Fup + Fgreen = Fabs + (Frad – Fwin) + Fconv . . . . . (4)
The new terms are as follows. Fup is the flux density radiated to space by the atmosphere, Fabs is the sunlight absorbed by the air, and Fwin is the amount of Frad that escapes directly to space via the atmospheric “window” (actually many windows, but mostly the big one from 8-12 μm).
Figures for the equilibrium situation are:
Fup = 200 W m-2
Fgreen = 323
Fabs = 75
Frad = 376
Fwin = 40
Fconv = 112
The fact that Frad is 376 W m-2 and Fwin = 40 indicates that the longwave optical thickness of Earth’s atmosphere in this scenario is -ln(40/376) = about 2.24. I published a semigray climate model elsewhere (Levenson 2021) which found this value to be 1.83, but what the heck, close enough for government work. We will assume the value of 2.24 holds for all changes (very unlikely), and that the longwave transmissivity of the atmosphere is therefore always ~0.1064. This gives us the following useful relation:
Frad – Fwin = 0.8936 Frad . . . . . (5)
In addition, we have:
Fup / (Fup + Fgreen = 0.3824 . . . . . (6)
and
Fgreen / (Fup + Fgreen = 0.6176 . . . . . (7)
So that of the atmosphere’s steady-state heat content, most of it is directed back down toward the ground when the atmosphere radiates. This is very close to the 2/3 figure Piotr often cites. The reason is that the atmosphere has temperature gradients; for 80% of its mass (the troposphere), it is warmer at the bottom and colder at the top.
For completeness, since this is not a closed system (and therefore, incidentally, a perpetual motion machine of the second kind), I should introduce the energy balance equation for space:
F = Fup + Fwin . . . . . (8)
where F is the sunlight absorbed by the climate system, which I take as fixed at 240 W m-2, while Fup = 200 and Fwin = 40. Voilà.
An Energy-Balance Analysis of the Evaporation Plan. Part 4.
But since we have increased Fconv and decreased Frad, the energy balance of the atmosphere has changed. The new Fwin is 38.83 W m-2, not 40. The total atmosphere heat exchange is at 524.17 W m-2 instead of the previous 523. That means Fgreen must increase from 323 W m-2 to 323.73. This increases Frad at the ground from 364.9 W m-2 to 365.63 W m-2, and the ground temperature increases to 284.81 K.
But because Frad is now higher, the atmosphere heats up a bit more as well… In short, the system has to be iterated to find the final state. We repeat the exercise several times (I ran twelve repetitions in an Excel spreadsheet) to find that the final value of Frad is about 366.52 W m-2 and Ts settles down at 284.98 K. This is a net decrease of 1.83 K rather than 2.14 K. Back-radiation from the atmosphere has cut down the temperature decrease by about 14%. Still, a 1.83 K decrease in surface temperature should buy us a hundred years of global warming, if the rate of global warming doesn’t increase.
Except…
Dear Barton Paul,
I am extremely grateful for huge effort you invested in your explanation. Could you amend it with the final Fup, Fgreen and Fw values that resulted from your 12-step iteration, to show how the energy flows in the new steady state actually look like?
Of course, if you already recovered enough.
Many thanks again and greetings
Tomáš
Here’s the whole thing carried out 17 times:
Fsolar Fgreen Fconv Frad Ts Fabs Fwin Atm Fup
165 323 112 376 286.8055395 75 40.0064 522.9936 199.9927526
165 323 123.1 364.9 284.6649782 75 38.82536 524.17464 200.4443823
165 323.7302577 123.1 365.6302577 284.8072931 75 38.90305942 524.8271982 200.6939206
165 324.1332776 123.1 366.0332776 284.8857437 75 38.94594074 525.1873369 200.8316376
165 324.3556993 123.1 366.2556993 284.9290119 75 38.9696064 525.3860929 200.9076419
165 324.478451 123.1 366.378451 284.9528826 75 38.98266718 525.4957838 200.9495877
165 324.5461961 123.1 366.4461961 284.9660539 75 38.98987526 525.5563208 200.9727371
165 324.5835837 123.1 366.4835837 284.9733223 75 38.99385331 525.5897304 200.9855129
165 324.6042175 123.1 366.5042175 284.9773333 75 38.99604874 525.6081688 200.9925637
165 324.615605 123.1 366.515605 284.9795469 75 38.99726037 525.6183447 200.996455
165 324.6218897 123.1 366.5218897 284.9807685 75 38.99792906 525.6239606 200.9986025
165 324.6253581 123.1 366.5253581 284.9814427 75 38.9982981 525.62706 200.9997877
165 324.6272722 123.1 366.5272722 284.9818148 75 38.99850177 525.6287705 201.0004418
165 324.6283286 123.1 366.5283286 284.9820201 75 38.99861417 525.6297145 201.0008028
165 324.6289117 123.1 366.5289117 284.9821335 75 38.9986762 525.6302355 201.001002
165 324.6292334 123.1 366.5292334 284.982196 75 38.99871044 525.630523 201.001112
165 324.629411 123.1 366.529411 284.9822305 75 38.99872933 525.6306817 201.0011727
Sorry for the crummy formatting. I can’t get this blog to use a monospaced font.
In Re to
https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2023/09/unforced-variations-sep-2023/#comment-814246
Dear Barton Paul,
Many thanks again for this work, it is obvious that your iteration indeed converges to the algebraic solution
Frad = 366.52746
Fwin = 38.992283
Fatm = 327.535177
Fup = 201.007717
Fgreen = 324.62746
Analogous calculation for more recent GEB that I announced in
https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2023/09/unforced-variations-sep-2023/#comment-814251
are attached in my reply to zebra
https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2023/09/unforced-variations-sep-2023/#comment-814260
below.
Greetings
Tom
@ Thomas Kalisz
I must say it also to you. “Durch nichts etc. etc. etc. etc….”
I could also try Google translate into east moravian . But it is Gauss` special syntax in that fameous teorem known as Gauss`teorem,…. that is really infameous.
And his specially chosen words for it. “Masslos..” for instance, see Massloses sauffen— fressen… and “Rechenschaften” . it is tense words all the way.
Frad fatm and fupp all the way though the real climate with 8 and 9 chiffres…..
It gives us the Braunschweig school on its very best…
“Durch nichts verrät sich die Mangel an matematischer Bildung deutlicher und öfttlicher zur Schau und Kennthis, wie durch masslose Genauigkeit in den Rechenschaften, smile smile,!”
(Friedrich Gauss)
Check up https:/Friedrich/Gauss and Gauss Wikipedia.
Friedrich Gauss seems to have been pictured, intelligently smiling wherever shown. .
Gauss also shows to have been above you in the grades in planetary astronomy Hr. Levenson, and seems to have been rather focused on astro and on numeral reality.
C: Gauss also shows to have been above you in the grades in planetary astronomy Hr. Levenson, and seems to have been rather focused on astro and on numeral reality.
BPL: I never claimed to be better than Gauss. You, however, have repeatedly implied that you are better than me at planetary astronomy, and any fool can see that’s a non-starter. You have Dunning-Kruger syndrome in a number of areas.
Go look up what the cake said to Alice.
Dear Carbomontanus,
I put the calculated results with all these decimal places to allow others checking the mutual fit of the calculated fluxes easily..
I guess that Barton Paul did so for a similar reason, to allow me to see the cenvergention of his iteration.
Greetings
T
@ Thomas Kalisz
I understrand your argument, and have done the same now and then myself to state out all the irrational digits that come on my scientific calculator, to document for people how I am doing it. Irrelevant irrational digits documents my handy method rather than proportions between roughly measured or assumed physical magnitudes.
I try and look out for easily comprehensible and reliable, observeable, appliciable, morphology of physical nature instead.
But as far as I can still judge your evaporation and latent heat transport argument, you are lacking a proper and valid , functional physical understanding of it, what other people call “A model”. Your very model seems inferiour, misconsceived and false. Critical proof cannot be stated on it because involved physical parameters are not well enough quantified to show
your theoretical “model” to be real beyond reasonable doubt..
In such situations, that we often have in physical or chemicalo engineering, I look for the way to possibly measure and quantify it, or I look for other possible functional understandings where such obscurities can be avoided.
The earth is cooled , not by “evapotranspiration” of water on the ground. That is rather obvious from other well known natural details and signals, so resign on selling that policy.
And the watercycle is hardly broken, as can be examined and seen in our days by other and quite obvious natural details and signals. It cycles stronger than ever approaching the higher CO2 pliocene situation..
All in all, I have quite better suggestions for how to beat James Hansen. Where todays surrealists and denialists are helpless. Not even Greta Tunberg can be beaten that way.
The climate alarmists I judge as rather harmless, not worthy of my adrenaline. .
The greater political and cultural and economical, environmental threat of today, are all those who fight our good traditional methods of how to orientate, and how possibly to tackle and adapt to and to save for, invest in, the future.
t
@ all and everyone
about Levenson pointing at him behind his back
Levenson asks for a special treatment all the time he cannot behave but represents the presbyterians chuch in virtual reality, violating the ten commandments § 2 boldly on his website and § 8 boldly in scriptures right into our eyes, on behalf of being a “deacon” smile smile.
I(n the meantime he can study https://Janteloven, the law of Jante, that is fround on Wikipedia, and look into himself and go to confession perhaps, before I find time and opportunity to present him more distinctly in the pillary.
He is a kind of industrially sectioned and segregated pedantery that cannot see and accept any other craft than his own secteric and technically socially historically geographically racially pure and provincial one..
See Pharisees and Phariseerism. That occurs rather obviously furter in our days rather related to “science”. They lack baccalaureus 1 and lack broadespectred higher formatio9n and are fighting and correcting etnically racially politically and call thenm even “Dunninjg Kruger” and suggest Alices cakes if you rather saw and studied Viola Tricolor L and harbour seals and grey seals in the fjord and in the climate last sunday.
Those especially perfect and segregated specialists and fellahs got the worst notes and fierceful blames of all by Jesus in the new testament.
In Re to
https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2023/09/unforced-variations-sep-2023/#comment-814289
Dear Carbomontanus,
Thank you very much for your feedback.
To be sure that I understood you correctly, let me ask a question.
You wrote:
“Your very model seems inferiour, misconsceived and false. Critical proof cannot be stated on it because involved physical parameters are not well enough quantified to show
your theoretical “model” to be real beyond reasonable doubt..”
I just treated one of many GEB schemes published everywhere. I assume that these schemes are based on present state of science. I treated solely parameters used therein and have not invented anything new. The treatment is based on very basic energy balances of energy fluxes that must be fulfilled if we seek a steady state. For this reason, I do not understand in which aspect or aspects is my treatment misconceived and false. Could you specify in more detail?
To avoid a misunderstanding, I attached a handwritten summary to the respective cell with this post in my public orgpage tracking this discussion. Please use the link
https://orgpad.com/s/7zfynb_y5o7
and inspect my draft before commenting on this reply.
If you would like to attach a more detailed explanation of your objection without restrictions by RC format, you can do so directly in the orgpage, using another link that serves for commenting
https://orgpad.com/s/6jf-rtG8wUP
Thank you in advance and greetings
Tomáš
@ Tomas Kalisz
I try and get into your Orgpad references, and that simply does not come up on my computer.
So there we are.
I shall try and answer your questions elsewhere because this line is getting too thin.
But I have stated some principles allready to the discussion and judgement of what seems to be your hypo-thesis or major model idea, and you have had the same from other sides in other theoretical categories.
I have adviced you to look up for the moist and dry lapserate where there is latent heat involved with a quantum- mechanical harmjonical numeral contrast directly for your eyes..
And for the earths major heat source and heat sink, that is not the lack of evaporating water on dry desert grounds.
But it is the sun and the chill of space.. and what you then have in between source and sink, that will decide and regulate the temperatures.
I need not to0 discuss it in terms of watts per square meters, and to my opinion it can hardly also be built that way as those horizons are too unprecise and too flattering in the weathers .
Those arguments in detail are obviously evading into the category of speculations, inobserveables, and popular virtual reality for commercial and political propaganda purposes….
…..where I havent got the remedies to control and to participate and to score.
But….
……If water evaporates in the tropical rainforests and the air lifts off due to temperature given also the molar weight of H2O,….. that air and that water must come down again.
H2O falls down again in liquid form as icy rain chilled by empty space all around, not by evapotranspiration and latent heat flux.
But all the rest of the now very dry air mooves over to Sahara for instance and to the Kaqlahari desert where it is forced and com- pressed down again. See high- pressures and regional Föhneffects all over the subtropical deserts,…. driven thermodynamically by massive airlift along with H2O- gas in the air..
This is classical physical meteorology and hot air balloon technology, I have published on it, to lift the hot air balloons even better with saturatyed H2O gas involved. The Cumulus clouds tells us the truth about this.
So better try and work rather this into your plans and models and resign 0n your alternatives, that I also found at https://klimarealistene.no as their new suggestion to what Gavin Schmjidt calls ABC, Anything but CO2.
Because, I just have to look out my window to see how the clouds and the atmosphere, the seabreeze and the Monsune winds are working and are driven and how it heats and how it cools. Because, luckily I had an eminent book of global meteorology winds and weathers and atmosphere written by Theo Löbsack, in highschool.
I do not have to fight and to deny the https://Met.inst.no and the Paris convention in order to feel realistic sceptic and participating. And hardly need other peoples graphics in virtual reality either, as I can immagine and draw it for myself.
C, you’re just jealous because you’re not a real scientist. But go back to school and maybe you can catch up.
To all and everyone
I have thought of it for a while.
and found Francis Bacons
“Non fingendum aut excogitandum, sed inveniendum qvod natura faciat aut ferat!”
SANN!
Appliciable to Levensons planetary astronomy.
Aisopos` borrowed feathers “Fine feathers do not make fine birds” seem further appliciable.
In Re to
https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2023/09/unforced-variations-sep-2023/#comment-814204
Dear Barton Paul,
Many thanks once again for your example. Meanwhile, I took your equations (1), (4), (5), (6), (8) and the equation for the surface energy balance and tried to resolve this system of six equations with five unknown variables Fup, Fgreen, Frad, Fwin, Fatm (defined as Frad – Fwin), for known Fabs = 75, Fconv = 123.1, F solar = 165 and F = 240 (all values in W/m^2).
My purely algebraic solution provided slightly different values than your iteration:
Frad = 366.52746
Fwin = 38.992283
Fatm = 327.535177
Fup = 201.007717
Fgreen = 324.62746
These values, however, seem to perfectly fit each other in the framework of the set starting conditions.
I am going to apply this approach to more recent GEB provided in
https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2023/07/area-based-global-hydro-climatological-indicators/#comment-813897 and report the result and its comparison with present results later.
Greetings
Tomáš
An Energy-Balance Analysis of the Evaporation Plan. Part 5.
We have assumed for so far that the longwave optical thickness of the atmosphere is unchanged by any of these shenanigans. So far, under actual global warming, land evaporation has increased, but airborne water vapor has increased faster. Even if we assume it only increases as fast as the evaporation rate, doubling evaporation would double the amount of airborne water vapor.
Let’s calculate the effect. In other research, I came up with this expression for the partial longwave optical thickness due to water vapor:
τH2O = 0.117 pH2O0.348 P0.619 . . . . . (9)
where pH2O is the partial pressure of water vapor in units of Pascals, while P is the total atmospheric pressure in units of atmospheres. For P = 1, of course, equation (9) reduces to simply
τH2O = 0.117 pH2O0.348 . . . . . (10)
Through manipulation of the Milne-Eddington approximation (Milne 1922; Eddington 1926, p. 407), it can be shown that the partial absorbed greenhouse radiation due to water vapor alone can be expressed as
Fgreen,H2O = 3/4 α F τH2O . . . . . (11)
where α is the surface longwave emissivity. Since this model is semigray, we can use Kirchhoff’s Law and say that in this case α = ε = 0.98. The other terms on the right-hand side of the equation were previously defined.
Nominal partial pressure of water vapor for the preindustrial Earth is 366 Pa, yielding τH2O = 0.913 and Fgreen,H2O = 161.05 W m-2. If we double pH2O to 732 Pa, τH2O = 1.162 and Fgreen,H2O = 204.98 W m-2, for an increase of 43.93 W m-2 in Fgreen. This is more than enough to offset the net 9.48 W m-2 from doubling evaporative cooling.
Dear Barton Paul,
I tried to follow your calculation of τH2O for assumed pH2O 366 and 732 Pa, and obtained different results than you report in last paragraph. of your post.
Could you double-check if the equaations (9) and/or (10) are reproduced correctly in the text published herein?
Thank you very much in advance and greetings
Tomáš
I’ll get back to you about that. Keep reminding me if I don’t, as I’m doing a lot lately and the thought will probably float out of my head if someone doesn’t keep nudging me.
An Energy-Balance Analysis of the Evaporation Plan. Part 6.
MS, of course, will dispute that water vapor will double with doubled evaporation. In his view, it rains out exactly at the same rate it evaporates in, and that ends the matter. But although evaporation and precipitation rates must cancel over time, they need not do so at the same level of airborne water vapor. The dispute then comes down to the value of the exponent in the relation:
R = SX . . . . . (12)
where R is the ratio of airborne water vapor burden to an initial state, and S is the ratio of evaporation to an initial state. MS would have it that X is identically 0.
What value would X have to have for [A], the cooling from a doubling of evaporation, to be exactly offset by [B], the warming from the increased greenhouse effect of water vapor? Using equations (10) and (11), the needed pH2O is 431.92 Pa, an increase of 18% in the level of airborne water vapor. So if evaporation doubles (+100%), airborne water vapor must increase by less than 18% for the doubled evaporation to have any cooling effect at all. This corresponds to a value of X in equation (12) of 0.239.
Of course, the doubling is itself likely to prove impossible. Thus it seems that the evaporation plan for countering global warming is highly unlikely to work in practice. C’est dommage.
References
Eddington, A.S., 1926. The Internal Constitution of the Stars. Cambridge Univ. Press, p. 407.
Levenson, B.P. 2021. Habitable zones with an Earth climate history model. Planet. Space Sci. 206, 105218.
Milne, A.E., 1922. Radiative equilibrium: The insolation of an atmosphere. Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc. 24, 872–896.
Sellers, W.D., 1965. Physical Climatology. Univ. of Chicago Press, Chicago, IL.
P.S. Gavin et al.: I note, with some dismay, that the superscript and subscript tags no longer seem to be working, thus making this whole essay rather harder to read. Can anything be done about that?
You are here. In an interglacial. It will get warmer, until it gets colder. The TSI will keep adding to the earth’s total energy until it doesn’t. There are a dozen crucial components that characterize the thermal system (climate). CO2 is not one of them.
Keep talking about the temperature because that’s scary, and ignore total energy.
So I’m being banned starting right at my first post ever. Wow. Open minds.
JP: You are here. In an interglacial. It will get warmer, until it gets colder. The TSI will keep adding to the earth’s total energy until it doesn’t. There are a dozen crucial components that characterize the thermal system (climate). CO2 is not one of them.
BPL: Please read a textbook on climate science. Science is your friend!
Jack Pratt Sept. 9 “ So I’m being banned starting right at my first post ever. Wow. Open minds. ”
Except … I can still see your post. So your martyrdom and your derision toward others (“Wow. Open minds“) may be a … bit premature.
And why banning you, when you discredit yourself in such a …concise manner? I mean – other deniers would go on and on and on – you imploded your credibility within 5 lines of your first post ever. “Wow.“, indeed.
@ All and everyone
What is this again?
Old rumors / experience say that pissing in the pants in winter may warm you first, but then it only gets colder!
“until it gets colder” , he teaches.
And further, “The TSI (total solar index) keep adding to the earths total enertgy until it doesn`t”
Question: How can the total solar index suddenly stop heating the earth?
“Keep talking about the temperaturese because that is scary, and ignore total energy!”
Question: Have we got another totalitarian here?
“So I`m being banned (Are you? where and by whoom?) ……….. Wow Open Minds.”
Discussion:
Rather having an open mind is very popular in the New Age. , But it does not excuse anyone from having a, large hole in his / her head.
“TSI” is “Total Solar Irradiance.”
Carry on…
Lingua franca of the temperate zone?
Jack Pratt
“Keep talking about the temperature because that’s scary, and ignore total energy.”
Except the comments by BPL you are replying to (which are very good) are mostly about total energy flows in the system. You obviously didn’t even read them properly, and instead used them as an excuse for some trolling.
Jack Pratt: – “You are here. In an interglacial. It will get warmer, until it gets colder.”
Scientific analysis suggests any glacial inception has likely been postponed by at least 100,000 years. The human influence on the Earth System’s climate is so powerful already. We are in the Anthropocene.
https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2023/08/the-amoc-tipping-this-century-or-not/#comment-814044
Jack Pratt: – “The TSI will keep adding to the earth’s total energy until it doesn’t.”
Yep, when our Sun becomes a red giant in about 5 billion years or so. But our Sun has been increasing its brightness by about 10% every one billion years it spends burning hydrogen. As planet Earth heats up further, the water on the surface of our planet will begin to evaporate, and the Earth will no longer be within the habitable zone.
https://theconversation.com/the-sun-wont-die-for-5-billion-years-so-why-do-humans-have-only-1-billion-years-left-on-earth-37379
But overwhelming data I see suggests on our/humanity’s current GHG emissions trajectory, human civilisation is likely to collapse well before the end of this century.
Jack Pratt: – “Keep talking about the temperature because that’s scary, and ignore total energy.”
Um… Who’s ignoring “total energy”?
Lethal temperatures/humidity are scary, they are already happening in some places around the world, and they will spread to increasingly more locations and get much worse as the Earth System inevitably warms further.
https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2023/08/the-amoc-tipping-this-century-or-not/#comment-814133
We/humanity likely will have progressively less locations on this planet remaining suitable for habitation, as well as a likely global famine in the coming decades.
https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2023/08/the-amoc-tipping-this-century-or-not/#comment-814061
Jack Pratt: – “So I’m being banned starting right at my first post ever.”
Your presumption has proved to be incorrect. What a great start, aye Jack?
Jack, if you dispense with the second t in your name, it will be descriptive as well as identifying.
Admirable effort, BP, seriously. Now, does this mean that we can finally conclude that increasing greenhouse gases is probably not an effective way to reduce the effect of increasing greenhouse gases?
The thing is, as I tried to illustrate with my zero-vapor initial value thought experiment, if water vapor acted to reduce system energy, it would not qualify as a GHG in the first place.
And yet, if GMST without water vapor would be much lower than than it actually is, which you and Eddington and NASA would seem to agree on, there is absolutely no reason to think that any incremental increase under any initial value condition would act as anything but a GHG.
Just sayin’.
By the way, if you really want to do some more fancy calculating, evaluate my proposal above that humans have contributed to warming through increasing water vapor by draining aquifers for various purposes, as well as drawing from compact bodies of water for inefficient irrigation.
in Re to
https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2023/09/unforced-variations-sep-2023/#comment-814260 ,
https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2023/09/unforced-variations-sep-2023/#comment-814204
and to
https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2023/07/area-based-global-hydro-climatological-indicators/#comment-814259
Dear zebra, Barton Paul, Piotr,
I am really happy that Barton Paul’s contribution pushed the discussion about the role of water cycle in Earth climate regulation significantly forward.
Before we conclude at least the first part thereof, regarding the role of latent heat flux from the surface, let me add two additional examples that I promised in my reply
https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2023/09/unforced-variations-sep-2023/#comment-814267
to BPL.
Let us now, instead of BPL’s GEB representing the “preindustrial” Earth, consider another GEB representing the recent “industrial” Earth.
As example can serve the scheme that I used in two examples of my previous post
https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2023/07/area-based-global-hydro-climatological-indicators/#comment-813897 :
(all values in W/m^2):
Fabs = 77
Fconv = 105 ( = 85.5 latent heat flux Flh + 18.5 sensible heat flux Fse)
F sol = 163
F = 240
Frad = 399
Fwin = 20
Fatm = 377
Fup = 220
Fgreen = 341
I will desist from assessing whether or not the changes in particular energy fluxes in comparison with the “preindustrial” GEB presented by Barton Paul may or may not be significant. Let us just take as a fact that the ratio x = Fwin/Frad is only 0.0501253133 in this example (compare with 40/776 = 0.106382979 considered by BPL) and k = Fup/Fgreen is now 0.645161290 (compare with 200/323 = 0.619195046 considered by BPL).
Let us now assume a humble change of Fconv, by increasing it to 106 or decreasing it to 104 W/m^2.
First of all, let us look on the most simplified treatment assuming that Earth atmosphere is totally opaque for infrared radiation (Fwin = 0, Fatm = Frad, x = 0). This is the approach I applied till Barton Paul recently encouraged me to consider the “atmospheric window” as well.
In this simplest approach, the change in Fconv is fully compensated by an opposite change in Frad. All other fluxes remain unchanged, and the same is fulfilled for the ratio k = Fup/Fgreen. Please note that in my above cited previous post
https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2023/07/area-based-global-hydro-climatological-indicators/#comment-813897 ,
I showed that Piotr’s requirement (that the k does apply not only in the final balance but also for the assumed increment delta Fconv) is hardly applicable because it results in an imbalance of energy fluxes in the atmosphere.
Let us now treat the “recent” GEB with Fconv increased to 106 W/m^2 properly, considering the atmospheric window.
Algebraic solution of the equations representing the respective balances provided
Fgreen = (F – (Fsol – Fconv)x)/(k + x) = 341.0720933
Frad = Fsol – Fconv + Fgreen = 398.0720933
Fwin = xFrad = 19.95348828
Fatm = Frad – Fwin = 378.118605
Fup = kFgreen = 220.0465117
I interpret this result the way that in GEBs representing the present Earth with a “five-percent” atmospheric window, the influence of a certain increase in latent heat flux on the surface temperature is slightly attenuated by ca 7 % of this increase returning to Earth surface in form of an increased downwelling infrared radiation from the atmosphere.
In the opposite example with Fconv decreased to 104 W/m^2, the respective results are
Fgreen = (F – (Fsol – Fconv)x)/(k + x) = 340.9279073
Frad = Fsol – Fconv + Fgreen = 399. 9279073
Fwin = xFrad = 20.04651153
Fatm = Frad – Fwin = 379.8813958
Fup = kFgreen = 219.9534885
In case of Barton Paul’s example with a broader “ten-percent” atmospheric window, the decrease in the Frad caused by 11.1 increase in Fconv was 9.47 W/m^2 (ca 85 % of the increase in latent heat flow only).
—
My understanding to these results (proposal of an interim conclusion)::
In accordance with climatology textbooks, latent heat flux from Earth surface to the atmosphere is an important factor participating in Earth surface temperature regulation.
The weaker is the atmosphere opacity with respect to longwave infrared radiation (and the higher proportion of the surface radiation is not captured in the atmosphere and escapes directly to the space), the less pronounced is the cooling effect of the non-radiative heat transport. In case of missing or very narrow atmospheric window, latent heat flux cools the Earth surface effectively, like a huge heat pipe.
—
Before I move to discussion of parts 4 and 5 of Barton Paul’s analysis that address the relationship between water cycle intensity and water vapour concentration in the atmosphere, I would like to ask if you have any objections against the summary provided above or a different view thereon.
Thank you in advance and greetings
Tomáš
Re: Tomáš Kalisz 11 SEP
Haven’t I warned you, Barton? The Kalisz guy is a troll who in support of his denialist cliche that
we don’t have to cut GHGs since we can INSTEAD increase evaporation would ask you for the calculations only to
1.IGNORE your CONCLUSIONS that his crazy [doubling global] “evaporation plan for countering global warming is highly unlikely to work in practice.”
2. IGNORE the parts where your supported his critics, e.g.:
– your: “ This is very close to the 2/3 figure Piotr often cites for a comparison – Kalisz claimed, no correction is needed, i.e. that it is not 2/3 but 0.
– your: “ airborne water vapor must increase by less than 18% for the doubled evaporation to have any cooling effect at all” – i.e. the same argument (without the 18% number) I was making, while Kalisz claimed the increase in humidity to be unimportant
3. Obtain “credibility by association”
– crediting you “Barton Paul recently encouraged me” for him being able to “prove” … me
me wrong in the claim I …don’t recognize as mine
– dismissing objections of others with: “ Please check my reply to Barton Paul for a more detailed discussion of this improved model .”- which implies that unlike his critics he is using YOUR “improved model”, AND that he already addressed any criticisms toward him you might have.
So your detailed calculations didn’t educate him, your conclusions questioning validity of his denier’s scheme went unacknowledged, you provided him with many pages to cherry-pick a sentence here or equation there to sustain the illusion that the validity of his scheme is far from being settled and a chance to use your credibility against his critics.
And in a telling coincidence – a new addition to the RC deniers corp, “Jack Pratt”, in his debut – from all possible posts choose yours as a springboard to claim that CO2 is not important to climate, and to imply dishonesty of climatologists:
JPratt: Keep talking about the temperature because that’s scary, and ignore total energy
Thomas Kalisz
“Before I move to discussion of parts 4 and 5 of Barton Paul’s analysis that address the relationship between water cycle intensity and water vapour concentration in the atmosphere, I would like to ask if you have any objections against the summary provided above or a different view thereon.”
How about you firstly state if YOU have any objections to BPLs comments on “An Energy-Balance Analysis of the Evaporation Plan ” in the first parts (but ideally all parts). Thats fair enough isn’t it? You should practice what you preach and demand of others?
If you have objections, please do this the proper, accepted way by copying and pasting the aspect you object to, then explain precisely where you think the physics and maths is wrong, and back up any of your assertions as appropriate with references and links like BPL did.
Let me be be clear. I’m not interested in you reiterating your alternative model, or your alternative calculations, or assumptions. This is a common denialist trick. I want you to confine your response purely to BPLs post and quoting what he says and why you think its wrong (if you do think anything is wrong).
I agree with Piotr you sound like some sort of devious, denialist troll. Have thought this right from the start. Remember my comments to you?. However its possible Im wrong and you just have an unfortunate writing style, so I’m giving you one last chance to prove me wrong, by specifically addressing BPLs comments in the accepted way above.. If you cant even do that, I think Gavin should put all your comments in the crank case.
Zebra: The thing is, as I tried to illustrate with my zero-vapor initial value thought experiment, if water vapor acted to reduce system energy, it would not qualify as a GHG in the first place.
Except the discussion here was not whether water vapour is a GHG or not, but whether its warming effect outweighs the cooling by the part of the latent heat emitted into space and by cloud albedo. Unless I misread your thought experiment, by concentrating on GHG effects, you ignored the cooling part, while our” water boys”, by concentrating on cooling, ignored the GHG effects of extra evaporation.
Piotr, I’m not going to lecture you about criticizing BPL for getting sucked in when you in fact have been equally “owned”………… well, OK, I will, a little, in a friendly spirit. I’ve been pointing out those issues about responding to the trolls for quite a while, right?
Anyway, I believe my comment here was pretty clear. If you (or BP) would like to put on the shoes of the Denialist and attempt to refute my claim, that might be interesting.
-Either an incremental increase in water vapor results in an increase, or decrease, or no change in the energy of the climate system.
-If decrease or no change, then WV does not qualify as a GHG.
-But there is no doubt that it does act as a GHG, meaning it produces (net) an increase in system energy… otherwise, the system would be completely different. If you take away the CO2, you would have a different planet, and the same thing is true if you take away the WV, about the same effect. I don’t think any (rational) person would disagree with that.
-So the point of the question… the one which never gets answered… is why increasing evaporation today would be any different from doing it on zebra’s Earth where the water is encapsulated somehow and initially prevented from evaporating. Or, in fact, at any initial condition in between.
Too simple?
I would also, as I said to BP, be curious about your reaction to my (actually consistent with physics) vapor-head comment above, about humans increasing WV through pumping and irrigation as contributing to climate change. There are numbers in the references to play with.
But perhaps I will unfortunately have started a new cult claiming “it’s not CO2” ?
zebra: Sept. 12 Piotr, I’m not going to lecture you about criticizing BPL for getting sucked in when you in fact have been equally “owned”………… well, OK, I will, a little, in a friendly spirit.
In other words How to eat the cake and still have it“. And if this is your friendly spirit –
how you would have “NOT going to criticize [me]” in your … unfriendly spirit? ;-)
Zebra: attempt to refute my claim, that might be interesting. Either an incremental increase in water vapor results in an increase, or decrease, or no change in the energy of the climate system.
I am not sure that it will be that interesting, given that we have already answered it – some explicitly, other implicitly. But since you asked so nicely let me sum it up for you.
First, the distinction:
– if by saying “water vapor” you mean ONLY water vapour – than the answer is “Duh” – it has been known since Arrhenius – water vapour IS a greenhouse gas because it increases the energy in the climate system.
-if by saying “water vapor” – you mean ALSO effect of clouds and latent heat – the answer is more complicated, as the warming effect of water vapour would be countered by the cooling by latent heat and the net cooling by clouds,
Unfortunately, this is more complicated, as the final outcome would be affected ALSO by a possible change in the water vapour residence time in the atmosphere, the altitude and type of the clouds, are clouds made of water droplets or ice crystals, at what altitude the latent heat ends up (the higher the more cooling). Further, the balance between the warming and cooling may also depend on the context – on Earth with different CO2/Temp. to what extent the absorption of water is saturated may be different and at what elevation it happens may change. All these may potentially alter the answer to your simple:
“increase, or decrease, or no change in the energy“)
So the only way to get the answer is to run a realistic model correctly incorporating all these aspects. Yours, simplified to the extreme “educational” model does not resolve
ANY of these nuances , and therefore is useless to answer your question. Correction, it is worse than useless, because it pretends quantitative knowledge where there is none. Instead, I used model in Schmidt et al. 2010:
Gavin’s paper tests the effect of withdrawal of one or more radiative forcings, using a realistic model, thus accounting for many (most?) of the nuances I mentioned. Although whether _all_ of these nuances are accounted for, and how realistically the other were accounted for, is not immediately obvious to me. but within those caveats
– net effect of water cycle is to warm, and this is true both to the modern and 2xCO2 world.
However, this answer applies only to the changes in water cycle that are caused by raising temperature. These conclusion do NOT directly transfer onto the question at hand: effect of increasing evaporation directly by humans (i.e. not via warming the Earth)
The difference is that Gavin’s model evaporation increases because of the warming. But the same warming allows also the atmosphere more room to hold water vapour without condensation – since each 1 C of warming makes 7% more space for water vapour. But the evaporation lags behind – which increases the proportion of the water in the atm. that is in the form of climate-warming water vapour, and decreases the portion that is in the form-of climate-cooling clouds. I.e. More warming by (more abundant) water vapour, less cooling by (fewer) clouds.
These findings are consistent with CERES data that show that over ~20 years – the world got warmer, evaporation increased, but the cloudiness actually decreased, and if I recall correctly – most of the warming in this period was due to decrease in cloud albedo (fewer/thinner clouds) than to increase in GHGs over the same period.
BTW, the decrease in clouds in a warmer world – is also consistent with a modelling done Schneider et al. 2019 who concluded that:
“[subtropical] stratocumulus decks become unstable and break up into scattered clouds when CO2 levels rise above 1,200 ppm. In addition to the warming from rising CO2 levels, this instability triggers a surface warming of about 8 K globally and 10 K in the subtropics” (Not immediately relevant to our situation (1200ppm!) but may explain massive spikes in temp. in geological records eg PETM, that without this mechanisms, would have required massive Co2/CH4 pulses.)
But all these calculations apply when evaporation increases due to warming. The discussion here, OTOH, is about human-increased evaporation, i.e. without accompanying increase in temperature, thus without the 7% increase per 1c room discussed above. As a result we may expect that the warming by extra water vapour would be LESS. But the question whether less enough to shift the net effect from net warming to net cooling?
My semi-quantitative argument, then fully quantified by BPL model, suggest NOT – in BPL’s model, albeit not as resolved as the one used by Gavin, but still much more realistic than yours, the increase in absolute humidity by 13% cancels all the cooling effect of doubling evaporation, anything above +13% makes it: net cooling. And given that over many parts of Earth rel. humidity is WELL below 100% – there is a lot of room to add the additional water vapour EVEN WITHOUT increasing the room by 7% per 1C warming.
To sum up:
1. The increase in evaporation due to warming causes strong NET WARMING – thus supporting the notion that evaporation is a strong positive feedback to temperature. Furthermore, this underscores the importance of our actions on GHGs conc. – water cycle being in a positive feedback – AMPLIFIES effects of our actions on GHGs concentrations: – if we increase GHGs – water cycle makes the warming much worse, if we decrease GHGs – the same water cycle makes the cooling much more pronounced.
2. The increase in evaporation by direct human action (mass irrigation): is not only highly unlikely, given the huge volumes of water that would need to be moved – but even if these were possible -would have most likely near zero or net warming effect – because the increased evaporation would increase absolute humidity in these parts of the atmosphere which are currently undersaturated: E.g. in Kalisz’s Sahara – near ground humidity is ~ 25% – meaning that the room to increase abs. humidity 4-fold before clouds could form.
So to your: “ attempt to refute my claim, that might be interesting ” – there was not much new to attempt, as part of BPLs and my … “being owned” by climate change deniers. And no – your ultra-simple model – because of its oversimplification – is not up to the task of explaining anything relevant.
Piotr, you have done well at playing the role of the Denialist Troll, because you have still not answered the question.
First, note that I defined a GHG as one that produces a net increase in system energy. That’s for brevity.
So, you are saying that something may or may not function as a GHG, depending on various factors.
The question remains, though. If water vapor does not function as a GHG, why is the energy level, as indicated by the GMST, what it is?
Again, we start with the condition where the water is prevented from evaporating so there is zero water vapor… no clouds, no transport of latent heat, yadda yadda. Now we release some.
Your argument is that maybe this will result in a decrease in system energy, because clouds, latent heat, yadda yadda. And if not, we release some more, and well, maybe the new yadda yadda conditions will result in a decrease. And so on.
But you acknowledge that today we observe water vapor to be increasing, and yet the energy in the system is also increasing.
How is that possible, if increasing water vapor functions to decreases energy in the system???
I don’t need to do any fancy calculations; I observe that in our current yadda yadda, your vapor-head hypothesis is falsified.
*******
I also note that you have agreed with my “alternative vapor-head” suggestion, that humans contributing directly to evaporation would result in an increase in system energy. It actually does make sense since we have increased irrigation enormously since the advent of fossil fuel burning.
Zebra
“Your (Piotrs) argument is that maybe this will result in a decrease in system energy, because clouds, latent heat, yadda yadda. And if not, we release some more, and well, maybe the new yadda yadda conditions will result in a decrease. And so on.But you acknowledge that today we observe water vapor to be increasing, and yet the energy in the system is also increasing….”
Zebra has not understood what Piotr said. Zebra is clearly assuming that an increase in system energy of xyz MUST be partly because of water vapour simply because it is a greenhouse gas and system energy is increasing. This is where he is making a mistake because you have to calculate the greenhouse effect of the water vapour and calculate the affect water vapour has on clouds reflecting away solar energy and see which effect dominates. Because reflecting away solar energy decreases potential increase in system energy.
Putting it another way water vapour has wider effects on the rate of warming – the system energy- than CO2. The calculations finds the greenhouse effect does dominate based on our best understanding of clouds. You cant escape the calculations.
Some of zebras simplifications are illuminating, but he over simplifies at times. Have said this before.
Zebra Sept.17 “Piotr, you have done well at playing the role of the Denialist Troll, because you have still not answered the question
I have answered – but apparently your were too smart to understand it. Here is the answer which you claim has been provided:
EITHER: your question asks ONLY about water vapour – then the answer is “Duh” – it has been known since Arrhenius – water vapour IS a greenhouse gas because it increases the energy in the climate system.
OR: if by saying “water vapor” – you meant ALSO effect of clouds and latent heat – then the answer is more complicated and your legendary “zero-vapor initial value thought experiment is useless, or worse – since it suggest insight where there is none.
So not only did I answered your questions and showed the futility of your approach, but also
discussed the answer one could get using instead of your simplified to the point of irrelevancy thought experiment, the incomparably more realistic models used by Schmidt et al 2010, and or BPL in his model described here.
To sum it up – I have answered your pointless/poorly-framed question, and suggested ways to focus that question – and suggested proper approach to answer the so -imporved question. You were unable to understand any of it and based on that – you patronizingly lecture me.
So based on that – who of us two “ plays the role of the Denialist Troll well” ?
Piotr, saying “it’s more complicated” is an evasion.
You yourself pointed out that we observe the energy in the system increasing even while the water vapor is increasing. How can you ignore that??
What more evidence do you need that increasing water vapor does not decrease system energy… clouds, latent heat, yadda yadda, are all operating, and we have an actual measurement that decides the question!!
Come on, man.
Zebras ridiculous rant.
“Piotr, saying “it’s more complicated” is an evasion.”
Actually no. Its the truth. Science is frequently complicated but Zebra apparently hasn’t noticed yet.
“You yourself pointed out that we observe the energy in the system increasing even while the water vapor is increasing. How can you ignore that??”
Nobody has ignored the bleeding obvious. And correlation doesnt prove causation.
“What more evidence do you need that increasing water vapor does not decrease system energy… clouds, latent heat, yadda yadda, are all operating, and we have an actual measurement that decides the question!!”
By measurement I assume he means warming and heat energy gain in the system.But you cannot simplistically conclude its due even in part to increasing levels of water vapour. Water vapour has both warming and cooling effects. The atmosphere could be warming entirely from CO2, with water vapour decreasing some of the system energy as a negative feedback slowing the warming down a little.. Or water vapour might be contributing to the warming as a positive feedback.
How do you know whether the warming or cooling functions of water vapour dominates? How do you decide without analyzing and calculating it? Crystal ball gazing? Meditation? Navel gazing? Circular reasoning?
Yes emerging real world data helps but there are often competing explanations for data. You cant escape analysis and calculation.
– Piotr Sept. 18 : A) “EITHER: your question asks ONLY about water vapour – then the answer is “Duh” – water vapour […] IS a greenhouse gas because it increases the energy in the climate system. OR
B) if by saying “water vapor” – you meant ALSO effect of clouds and latent heat (LH) – then the answer is more complicated and your legendary “ zero-vapor initial value thought experiment” is useless, or worse – since it suggest insight where there is none”
======
– Zebra Sept 18: “ saying “it’s more complicated” is an evasion. ”
P: No, it is recognition that situation in option B) does not have obvious answer as option A)
Zebra: “you yourself pointed out that we observe the energy in the system increasing even while the water vapor is increasing. How can you ignore that??</b ”
P: Because it applies to the other option, not to the option B in which “it’s more complicated“.
– Zebra Sept.18: What more evidence do you need that increasing water vapor does not decrease system energy… clouds, latent heat, yadda yadda, are all operating
P: On its own (option A) – none – since it has been known for decades and nobody questions it, not even deniers. But since you switched to option B (i.e. including ALSO “clouds, latent heat, yadda yadda) it is not OBVIOUS that the warming by water vapour is larger than cooling by clouds and latent heat. Hence my “it’s more complicated“.
– Zebra: and we have, an actual measurement , that decides the question!! Come on, man.
– No, we don’t have ” actual measurement” because energy budgets do not split the the back-radiation (downwelling LWR) into emissions back to surface from water vapour, from latent heat, from clouds, and from all other sources, without which you can’t subtract cooling by latent heat and clouds from warming – and you have to be able to do it to know whether the “net” effect of water is warming, cooling or neutral
For the role of water today and in 2xCo2 scenarioes, I used Gavin’s model (Schmidt et al. 2010) – and the net effect seems to be warming, but these results are NOT as obvious as your:” we have, an actual measurement , that decides the question!! Come on, man. suggests . If they were as obvious, why would publish Gavin’s paper on the subject?
Further, the Gavin’s paper is not directly applicable to the question at hand – since Gavin didn’t model doubling evaporation by humans, as Kalisz’ scheme that is discussed here requires.
For that – BPL offered his simplified model – and calculated that if increase of abs. humidity with doubling evaporation is 13% – the latent heat cooling is cancelled by GH effect of additional 13% of water vapour. Again, this numerical result was not obvious as your: we have an actual measurement , that decides the question!! Come on, man.
Piotr, I have to do another “come on, man” here.
You (should) know very well that I am the last person to question Gavin or any other scientist publishing an analysis like that. I’ve made it very clear for a long time that what concerns me is the interaction with what, after about 3-4 comments, are obviously wacky trolls who want to do pretend science, but have fundamental errors to begin with.
And you are indeed being evasive. You are trying to change the question.
You say: “it is not OBVIOUS that the warming by water vapour is larger than cooling by clouds and latent heat. Hence my “it’s more complicated“.
That’s a strawman… the question was whether increasing water vapor would result in a decrease in system energy.
If someone suggests that increasing water vapor will decrease the energy in the system, and we observe that water vapor is increasing but energy is increasing, then we have falsified that hypothesis.
So, we have answered the troll. No calculation necessary, and the troll doesn’t get to pretend to be “challenging the scientists on their own turf!”.
Piotr Sept. 18: [enumerating the two possible interpretations of the famous Zebra Question:]
A) “EITHER: you ask ONLY about water vapour alone– then the answer is “Duh” – water vapour increases the energy in the climate system.
OR
B) if by saying “water vapor” – you meant ALSO effect of clouds and latent heat – then the answer is more complicated [depending whether] warming by water vapour is larger than cooling by clouds and latent heat.
========
Zebra Sept .21 “Piotr, I have to do another “come on, man” here.
You have failed to defend your first “come on, man” – because you still don’t get that my words applied NOT to trivial interpretation of your question
(option A) above), but applied to, a much more plausible, option B).
And failing to prove your first “come on, man“, you are rolling out … the next one?
Z: You (should) know very well that I am the last person to question Gavin or any other scientist publishing an analysis like that.
My (minor) point here isn’t contingent on your motives – I said that interpretation A) is so trivial/obvious, and uncontested even by the deniers – that Gavin wouldn’t waste his time writing a paper on what … everybody already knew and nobody contested. So your “being the last person to criticize Gavin” is irrelevant to the point I was making.
So much for your …. Second Coming ;-)
Z: And you are indeed being evasive. You are trying to change the question.
Let the reader decide who of us two is doing that.
Z: You say: “it is not OBVIOUS that the warming by water vapour is larger than cooling by clouds and latent heat. Hence my “it’s more complicated“.
That’s a strawman… the question was whether increasing water vapor would result in a decrease in system energy. If someone suggests that increasing water vapor will decrease the energy in the system, and we observe that water vapor is increasing but energy is increasing, then we have falsified that hypothesis.
WHO are those “someones and where is that hypothesis ? Neither Shurly nor Kalisz claimed it. In fact, as I said on Sept. 20:
“ it has been known for decades and nobody questions it, not even deniers”
In fact, it is the deniers who are the most fervent cheerleaders for water vapour “ increasing the energy of the system“. And against those real, not like your strawman, deniers – Gavin wrote a (2007?) RC post, that he later
modified into his 2010 paper, to challenge the deniers claims that almost ALL (“98%”) of greenhouse warming is caused by water vapour – hence as the-age old deniers trope goes: limiting CO2 emission is not only futile, but harmful – would destroy economy to achieve nothing.
Gavin’s answer to these claims was that water vapour is important, but nowhere near “98%”, and it is a feedback not a driver – hence it amplifies effects of our emissions of CO2, thus making climate more to human emissions of CO2, not insensitive, as the real, not your imaginary, deniers claim.
And you are lecturing _me_ about _my_ strawman? ;-)
Z: So, we have answered the troll. No calculation necessary
Hmm, “no calculation necessary”, so you
– asked BPL for his … calculation magic ? ( Z: “I have a request. Can you do the same magic for a planet with zero water open to the atmosphere?“)
– and then bold-faced to me:
Zebra, the Earlier (Sept. 18): “and we have, an actual measurement” , that decides the question!! Come on, man.”
Z: and the troll doesn’t get to pretend to be “challenging the scientists on their own turf!”
Again, who is this troll you speak of?
Piotr says:
“Haven’t I warned you, Barton? That Kalisz guy is a troll who in support of his denialist cliche that we don’t have to cut GHGs since we can INSTEAD increase evaporation,”
and then he says:
“WHO are those “someones and where is that hypothesis ? Neither Shurly nor Kalisz claimed it.”
‘Tis a puzzlement indeed. Has Piotr’s Quixotic attempt to reason with crazy trolls finally damaged his mind so much that he doesn’t know if he is coming or going??
Piotr, sometimes it’s OK just to acknowledge that your approach is not necessarily the best, instead of producing arguments that sound as disorganized as those of the vapor-heads.
Some trolls say “it’s not CO2, it’s the reduction in evaporation”, and others say “it’s not CO2, it’s the increase in evaporation. The latter, as I (and Gavin) have pointed out, is more consistent with basic physics.
The former can be easily refuted with very simple reasoning, as I have demonstrated, with the zero-vapor scenario, and with simple empirical fact.
Zebra
“If someone suggests that increasing water vapor will decrease the energy in the system, and we observe that water vapor is increasing but energy is increasing, then we have falsified that hypothesis.So, we have answered the troll. No calculation necessary, and the troll doesn’t get to pretend to be “challenging the scientists on their own turf!”.
All complete nonsense. While water vapour is a greenhouse gas and as such should be increasing heat energy in the system, it also has cooling properties and these could in theory be stronger than the warming effect. The only way to know is to calculate which predominates. .
The denialists will not be satisfied until you calculate it – and fair enough. Until you calculate this they correctly argue its possible all the warming in the system is from CO2 with water vapour acting as a brake slowing the rate of warming down. They are wrong of course but only a calculation can prove them wrong.
I have read all the related posts by people, and I have reached the conclusion Zebra just literally doesn’t understand all this, and thus ends up acting like a stubborn troll. Much like you get with Victor, Killian, or MS on various issues.
Tomas Kalisz, Sept.23 “ I do not propose how to bypass any low-altitude air layers, because I do not see a reason to do so. I finally grasped that in Part 5”
Then keep reading:
BPL, Part 6, the concluding paragraph: “So if evaporation doubles (+100%), airborne water vapor must increase by less than 18% for the doubled evaporation to have any cooling effect at all.”
Grasp that!
TK: Let us now return to my Sahara thought experiment
What for??? Your Sahara scheme is dead – was based on wrong assumptions (like your claim that none of the latent heat is reradiated back to Earth) and BPLs have shown it is not likely to work EVEN if you doubled evaporation (+475,000 km3), much less with the pitifull … +13,000km3 you claimed as sufficient in your Sahara scheme. And with atmosphere over Sahara, given the low humidity there – having much room to increase it
abs. humidity from gigantic extra evaporation there.
Nor mentioning the technical issues of pumping 475,000 km3 of seawater over thousands of km and spreading it over 10,000,000 km2 …
Or of evaporating 47.5 m of water/yr from area of Sahara.
For a comparison, average evapotranspiration from the Amazon is about 1.4 m/yr, and evaporation from the ocean ~1 m/yr.
Zebra Sept. 23
– Piotr says: “That Kalisz guy is a troll who in support of his denialist cliche that we don’t have to cut GHGs since we can INSTEAD increase evaporation,”
and then he says:
-“WHO are those “someones” and where is that hypothesis ? Neither Shurly nor Kalisz claimed it.”
‘Tis a puzzlement indeed. Has Piotr’s Quixotic attempt to reason with crazy trolls finally damaged his mind so much that he doesn’t know if he is coming or going??
“Increased evaporation”, NOT “increasing conc. of water vapour”. The difference that I have already explained to you SEVERAL times, e.g.:
Piotr Sep. 11: “the discussion here was not whether water vapour is a GHG or not, but whether its warming effect outweighs the cooling by the latent heat and by cloud albedo”
Apparently, you were too smart to understand it,
Consequently, “neither Shurly nor Kalisz” claimed that the water vapour itself cools the system, they both claimed that that vapour WARMING is OUTWEIGHED by cooling by latent heat and clouds. Nobody else contest the warming by water vapour either – in fact other climate deniers are among the most fervent promoters of warming by water vapour.
Knowing ALL THAT from previous post, you scowl with your derisive:
Zebra “ ‘Tis a puzzlement indeed. Has Piotr’s Quixotic attempt to reason with crazy trolls finally damaged his mind so much that he doesn’t know if he is coming or going??
Sarcasm founded on own ignorance and own inability to comprehend even simple arguments of opponents, discredits only the man, or zebra, who employs it.
Zebra: “ Piotr, sometimes it’s OK just to acknowledge that your approach is not necessarily the best, instead of producing arguments that sound as disorganized as those of the vapor-heads.
Lectures the guy, who prides himself in the precision and logic of his arguments, in support of his question:
Z: “[Whether] an incremental increase in water vapor results in an increase, or decrease, or no change in the energy of the climate system.?
i.e. a question that I proved to be ambiguous, and either a strawman, or cannot be addressed using Zebra’s proposed approach, I quote:
A) “If you meant ONLY water vapour – then the answer is “Duh” – water vapour increases the energy in the climate system. [and nobody claimed otherwise – hence it’s a “strawman” fallacy]
B) if you meant ALSO effect of water vapour in creating clouds and latent heat – then the answer is more complicated [since from vapor warming we have to subtract cooling by latent heat and clouds], and your legendary “zero-vapor initial value thought experiment” [that accounts for neither] is useless.
Strawman in A) does not need any answer other then pointing that “nobody claimed that”
To answer B) I have suggested using Gavin’s 2010 paper for natural water cycle, and BPL’s for increased evaporation case since they model the processes your “thought experiment” didn’t.
To which you accused _me_ of:
– not answering your question,
– employing a … strawman,
– having my mind “damaged”
and full of yourself lecture me:
Z:” Piotr, sometimes it’s OK just to acknowledge that your approach is not necessarily the best, instead of producing arguments that sound as disorganized as those of the vapor-heads.
Do as I tell you, not as I do?
Piotr, you really are sounding a little crazy here.
How can you have clouds and latent heat transport without the water vapor????
If you increase evaporation, you get the whole package. That’s exactly what my scenario addresses. What happens when you allow the creation of water vapor, with all the consequences? System energy increase, decrease, remains the same?
If you want to have a serious discussion, then do what the other guys don’t…. answer the question.
Zebra: “How can you have clouds and latent heat transport without the water vapor????
If you increase evaporation, you get the whole package.”
And therefore you asked BPL: “I Can you do the same magic for a planet with zero water open to the atmosphere? to show it the water boys?
Except that BPL model – while including warming by water vapour, explicitly excluded clouds and latent heat – hence this BPL’s magic would have shown ONLY the warming by vapour alone, NOT warming by the “whole package”.
So throughout this thread you vacillate between vapour-only and whole-package. Quite disappointing for the person who devoted dozens (?) to lecture others about the need for PRECISE DEFINITION and agreeing on terms being of precondition for a fruitful scientific discussion… Do as I tell you not as I do?
To get it under control I called the vapour-only – option A), and whole package option B, and showed that option A) is trivial (known by everybody and contested by none) while B) is nowhere near as obvious as you claimed.
And like a whack-a-mole mole – each time I hit option B you pop out with an argument applicable only to option A, and vice versa.
But since we are down to option B only – let’s wrap it up:
Piotr Sept 18: “Option B) if by saying “water vapor” – you meant ALSO effect of clouds and latent heat [i.e. whole package”] – then the answer is more complicated [depending whether] warming by water vapour is larger than cooling by clouds and latent heat.
To which you went all zebra on me:
Piotr saying “it’s more complicated” is an evasion. You yourself pointed out that we observe the energy in the system increasing even while the water vapor is increasing. How can you ignore that??
I DID “point” that only in the context of option A) (water vapour alone reradiates LWR toward surface and therefore always warms ) I DIDN’T extend it to the “entire package ‘- quite the opposite I said: that there it will depend on whether “ warming by water vapour is larger than cooling by clouds and latent heat.,
Which you called “an evasion”, and lashed out:
Z: “ What more evidence do you need that increasing water vapor does not decrease system energy… clouds, latent heat, yadda yadda, are all operating and we have an actual measurement that decides the question!! Come on, man.
My reply to that: Piotr Sept. 20: “No, we don’t have ” actual measurement” because energy budgets do NOT split the downwelling LWR into emissions from water vapour, from latent heat, from clouds, and from all other sources ” – without which you can’t isolate the effect of [the whole package] from other effects, and therefore you didn’t MEASURE that the “net” effect of [the package] is warming.
Instead, to answer this we have to resort to models:
1. Your proposed modification of BPL model is useless, since it does not model latent heat and clouds.
2. Gavin’s model – is good for the net effect of the “package” today and in 2xCo2 scenarioes, BUT NOT in the discussed HUMAN-made increase in evaporation
3. For that – BPL, in his 6-part model, calculated that
“ water vapor must increase by less than 18% for the doubled evaporation to have any cooling effect at all.”
Which is the answer that
– can NOT be deduced from the first principles (the way net warming by vapour alone could),
– has NOT been measured yet, in spite your exclamations: “ we have an actual measurement that decides the question!! Come on, man.
– is NOT possible to obtain by the earlier very simplified BPL model – since it does NOT model latent heat nor clouds
– is NOT even arrivable by the Gavin’s 2010 much more realistic model (since it does not model increases in evaporation by direct human action)
So my “it’s more complicated” than your “ I don’t need to do any fancy calculations; I observe that in our current yadda yadda, your vapor-head hypothesis is falsified.”
and we have an actual measurement that decides the question!! Come on, man. suggests.
But don’t let it stop you from lecturing me:
– “Piotr, you have done well at playing the role of the Denialist Troll”
– “attempt to refute my claim, that might be interesting ”
-” Piotr, saying “it’s more complicated” is an evasion”
– “How can you ignore that??“.
– “Piotr, I have to do another “come on, man” here.”
-“That’s a strawman…”
-” Piotr, you really are sounding a little crazy here.”
– “Piotr, sometimes it’s OK just to acknowledge that your approach is not necessarily the best, instead of producing arguments that sound as disorganized as those of the vapor-heads.”
and my personal favourite:
“-Tis a puzzlement indeed. Has Piotr’s Quixotic attempt to reason with crazy trolls finally damaged his mind so much that he doesn’t know if he is coming or going??”
Mr. Zebra – everyone!
You would think that a bunch of research scientists would know how NOT to pollute one of the few pristine wilderness areas left on this planet, but you’d be wrong.
This is fucking ridiculous!
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/antarctic-research-stations-polluted-a-pristine-wilderness/
Re: Tomáš Kalisz 11 SEP
Haven’t I warned you, Barton? That Kalisz guy is a troll who in support of his denialist cliche that
we don’t have to cut GHGs since we can INSTEAD increase evaporation, would ask you for the calculations only to:
1.IGNORE your CONCLUSIONS dismissing his claim:
“ if evaporation doubles (+100%), airborne water vapor must increase by less than 18% for the doubled evaporation to have any cooling effect at all, and even IF we are able to DOUBLE global evaporation –
makes Kalisz’s plan for countering global warming is highly unlikely to work in practice.”
2. IGNORE the parts of your posts that support his critics, e.g.:
– your: “ This is very close to the 2/3 figure Piotr often cites vs. Kalisz’s claim that no correction is needed, i.e., that it is not 2/3, BUT 0.
– your: “ airborne water vapor must increase by less than 18% for the doubled evaporation to have any cooling effect at all” – i.e., the same argument (without the 18% number) I was making, while Kalisz claimed that increase in humidity to be unimportant
3. Gain “credibility by association”:
– credits YOUR “ encouragement”” with his “proving” me wrong in the claim I …don’t recognize as mine
– dismisses objections of others with his: “ Please check my reply to Barton Paul for a more detailed discussion of this improved model .”
which implies: that unlike his critics, he is using YOUR “improved model”, AND that he already addressed any criticisms toward him you might have had.
So your detailed calculations didn’t educate him, your conclusions questioning validity of his scheme went unacknowledged, and you provided him with many pages to cherry-pick a sentence here or equation there to sustain the illusion that the validity of his scheme is far from being settled, and provided with a chance to use your credibility against his critics.
And in the final irony – the latest addition to the RC deniers corp, “Jack Pratt”, for his debut – from all possible posts choose your calculations as a springboard to claim that CO2 is not important to climate, and to imply dishonesty of climatologists, who “ keep talking about the temperature because that’s scary“.
@ Tomas Kalisz
Here you have it. You are being analyzed and condemned again. What a destiny and rumors for Moravia.
There are good rules for not ending up that way, for what you ought not to try and sell to people, and what you shood look out for on the free market for own consumption.
There are similar and parallel rules for what you ought not to represent and under what you ought not to aspire.
This incident seems rather trollish on Patrick Brown’s part: What happened when a scientist denounced his own climate change research
Was this opinion piece really necessary?
I had the same question, to the point I wonder about his good faith. It fits so neatly into the overall fossil fuel propaganda meme (“the scientists aren’t honest!”) that even with qualifications, and even if he didn’t say anything dishonest, as he claims. I have to wonder at his purpose. It reminds me a little bit of the turn that Judith Curry made, and the way she has been used, and allowed herself to be used, to give a veneer of scientific credibility to nonsense.
Thomas Kalisz
“Before I move to discussion of parts 4 and 5 of Barton Paul’s analysis that address the relationship between water cycle intensity and water vapour concentration in the atmosphere, I would like to ask if you have any objections against the summary provided above or a different view thereon.”
How about you firstly state if YOU have any objections to BPLs comments on “An Energy-Balance Analysis of the Evaporation Plan” in the first parts (but ideally all parts). Thats fair enough isn’t it? You should practice what you preach?
If you have objections, please do this the proper, accepted way by copying and pasting the aspect you object to, then explain precisely where you think the physics and maths is wrong, and back up any of your assertions as appropriate with references and links like BPL did.
Let me be be clear. I’m not interested in you reiterating your alternative model, or your alternative calculations, or assumptions. This is a common denialist trick. I want you to confine your response purely to BPLs post and quoting what he says and why you think its wrong (if you do think anything is wrong).
I agree with Piotr you sound like some sort of devious, denialist troll. Have thought this right from the start. Remember my comments to you. Howevrr its possible Im wrong and you just have an unfortuante writing style, so I’m giving you one last chance to prove me wrong, by specifically addressing BPLs comments in the accepted way above.. If you cant even do that, I think Gavin should put all your comments in the crank case.
In Re to
https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2023/09/unforced-variations-sep-2023/#comment-814329 ,
https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2023/09/unforced-variations-sep-2023/#comment-814336
and
https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2023/09/unforced-variations-sep-2023/#comment-814326
Dear Nigel, dear Carbomontanus,
Many thanks for your kind feedback.
As the orgpage track of the entire discussion seems to become a difficult task for an older computer (likely to the high data volume), I created a new orgpage, comprising only the summary of BPL’s example
https://orgpad.com/s/MThSMgtMlVK
I hope it can be still opened also with less powerful computers easily. If you do it, you will see that in my post
https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2023/09/unforced-variations-sep-2023/#comment-814271 ,
I have not disputed with parts 1-4 of Barton Paul’s analysis.
In fact, I just tried to summarize his example and amend it with an analogous analysis for another GEB scheme representing recent Earth instead of the preindustrial one.
I have not seen any reason for disputing BPL’s results because I agree to his interpretation of global energy schemes. Although it appears that you, Carbomontanus, see e.g. the latent heat flux as an abstract speculation, my understanding thereto is that the respective arrow in the scheme is a good representation of your “chill rain falling back to the surface” and a useful tool for understanding how the climate regulation by non-radiative heat fluxes works.
In case that my understanding is (as you suppose) erroneous, I encourage Dr. Schmidt and other moderators to remove all my contributions from this website, so that I do not mislead and confuse other people anymore.
Greetings
Tomáš
P.S.
My comments on parts 5 and 6 of Barton Paul’s analysis follow in a separate post. I encourage the moderators to remove / unpublish it if they would have seen my doubts about these parts of Barton Paul’s analysis (and/or questions related thereto) as unsubstantiated and potentially misleading the public.
@ Thomas Kalisz
That was perhaps slightly better, and I got out your handwritten drawings and budgets , and tend to see that you are autentic (Not a ROBOT) ….. but you make it much too complicated for yourself.
As I have told people many times here, I do not believe in the experts, now especially not in Barton Paul Levensons competition and analyses, drawings and budgets……….. as I feel more and more that, luckily I was inaugurated and brought up to a more autentic, more qualified institutional tradition of planetary science.
Thus I could rather put it all together from what I have learnt and what I can control, so that can also possibly contribute and participate in a critical and autentic more valuable way without having to ask the experts and descend into a ROBOT.
In could fallm back on Physical geography, Löbsacks popular meteorology ( he was concerned scientist medical doctor experienced scuba- diver and gliding airplane pilot, especially good on tropical hurricanes thunderstorms and tornadoes.)…….
…………Then also analytical chemistery on complex natural systems, physical chemistery, and systematic logics. And on cyclings, I am highly experienced on bicycles and ncomplex physical oscillatgors of all kinds, and on metabolic cycles. Rather than on political marxisms and vulgar political religious psevdo. buddhisms-hinduisms.
As I also wtote along with strawberries and flowers lapserates and remaining snowspots over Hemsedalsfjellet and down again I can see and tell truth of it all totally without statistics and other peoples graphs.
The better scientists on that is is the UiO.no with Met.inst. no and the DMO.dk. who tell me what I need to know in order to to live in peace with the climate.
The problem is of political and human nature, those who are at war with our civilized and integrated learning traditions about Nature. And at war against earth, life, and nature.
So I recommend for you the High Tatra and the Morava and Donau river and the Moravian landscape for you, you will be able to take it all out from there and no- one will be able to deny it.
Dr. Gaving Schmidt is letting me sell and recomment the Barents sea, the Oslofjord, Hemsedalsfjellet & Jotunheimen, even the sea serpent and the fameous Midgardsormen.
Look up https://Urnes-Stil wiki
It is allmost what NASA took a picture of when they got far enough out in space.
The Germans have not been popular all the time but luckily they were flat bomled for their alternatives, so that the better of Germania could get a new chanse. Löbsack Humboldt Helmholz Planc Heinrich Herz, Otto Schmeils Tierkunde & Pflanzenkunde,….
So let rather the better of Moravia come to word here,
I see I have a lot of them on Pensum. Georg Mendel, Sigmund Freud, Edmund Husserl, Kurt Gödel, Ernst Mach, Hans Krebs, Karel Capek, Emil Zatopek, you name them.
Why relate to the slums for whoom the earth is flattened like a political party with P and a factory floor within error- bars?
Be no alternative to autentic Moravia. Then we can cooperate and you need not eradicate anything of yourself. .
Dear Carbomontanus,
as regards inspiring personalities of Moravian origin, I would add Leoš Janáček, Tomáš Garrigue Masaryk and Jan Amos Komenský (Comenius).
Greetings
Tom
Kalisz
Really very interesting
I am looking after Janacek Masaryk and Komensky.
It looks as if Comenius has had a definite influence also on my systems and ideas of philosophy and learnings through several of my own decisive GURUs. examples.
Masaryk shows to have had direct relatios with conteporary Norwegian politicians and leading authors.
But for Janacek, well there we have our own line of traditions and composers, national romantics, but they surely knew of eact other and “stole” from each other, as it rather ought to be.
So, now we can beat the alternatives, Noruegia and Moravia has known of each other and been a quite strong team in the past when it really matters.
Tycho Brahe may have migrated to Praha due to ideas of better conditions for holistic studies of nature and humanity there,by the impulse of Comenius, the former bishop of Moravia.
There is a contact again , Maximillianus Höll from the imperial observatory in Praha that had been mooved over to Wien in the meantime.. Tycho Brahe and Ole Rømers Royal observatory in København was asked to participate on an expedition to Vardø in the midnight sun for the Venus transition of 3 juni 1769. As The Royal Greenwhich observatory sent Captain Cook to Tahiti to have a maximum parallaxe. in the solar system by the size of the earth.
Höll & al had to be given Royal Danish dispensatione by Christian VII because he was a Jesuit, and went by sailboat to Oslo, Horse and carrige over to Nidaros where they were thorroughly confirmed by Bishopp Gunnerus on what to do and what not to do further north in the Diocese of Nidaros, else they would be trown to sea due to conventions and lack of better justice further north.
They arrived by sailboat very seasick late autumn in Vardø and were installed at the castle by Il Commandante there.
Höll & al from the imperial observatory in Wien brought with them chocolate and rasins and full remedies for brewing beer. And got back the very best of the Vardø Kitchen, , dried and smoked whale codfish and reindeers with stewed and dried arctic heather berries. fermented also perhaps, and wild and hanged groose. .
Thus could celebrate christmas and new year together with the Vardøhus celebrities
. They were strictly forbidden by the King to missionary. The Colonel gave them the best notes afterwards for having been obedient, polite, and very nice people. .
Höll is pictured in Sæmi winter dressing in Vardø. . Maybe typical for jesuit missionaries. . They were also criticized for dressing up as Mandarins in China.
They got the critical Venus occulotation data, needed for calibration of the Kepplerian and Newtonian system in kilometers or in secundum pendulums with 3.- 4 chiffres.
It is Tycho Brahes trigonometric parallaxe- method. It takes Radar eccho to get the distance to Venus better. Then you can count further by Keppler and Newtons laws.
Hölls obviously scilled assistant Janos Sajnovics, was a hungarian jesuit brother from Slovakia, highly scilled on linguistics and discovered the “finnish-ugric ” linguistic group by the Sæmi and Finnish people in Finnmark. different from Indo europeans. And wrote the fameous
“Demonstratio idoma Hungarorum et Lapporum idem esse!”
Just think of that. Later to be accepted as a fact.
in Re to
https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2023/09/unforced-variations-sep-2023/#comment-814205 ,
and
https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2023/09/unforced-variations-sep-2023/#comment-814206 .
Dear Barton Paul,
It appears that nobody on RC has any substantial objection with respect to the first four parts of you analysis.
I think that we can conclude that latent heat flux cools Earth surface efficiently, despite majority of the overall energy flux absorbed in Earth atmosphere is, as correctly repeated by Piotr, returned to the surface in form of downwelling infrared radiation. The reasons for this seeming paradox are
(i) the circumstance that the downwelling radiative flux is already included in the discussed energy balances, and
(ii) the circumstance that the efficiency of the cooling effect is inversely proportionate to the width of the “atmospheric window” which is quite narrow on recent Earth.
Let me therefore thank you for your major contribution to this conclusion again and skip to parts 5 and 6 of your analysis.
Contrary to the parts 1-4, I would like to point to a few aspects not addressed in your analysis that in my opinion undermine your final conclusion and therefore might deserve your consideration:
1) It comes to my mind that annual average water vapour partial pressure may vary quite strongly geographically. Moreover, in the water vapour pressure interval that has to be considered, the strength of the greenhouse effect may not depend from partial water vapour pressure linearly, I am afraid.
I would therefore appreciate a specific reference to the source of your equation (9), wherein I could find an explanation of the range of its validity.
2) According to last paragraph in part 5 of your analysis, comprising the sentence “If we double pH2O to 732 Pa,” it appears that although you originally assumed water cycle intensity doubling above land only, you finally calculate with partial water vapour pressure doubling over the entire globe. Isn´t it a mistake?
3) Similarly as macias shurly, I still think that water cycle intensity may change in a quite broad range without any substantial change in average air humidity, just by changing water vapour residence time in the atmosphere while keeping constant the size of the water vapour pool in the atmosphere.
I have noted that the size of the water vapour pool in the atmosphere, which is commensurate to the average absolute air humidity, is in the literature considered as depending basically on the average global surface temperature only. Observations seem to support this assumption.
In this respect, it appears unnecessary to consider any change in average air humidity (and thus also any change in average greenhouse effect of water vapour comprised in the atmosphere) at least in case that the contemplated artificial water cycle intensity change will just compensate an opposite change in the sum of energy fluxes absorbed by Earth surface.
This was exactly the case in my thought experiment with artificial water cycle intensification above Sahara desert discussed in
https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2023/05/unforced-variations-may-2023/comment-page-2/#comment-811872 ,
https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2023/06/unforced-variations-jun-2023/#comment-812091 ,
https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2023/06/unforced-variations-jun-2023/#comment-812192
and
https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2023/07/unforced-variations-july-2023/#comment-813242 .
Could you comment?
Many thanks in advance and greetings
Tomáš
TKalisz Sept15 : “ the average absolute air humidity is in the literature considered as depending basically on the average global surface temperature only. Observations seem to support this assumption. In this respect, it appears unnecessary to consider any change in average air humidity (and thus also any change in average greenhouse effect of water vapour comprised
The reason why he literature states the avg. absolute humidity is a function of global temperature, is because NO OTHER mechanisms is able to CHANGE the EVAPORATION in any significant way.
What do you do ? You take the conclusion based on that ONLY temperature affects global evaporation assumption, to support your scheme that demands …violating the very same assumption – you said about DOUBLING evaporation by humans!
That’s exactly what I meant saying about your inability to understand what you read, and/or cherrypicking only these parts that suit your deniers claims.
In Re to
https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2023/09/unforced-variations-sep-2023/#comment-814432
Dear Piotr,
I make a distinction between global average absolute air humidity on one hand and water cycle intensity (overall global precipitation / evaporation rate) on the other hand.
It is my understanding that global average absolute humidity, which does represent the POOL of water available in the atmosphere, depends on the average global surface temperature.
On the other hand, I think that the same does not necessarily apply for global annual precipitation, which does represent water (and latent heat) FLOW.
We discuss for several months that besides the global temperature, this FLOW depends also on the supply of water available for evaporation on the land. This is something what humans definitely influence. My goal is to find out in which extent the respective changes in latent heat flow may influence the global energy balance.
Greetings
Tomáš
T Kalisz Sept. 18: Dear Piotr, I make a distinction between global average absolute air humidity on one hand and water cycle intensity (overall global precipitation / evaporation rate) on the other hand”
I heard you the first time and I have ALREADY answered to it in my earlier post
from Sept. 17
In short – your “distinction” to be valid ONLY, you can build a TUBE, giant enough to allow pumping AS MUCH water vapour as is currently evaporated from all Earth;’s oceans and lands, and Pump all that volume high into the sky, to BY-PASS ALL layers of the atmosphere that have relative humidity your “distinction” fails.
And no, REPHRASING your original claim that I have ALREADY SHOWN to be a FALLACY^*, won’t save you skin:
^* Piotr Sept. 17: “ You take the conclusion based on the assumption that ONLY temperature affects global evaporation, to support your scheme that demands … violating the very same assumption – you want to DOUBLE the natural (i.e. only temperature-dependent) evaporation
And YOU lecturing ME about the difference between pools and fluxes – that’s … rich, given that:
– _I_ haven’t mixed them up (Increased evaporation into UNDERSATURATED POOL would INCREASE the size of that POOL)
– YOU had – see earlier IN THE same thread
Kalisz
I see now that your very conscept of latent heat flow may be fooling you.
you may be confusing heat flow and latent heat.
Hot air flow, hot water flow hot soup or irons mooved from A to B is not latent heat flow.
Call it hot air and hot steam or hot water pleace, and moovement-flow of the same.
And resign totally on mentioning any latense or hidden heat until you have studied & experienced and grasped what that means. Calling it Latense just to teach and insinuate that the IPCC has hidden or forgotten it and you are being discovering it,…. that is too betraying.
Ice is a solid molecular materi9al with a specific heat capacity quite much lower than that of liquid water. It will give off heat if cooled from -5 to -15 celsius , but quite much less than water being cooled from +15 down to +5 celsius,
, explain,….
and that will take studies of yours into hydrogen bonds and molecular bond thermal modes per mol or per kilograms of matter.
But from + zero to – zero that takes 80 Kilocalories per Kilo going 0ut of that water in order for it to freeze and solidify.
And that is what they did call Latent heat in the scotch breweries who discovered it because it did cost them coal in sacks against cash to heat up things through temperature barriers where obviously some mysterious “latent heat” was involved.
That snobbish, quasi- scientific conscept of latent heat flow rules for Norwegian Icefreight by sailship to London in the summer against cash on the free market, and then it was latent – chill in calories at zero celsius under sail in tonnes from Oslo to London. with sawdust isolation not to loose that quite valuable latent chill underway..
And the Italian Espresso coffee. By hot steam into a cup of cold water. That is a latent heat- flow. when that gaseous invisible steam condenses at 1 bar to that cold water. in a noisy way. as gas boubbles at 1 bar collapse down to zero. Not invisible water vapours flowing in the air..
Latens and latent heats is at the molecular phase- tranistions with delta H in calories or joules in or out at constant temperatures.
Sawed ice from the winter on moravian rivers and lakes brought by horse- sleigh to the breweries, fisheries, bucheries and dairies, packed in straw and sawdust with a wet sack over it, , that was latend heat- chill freight or flow.
Tell them that from Moravia to over there in the states where they also had it and should remember it because it was big business in the lake district and in the riversmas they had no electricity. , then they will accept you.
The golfstream flow of heat is not a latent heat flow, as it does not flow across any phase- transition that radically changes the thermal modes and heat capacity of the involved molecular matter. So also not ind the winds and weathers and air turbulence and convections. That is quite common flow currents without latense.
Clean up your thoughts conscepts learnings and language there that has fooled you and many more people than you, for a long time now.
Luckily, I was never fooled that way.
The icebergs from Grønland to New Foundland sinking Titanic was oceanic latent chill flow from Grønland down to the great banks.
I have had to understand all this in the scientific lab to regulate and stabilize the temperatures in the laboratory water baths and airs.
Luckily, I learnt all that in public school allready, and could not be fooled later.
Latent heat occurs at chemical transitions with radical change of molecular bonds and entails chahge of material form, and is termed Delta S , change of entrophy or molecular order.. Not hot matter of any form that is flowing without being chemically changed.
Solidification of fused metals and of wax or fusing of the same ….. that takes time and heat conduction convection and radiation in or out, at steady constant temperatures, that is latent heat.
in Re to
https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2023/09/unforced-variations-sep-2023/#comment-814481
Dear Carbomontanus,
under “latent heat flow” in the context of the recent discussion, I understand the heat transported between spatially separated places A and B by isothermal water evaporation in A, followed by water vapour flux to B and isothermal water condensation in B.
I think it is in accordance with your teaching.
The single point wherein I would perhaps slightly disagree with you is your penultimate paragraph. It sounds like an identity of latent heat and entropy in phase transitions.
However, to my best knowledge, the relationship between enthalpy H and entropy S of a phase transition reads
deltaH = TdeltaS,
wherein T is absolute temperature of the phase transition (in Kelvin scale).
Many thanks and greetings
Tomáš
T Kalisz: Similarly as macias shurly, I still think that water cycle intensity may change in a quite broad range without any substantial change in average air humidity”
ONLY if you and macias shurly move 13,000km3 of water in giant TUBE to BYPASSESS the regions of the atmosphere that have relative humidity (RH) < 100%.
See
For vertical profiles of rel. humidity see
Shurly’s Germany
Shurly’s Germany, or this
See all the volume of air that has RH<100% – this is the place which has room for ADDITIONAL abs. humidity WITHOUT condensation, i.e. regardless whether you with shurly shorten the residence time of water in the atm. or not.
And as BPL has shown – you don't need MUCH – it's enough if abs. humidity increases by 13% to have CANCELLED ALL cooling from your (pie-in-the-sky) 100% increase in global human evaporation required by your scheme.
in Re to
https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2023/09/unforced-variations-sep-2023/#comment-814439
Dear Piotr,
Your objection sounds logically.
Nevertheless, after a closer consideration, I arrived at serious doubts about its validity.
Please note that there rains over the globe, although surface air humidity is close to 100 % in polar regions only.
I think that the explanation may be simple – air with a higher humidity has slightly lower density than drier air, and thus has a tendency to ascend.
If humid air created by artificially enhanced evaporation may ascend without reaching saturation at the surface, I do not see a reason why your assumption (that the evaporated water must saturate all the unsaturated air first, and only then it can precipitate) should apply.
And, just for the sake of good order, it was Barton Paul, not me, who proposed doubling global average humidity in his example.
I still think that Barton Paul made a mistake here, and await his explanation:
https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2023/09/unforced-variations-sep-2023/#comment-814397 .
Greetings
Tomáš
T Kalisz Sept 18: “ After a closer consideration, I arrived at serious doubts about validity
[of Piotr’s argument]. Please note that there rains over the globe, although surface air humidity is close to 100 % in polar regions only.”
Except you are looking at the NEAR-GROUND ANNUAL averages. Which blows your closer consideration on at least two different accounts:
case 1. Say, the near-ground air has RH=75%. when the air mass moved up the dropping temperature made the same conc. of H2O vapour into RH >100%, Once this has been done – you can have clouds and rain DESPITE the near-ground RH of 75%
case 2 Say, you have one day with RH=100%, and it rained , and then the next day the advected overnight air has RH=50%. Henc3, you can have the rain EVEN if the AVERAGE RH from these two days is only RH-75%.
Our Resident Genius Tomas K.:
“ Rejoice! After a closer consideration, I have discovered that the centuries of meteorology were wrong – formation of clouds and rain is NOT related to RH! So you
can have rain even though on my map of annual near-ground humidity the average RH=75%!”
RealClimate collective response: All Hail K.! All Hail K.! All Hail K.!
Thomas Kalisz.
Your basic idea (paraphrasing) that we can increase evaporation by irrigation and somehow not increase humidity looks incredibly suspect and counter intuitive to me. I would expect an increase in evaporation to lead to higher humidity and thus a greater greenhouse effect. Its the simplest explanation, and Occams Razor says the simplest explanation is usually correct. Your alternative mechanism doesnt look convincing as pointed out by Piotrs response..
You really don’t seem to know what you are talking about with humidity .Having a chemistry degree – and you seem to have a good degree- does not make you informed on climate. You really should read a book on basic meteorology and understand how rain forms. Here’s an introduction
http://ww2010.atmos.uiuc.edu/(Gh)/guides/mtr/cld/dvlp/upw.rxml#:~:text=The%20air%20parcel%20expands%20as,on%20the%20largest%20aerosol%20particles.
I came up with this to try to get my head around the issue. Imagine two rooms with the same heating level but one room has a small cup of water on the floor and the other room has half the floor covered in water. After an hour which room would have the higher humidity? Surely its going to be the second room.
Yes humidity rains out but as BPL points out in his calculations in 6 parts you still get an enhanced greenhouse effect. I dont think you have falsified this successfully. Some of his science calculations are beyond my qualifications but I can see that the basic mechanism follows the laws of science and it immediately sounds intuitively correct.
Kaliz
This message of yours tells me a lot about your background ideas and abstract scientific docmas doctrines and conscepts by which you think, and build up your arguments, thus why there will be a cultural collision here.
You do not share common scientific standards and archetyps definitions with Piotr & a.l for instance, and his learning and school system.
It is called “Cognitive dissonance” by a very snobbish word, but we better call it racial religious linguistic political and etnic- cultural collisions. in order to settle it for what it is.
“logics” and “Logical” is not what your private racial pure , collectivized, bodily mind “feels” as obvious.
Logics and logical is an official systematic science, that pre- supposes conscious agreement first, on a set of offricial definitions. It is not your privale racial and etnical political religious feeling of what your mind feels as being “Natural” and “obvious”.
You must care to share and to agree on common definitions experiences and Archetyps DOGMAs first, that are to be respected and not violated. But agreed on first, for being TABUs in your conscious, social mentality. Known as Lex superior, Dogmas, and Axioms.
Else there will be cultural collisions on politicalo religious and tribal , racial, national level.
Physics and geophysics that should be TABU untoucheasbler holy, dogmatic, lex superior axiomatic , built on and not fougt in the climate dispute……..
……….. is not an arbitrary set of fine snobbish political formula words that can be smashed over your next persons head, smile smile, and given any mentally provincial definition that you need..
Example: “Surface air humidity is near to 100% in polar regions only!”
It is obviously false. Where have you got that from?
It is obviously wrong, silly irresponsible and unexperienced,…….
……….. betraying that you are largely unexperienced with nature and its physical evidence and scientifiuc signals as such, We can conclude back to your provincial lacks of educational culture.
Air humidity at the ground is 100% wherever there is fog over the meadows also in Moravia, and dews forming on the ground
You are obviously lacking that experiment of finding the dewpoin in the lab in high and public school. What about those fameous walleys in Antarctis where even the fallen snow and frozen ice for centuries has “evapo- tranpirated”?
Your argument is further containing silly unscientific thoughts all the way. I could not allow myself such things, Because, I must be thoughtful and critical to myself so only Matthias Schuürle from the late DDR and Barton Paul Levenson from a secteric prayers house over there in the states will term me unscientifric. and order me back to Kindergarten.
Thaty idea of artificially doubbling air moistyure worldwide on land betrays severe lacks of conscepts on proportions and stöchiometry and aerial moist material functions and budget
It collides immediately politically culturally religiously with wide horizons and examples of science and technology.
Thus you betray political lacks of basic sets and learnings and trainings of natural principles formulas and laws all the way.
I find it again and again and again among teaching climate denialists and surrealists, obviously lacking Mittlere Reife Highschool and Examen Artium on systematic empirical and experimentalo sciences about matter and Nature, having chosen political dialectic materialism instead and got away with it for their possible keye-positions and teacher and jufge- positions in our society.
Thus giving that characteristic “I am no scientist … but…! upstairs in the Congress.
It bis demonstrative lackis of orderly civil trousers suspenders on the free market and in the Congress and on the websites..
Is it the Filibusters? ( From Dutch Frijbeuters)
in Re to
https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2023/09/unforced-variations-sep-2023/#comment-814499
Dear Carbomontanus,
my sentence about 100 % relative humidity in polar regions referred to the graphics
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/5/5f/RH_wiki.png
of annual average relative humidity offered by Piotr on September 17
https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2023/09/unforced-variations-sep-2023/#comment-814439
under link “See”.
I am aware that actual relative humidity in other places can reach 100 % as well.
As regards continuing confusion in the discussion about relationship between water cycle intensity and greenhouse effect of water vapour, it requires a more detailed reply.
I think that the confusion partly originates in use of ambiguous terms like “water vapor” or “vaporization” instead of unequivocal terms “absolute air humidity”, “global annual precipitation”. I will try to explain in detail in my reply to Piotr and nigelj, which will follow.
Greetings
Tomáš
in Re to
https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2023/09/unforced-variations-sep-2023/#comment-814466
and
https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2023/09/unforced-variations-sep-2023/#comment-814471 .
Dear Piotr,
I fully agree that also air parcels not fully saturated with water vapour can ascend (and become saturated due their radiative cooling in higher altitudes) as soon as they become more saturated with water (and, thus, become “lighter” in comparison with drier air parcels having the same temperature).
That is exactly why I doubt about validity of your original assumption that all air volume NOT saturated with water must become saturated first before an increase in global rainfall occurs. This was at least the way how I understood the paragraph
“See all the volume of air that has RH<100% – this is the place which has room for ADDITIONAL abs. humidity WITHOUT condensation, i.e. regardless whether you with shurly shorten the residence time of water in the atm. or not."
in your post
https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2023/09/unforced-variations-sep-2023/#comment-814439
of September 17.
Should this understanding be mistaken and you have in fact never assumed something like this, I apologize.
Please consult also my recent reply
https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2023/07/area-based-global-hydro-climatological-indicators/#comment-814525
to your related post
https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2023/07/area-based-global-hydro-climatological-indicators/#comment-814469
of September 18.
I hope it helps moving our discussion forward.
Greetings
Tom
in Re to
https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2023/09/unforced-variations-sep-2023/#comment-814495
Dear Nigel,
Thank you very much for your feedback.
I thought about your experiment and arrived to a preliminary conclusion that in the arrangement you have proposed, it would likely not give any useful output.
Reasoning
Let us assume that both rooms (or artificially made experimental chambers) are perfectly vapour-tight. It is a necessary condition, because there is a common agreement that water escape from Earth (that in fact does exist in some extent, due to water splitting into oxygen and hydrogen by energetic rays in upper atmosphere, and a slight hydrogen escape into space) does not play any measurable role in Earth energy flow balance.
Let us further assume that both chambers are maintained at the same temperature, and the amount of water in both chambers is the same.
Then, we will finally arrive at exactly the same air humidity in both chambers in your arrangement, and the only difference will be in the time necessary for establishing this steady state.
The reason why this design does not give any useful information with respect to the relationship between steady state temperature, air humidity (size of the water vapour pool in the chamber) and intensity of water cycle in the chamber (commensurate to the extent of latent heat flux) is simple – there is no water cycle and no related latent heat flux in the steady state established in such experiment.
I think that for modelling the sought relationship in a qualitatively relevant framework, we may need a more complex arangement, comprising at least the following additional elements:
(i) heated floor, and
(ii) cooled ceiling.
Possibly also thermally insulated walls, and maybe further details that I am not currently able to evaluate properly. Please give me a few days time, I think your idea of an educative experimental model definitely deserves a thorough consideration.
For further aspects touched in your post, please look on my recent replies to Piotr
https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2023/09/unforced-variations-sep-2023/#comment-814529
and
https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2023/07/area-based-global-hydro-climatological-indicators/#comment-814525
Greetings from Dresden
Tomáš
@ Tomas Kalisz
I may allready have answerede and it is getting tothin here.
I looked at your reference to worldwide relative moisture, that shows weightpoints at the poles and in the tropicaql rainforests and minima in the great deserts
Which allows certain conclusions.
1: Drought is a function of moisture and temperature. . That is an old rule.
2 Both poles in normal states are high pressure areas with quite clear sky and extreemly low percipitation. Lower than Sahara. Thus, averaged relative moistures in % is hardly a fruitful parameter alone for the intensity of the “water cycle” call it H2O flux.
3 Better look afrter the geophysical and meteorological parameters and how to look after it for yourselfr in nature, for rain and snow or drought, yes or no, and for typical arid and typical wet landscdapes. I look after and keep an eye on the clouds scirrus stratus and cumulus, and look after typical weatherfronts and halos.
4 Also look after monsune water cycles. on large and on small and smallest scale. Try and give that its true, physical explaination first.
5 and for the rest , looki after the weather forecasts and what proper meteor9ology has got to say about it. They allways were our best colleagues and it is quite hard to beat them. Never fight and ridicule them.
6, I read back in the renaissance, Keppler & al that they believed proper zodiacal astrology could tell the tendencies at least of coming weather.
At the time of enlightment rokoko 1760- 90 this changed along with pioneerng philosophers of modern science but astrology weather forecasts followed up in the almanachs until rather recently, see Nicola Scafetta. See also Maria Thun Aussahttage on beekiping. Typical flat earthers and heaveners,…… on how to kill the bees and the crops by supersticion.
Climate surrealism and denialism does clearly relate rather to that state religion.
7, see also Rasputin, Madame Blavatzky, Rudolf Steiner, Stalin, Lysenko, and Scafetta on science and climate surrealism and denialism.
8, Then Keep the Köppen climate system in mind instead of 7.
=============000
I am a great Shaman and amateur weather prophet you see, , able to live in peace with the IPCC because I know all this.. I have the upper grip on progressive denialism and surrealism.
Tomas Kalisz, Sept.20: “ I am aware that actual relative humidity in other places can reach 100 % as well.”
Your earlier post proves otherwise, e.g.: TK. Sept. 18 : ” Please note that there rains over the globe, although surface air humidity is close to 100 % in polar regions only.”
which would prove your claims of decoupling precipitation from humidity ONLY if you believed that rain could form in RH 100% and therefore rain, and yet have annual near-ground
RH <100%. Which blew up your "proof" of decoupling of intensification water cycle from humidity.
So, either you LIE NOW that you knew it all along, OR you LIED THEN – if you pretended
you you didn't knew.
TK: And, just for the sake of good order, it was Barton Paul, not me, who proposed doubling global average humidity in his example.
Nobody “proposed doubling humidity“. Barton worked with doubling evaporation to see if even such massive and unrealistic increase could possibly meet YOUR objective: cancelling the GHG warming with increased evaporation.
And he has shown that it can’t – since (unavoidable) increases in abs. humidity by even 13% would have cancelled ALL cooling of doubled evaporation. Not wanting to accept it – you tried to decouple increasing evaporation from increases in humidity (see above).
TK: “As regards continuing confusion in the discussion about relationship between water cycle intensity and greenhouse effect of water vapour, it requires a more detailed reply.
No, it doesn’t. Barton have already addressed Shurly’s and your claims of decoupling increases in evaporation from increases in abs. humidity, and I have explained to you, several times, in much more detail and in simplified for you language – the same, In response you had a feeling I was wrong, even though your attempts to prove it fell flatly on their face:
– see the fate of your above argument of RH being near 100% only in polar areas
– or your earlier logical fallacy which I pointed on Sept. 17:
“ You took the literature conclusions based on the assumption that ONLY temperature affects global evaporation, to support your scheme that demands … violating the very same assumption“.
So your threatened “detailed reply” is neither needed nor welcome, since it won’t change anything, other than perhaps confuse a cursory reader. Which might be your end game: it’s easier to catch a fish in murky water.
So instead of another rambling all over the place – how about you answer the same simple question that you refused to answer several times before:
“HOW are you going to BYPASS low-altitude air layers with RH100% ?” and thus not increasing the humidity in the layers that do have RH<100%? A really really giant tube?“
in Re to
https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2023/09/unforced-variations-sep-2023/#comment-814541
Dear Piotr,
Part 5
https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2023/09/unforced-variations-sep-2023/#comment-814205
of Barton Paul’s analysis starts with paragraph reading
“We have assumed for so far that the longwave optical thickness of the atmosphere is unchanged by any of these shenanigans. So far, under actual global warming, land evaporation has increased, but airborne water vapor has increased faster. Even if we assume it only increases as fast as the evaporation rate, doubling evaporation would double the amount of airborne water vapor.”
Furthermore, he wrote in the last paragraph of the same post:
“Nominal partial pressure of water vapor for the preindustrial Earth is 366 Pa, yielding τH2O = 0.913 and Fgreen,H2O = 161.05 W m-2. If we double pH2O to 732 Pa, τH2O = 1.162 and Fgreen,H2O = 204.98 W m-2, for an increase of 43.93 W m-2 in Fgreen. This is more than enough to offset the net 9.48 W m-2 from doubling evaporative cooling.”
Clearly, Barton Paul indeed considered doubling absolute mean global air humidity as a necessary condition for (mistakenly assumed) doubling of global evaporation (water cycle intensity). I wrote mistakenly assumed, because in accordance with latent heat flux increase above land only, as assumed in Part 1
https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2023/09/unforced-variations-sep-2023/#comment-814201
of Barton Paul’s analysis, the increase in global water cycle intensity should be 12.6 % only – see also Barton Paul’s reply of September 12
https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2023/09/unforced-variations-sep-2023/#comment-814309
to JCM.
And, it appears from Part 6
https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2023/09/unforced-variations-sep-2023/#comment-814206
of Barton Paul’s analysis, this doubly questionable assumption served as a basis for his estimation that “airborne water vapor must increase by less than 18% for the doubled evaporation to have any cooling effect at all.”.
I wrote “doubly questionable”, because I still doubt also about the second assumption made my Barton Paul, namely about the assumption that a global water cycle intensity increase must be accompanied by a commensurate increase in global air humidity.
In view of very different water vapour precipitation rates above land in different geographic locations, which differ much stronger than the respective mean annual absolute humidities, I suppose that average annual humidity above land does not depend on average annual temperature only (as it can be assumed above ocean) but also on the supply of water available for evaporation. In this respect, it seems to be quite well possible that precipitation rate / water cycle intensity above land is widely decoupled from average absolute humidity and may depend much stronger on the respective water supply.
Notwithstanding the doubts about validity of the second assumption made by Barton Paul, I tried to find out how his limit 18 % will change if the second assumption were valid and the first one were corrected to the 12.6 % increase in average absolute global air humidity. Unfortunately, I arrived at a further discrepancy in the last paragraph of Part 5 of his analysis, which makes attempts for such correction difficult. I therefore asked Barton Paul for a kind review (and possible correction) of his explanations:
https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2023/09/unforced-variations-sep-2023/#comment-814563
I believe that as soon as Barton Paul clarifies Parts 5 and 6 of his analysis, they become a solid basis for finishing the discussion.
Greetings
Tomáš
@ Thomas Kalisz
How often must I tell you,……..
………….. and now you are getting Pepper from Piotr again. He hardly dares to pepper me anymore.
“Nefelai” is an old greek comedy of Aristofanes. About “the thinkery” I never saw or red it, but you find it on Wikipedia and can read about it for yourself .
Luckily, we have a Ludvig Holberg here in the north, who came from Bergen and performed in København. He managed to become professor of metafisica at the University and wrote many comedies, and was named “Moliere of the north”.
“Erasmus Montanus” is his re- writing and re- composition, his , “thefth” of Aristofanes`Nefelai that is greek and means the clouds.
The clouds are quite nebulous and uncertain in science, especially in the climate sciences also, to the extent that tose sciences are honest and responsible.
But there is systematics on it and there is elements of insight also from other sciences such as physics and physical chemistery and perhaps even meteorology and astronomy, that enables us to say rather certain things also about the clouds.
For instance: If heavy rain is seen falling from a thick, high grey cloud with low sun against you so that you clearly can see it,…. and that obvious rain is dissolving in the midde of the air halfway down and not hitting and moistening the ground, then you can say for sure several things about the relative moisture % ts in the air vertically down that cloud and through the air and down to the ground. It is guaranteed not 100% relative moisture near the ground for instance, even over open water surfaces and dark green moist forests, under obvious heavy rain.
But on the contrary, if there should happen to be very tyhick fogs on the ground in Bohemia and in Moravia so that you can hardly drive a car anymore in those fogs and Yr- rain (Microdrops) is coalesqing on the windows so you must use whiskers and still cannot see enough,…..-.. then you can draw another conlusion for quite sure about the relative moistures in Bohemia and in Moravia.
We once had to draw that conclusion for sure driving into such evidence at night in Bohemia. So you surely have local examples also in Moravia.
But next morning it was clear air and clear sight again, but grey weather. In early October.
Sunshine came later, with golden leafs and goldener October.
All this is typical when temperatures are generally falling and there is remaining summer warmth in the moist grounds and in the seas and rivers and air temperatures are falling rapidly. by windstill and net vertical upwards IR radiation. at night.
We have the same now also in the Oslofjord. “Fjord- fogs” Nefelai forming down at the ground and over the summer warm fjords lakes, rivers and meadows. , by slightly above 100% relative moisture in the air. at windstill.
Also out at sea at windstill, thus it is a rather general planetary phaenomenon.
If I were you, then I would set on such possibly Moravian realities and try and understand and explain it, rather than on Levenbsons planetary sciences that may be just borrowed fine feathers.. You may become as stupidified and squareheaded as Levenson by it.
Re: Tomáš Kalisz 22SEP 2023
I didn’t ask you for regurgitation of your previous claims over many pages – I have asked you to answer the damn question that you have been ducking for weeks now, the latest one in the post to which you supposedly “reply”:
Piotr Sept.21: “HOW are you going to BYPASS low-altitude air layers with RH100% ?” and thus not increasing the humidity in the layers that do have RH<100%? A really really giant tube?“
And, you can’t plead ignorance until “ Barton Paul clarifies Parts 5 and 6 of his analysis – his Parts 5 and 6 DON’T give you any way out of my question – you have to come up with the answer on your own, So again:
HOW are you going to BYPASS low-altitude air layers with RH100% ?” and thus not increasing the humidity in the layers that do have RH<100%? A really really giant tube?“
in Re to
https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2023/09/unforced-variations-sep-2023/#comment-814471 ,
https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2023/09/unforced-variations-sep-2023/#comment-814541
and
https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2023/09/unforced-variations-sep-2023/#comment-814580 .
Dear Piotr,
My reply is short:
I do not propose how to bypass any low-altitude air layers, because I do not see a reason to do so.
I finally grasped that in Part 5
https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2023/09/unforced-variations-sep-2023/#comment-814205
of Barton Paul’s analysis, the number 0.348 in equations (9) and (10) is an exponent. If F = 240 W/m^2 is average solar radiation flux absorbed by Earth, then I can also confirm the values Barton Paul calculated for tau and FgreenH2O. Calculated analogously for p = 366 Pa increased to 412 Pa only (instead of the erroneously assumed doubling), tau becomes 0.951 and FgreenH2O becomes 167.76 W/m^2. The upper limit of greenhouse effect caused by additional water vapour, calculated for the case that doubling of the latent heat flux above land is accompanied by doubling water vapour pressure above land, is in this case 6.71 W/m^2.
Thus, if we assume that latent heat flux increase must be accompanied by a commensurate increase in average absolute air humidity, only ca 71 % of the surface cooling 9.47 W/m^2 achieved by assumed latent heat flux increase would be compensated by increased greenhouse effect of water vapour.
Let us now return to my Sahara thought experiment discussed in
https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2023/05/unforced-variations-may-2023/comment-page-2/#comment-811872 ,
https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2023/06/unforced-variations-jun-2023/#comment-812091 ,
https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2023/06/unforced-variations-jun-2023/#comment-812192
and
https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2023/07/unforced-variations-july-2023/#comment-813242 .
Average absolute humidity over Sahara is ca 7.5 g H2O in one cubic meter, what corresponds ca 946 Pa. In my example, I assumed latent heat flux increase by an artificially enhanced water evaporation in this area ca 51-times, from ca 2 to ca 102 W/m^2.
I do not think that during this “experiment”, average absolute humidity must remain exactly at 7.5 g H2O in one cubic metre, unfortunately, I do not know a recipe how its value could be predicted easily. I just made a few calculations using Barton Paul’s equations and found out that e.g. increasing average absolute partial water pressure above Sahara to 2000 Pa would have still cancelled only 2/3 of the cooling caused by the assumed latent heat flux.
I think that provided examples sufficiently show that there may exist cases when increased water cycle intensity does not necessarily need to cause a vapour concentration increase which would cancel a prevailing part of the surface cooling effect of the increased latent heat flux.
Furthermore, I would rather expect that if simplified models like present Barton Paul’s calculations contradict the view of the big science, there would have been studies showing the different outcome of a detailed view on basis of sophisticated models and computations.
It appears, however, there are hardly any studies on the complex influence of an artificial water cycle intensity modification on global and/or regional climate yet.
I think it may be one of the reasons why Makarieva et al
https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/ffgc.2023.1150191/full
ask their questions regarding the lapse rate treatment in present climate models and express their concern that (in)sensitivity of the present climate models to water cycle changes may not reflect reality.
It was exactly the reason why I several months ago tried to ask Dr. Schmidt if these questions might perhaps deserve also an attention from Real Climate scientists.
Greetings
Tomáš
T Kalisz
Again, you make it too difficult for yourself.
I was ingenious here, mentioning Aristophanes fameous comedy `Nephelai, that is greek and means The couds, a classical greek commedy about the thinkery,
And even more precise pointing to Ludwig Holbergs https://Erasmus/Montanus, also found on Wikipedia.
That is a comic sarchasm from 1723 about psevdo- scientific and academic snobbery , about borrowed fine fearthers that makes no fine birds.
Rasmus Berg ( Erasmus Montanus) from Sjelland, where te earth is quite flat, was tricked and forced by the serious peasant community by help of the Royal Church and Army also, to resign on all his superfricious modern higher learnings of logics and systematics and chosmology from the University, to get down to earth in rural Skjelland again where the earth is flat, and confess that the earth is flat and not cycling around the sun, to be allowed to marry his true love fiancee Lisbed (Elisabeth)
Moral::
all`s well that ends well!
Go see it if ever it comes to Brno also.
Tomas Kalisz, Sept.23 “ I do not propose how to bypass any low-altitude air layers, because I do not see a reason to do so. I finally grasped that in Part 5”
Then keep reading:
BPL, Part 6, the concluding paragraph: “So if evaporation doubles (+100%), airborne water vapor must increase by less than 18% for the doubled evaporation to have any cooling effect at all.”
Grasp that!
TK: Let us now return to my Sahara thought experiment
What for??? Your Sahara scheme is dead – was based on wrong assumptions (like your claim that none of the latent heat is reradiated back to Earth) and BPLs have shown it is not likely to work EVEN if you doubled evaporation (+475,000 km3), much less with the pitifull … +13,000km3 you claimed as sufficient in your Sahara scheme. And with atmosphere over Sahara, given the low humidity there – having much room to increase it
abs. humidity from gigantic extra evaporation there.
Nor mentioning the technical issues of pumping 475,000 km3 of seawater over thousands of km and spreading it over 10,000,000 km2 …
Or of evaporating 47.5 m of water/yr from area of Sahara.
For a comparison, average evapotranspiration from the Amazon is about 1.4 m/yr, and evaporation from the ocean ~1 m/yr.
in Re to
https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2023/09/unforced-variations-sep-2023/#comment-814606
Dear Piotr,
Thank you for your fast reply.
First, please note that 18 % limit calculated by BPL in Part 6 of his analysis does not make sense in view of the error made in Part 5 by assuming doubling global evaporation insted of the correct increase 12.6 % only.
Second, surface cooling calculated originally in my Sahara thought experiment requires a slight correction only, with respect to non-zero atmospheric window. Consequently, the results I am referring to will not differ significantly in the more precise model according to Barton Paul.
Oppositely, Barton Paul’s model is in strong discrepancy with your original assumption that only a smaller part (about 1/3) of the overall convective flux cools the surface – it is, depending on the atmospheric window, in fact about 90 %.
1250 mm of additional annual evaporation in my example is a bold requirement, however, this value might be achievable.
For a check of older posts presented in this long thread, plese do not hesitate to exploit the public track which is easily accessible under the link
https://orgpad.com/s/7zfynb_y5o7
Best wishes
Tomáš
Victor: No sooner do I post a comment, after a hiatus of several months, then I’m (predictably) attacked by the usual contingent of thought police,
Ever thought of posting an original, well-researched, logical comment, consistent with the current knowledge in the field?
In Re to
https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2023/09/unforced-variations-sep-2023/#comment-814627
Dear Piotr,
If you review parts 1-4 of BPL’s analysis, you find out that he obtained his global cooling 1.8 K for global evaporation increase 12.6 % only, not 100 % as he mistakenly assumes in parts 5 – 6.
Greetings
Tomáš
Kalisz Sept.25: “[BPL’s] analysis does not make sense in view of the error made in Part 5 by assuming doubling global evaporation instead of the correct increase 12.6 % only”
You still don’t understand a thing, do you? _Everything_ BPL tested was done for doubling of evaporation Including his result, even doubling of global evaporation might cool by 1.8K only, that even WITHOUT ANY increase in humidity (physically impossible without a giant tube pumping hundreds of km3 of humid air per second, to bypass the undersaturated air layers).
Which means that if he used your Sahara scheme 13,000 km3 increase in evaporation INSTEAD, then assuming for simplicity a proportionality of the response – the cooling from your Sahara scheme would produce = (13,000 km3/ 475,000 km3)*1.83K = 0.05K.
Not really an Earth-shattering result for still a massive, prohibitively expensive and technically implausible scheme of pumping 13,000,000,000,000 tons of water over thousands of km per yr, to spread it uniformly over 10,ooo,ooo km2, while preventing it from sinking into the sands before evaporation (perhaps paving the entire Sahara?).
And all that assuming that all this evaporation of 13,000,000,000,000 tons of water … would not increase humidity in the air above.
Don’t bother with replying with pages of your “calculations” and questions – all things relevant have been explained to you before – and if you weren’t been able to comprehend it then, then you won’t be able to comprehend them now either.
If you want to stick with climate sciences – I suggest taking a course on climate to give you at least the rudimentary understanding of concepts, and the scale of things you are blabbering about.
In Re to
https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2023/09/unforced-variations-sep-2023/#comment-814627
Dear Piotr,
If you review parts 1-4 of BPL’s analysis, you find out that he obtained his global cooling 1.8 K for global evaporation increase 12.6 % only, not 100 % as he mistakenly assumes in parts 5 – 6.
Greetings
Tomáš
P.S.
I already replied on September 25, 5:08 PM, however, that post landed above Piotr’s.
For the sake of good order, I repeat my reply on the right place and apologize for the delay.
Does anybody know anything about this Patrick T. Brown that deniers are claiming shows climate science is generally dishonest, by criticising his own paper? What was his motivation?
He was pointing out a technical difficulty with publishing, and naively failed to realize how his remarks would be taken by the general public. He has been approached repeatedly by Fox, OAN, etc. for interviews and has turned them all down. He’s a perfectly fine scientist but astoundingly foolish when it comes to public relations. He ought to have known better and now seems to be bitterly regretting his actions.
After a couple of rounds with idiotic reviewers who continually misunderstand what you’ve written, MANY of us have gone a little around the bend, sometimes.
I hear that. I had one reviewer for an astronomy paper who I’m pretty sure was a global warming denier, and another who insisted that an expression for evapotranspiration was the wrong one, even after I pointed out that I was using the correct one. It gets wearying. Fortunately, most of the reviewers I’ve had have been competent and helpful.
This Brown study is faintly interesting, but I find it fascinating that this site isn’t discussing Alimonti.
https://rogerpielkejr.substack.com/p/the-alimonti-addendum
GISTEMP has posted yet another ‘scorchyisimo!!!’ month with its August LOTI anomaly of +1.24ºC, the highest August anomaly by some margin. Previous warm Augusts run 2016 (+1.02ºC), 2019 & 2022 (both +0.95ºC), 2017 & 2020 (both +0.87ºC), 2014, 2021, 2015 & 2018 (+0.77ºC).
In the all-month anomaly rankings, Aug 2023 sits =3rd, after Feb 2016 (+1.37ºC) & Mar 2016 & equaling Feb 2020.
The 2023 has the second warmest average Jan-Aug, up from 3rd-placed Jan-July.. A Sept-Dec average of more than +0.93ºC would see 2023 the warmest calendar year on record, an average see before in 2019, 2020 & 2021.
…….. Jan-Aug Ave … Annual Ave ..Annual ranking
2016 .. +1.08ºC … … … +1.02ºC … … … 2nd
2023 .. +1.06ºC
2020 .. +1.05ºC … … … +1.02ºC … … … 1st
2019 .. +0.96ºC … … … +0.98ºC … … … 3rd
2017 .. +0.95ºC … … … +0.92ºC … … … 4th
2022 .. +0.92ºC … … … +0.89ºC … … … 6th
2018 .. +0.83ºC … … … +0.85ºC … … … 7th
2015 .. +0.83ºC … … … +0.90ºC … … … 5th
2021 .. +0.81ºC … … … +0.85ºC … … … 8th
2010 .. +0.76ºC … … … +0.72ºC … … … 10th
2014 .. +0.73ºC … … … +0.75ºC … … … 9th
The ‘scorchyisimo!!!’ is shown continuing into September in the Uni of Maine Climate Reanalyser and so still begs the question as to why this head-and-shoulders ‘scorchyisimo!!!’ situation appeared back in June and continues today.
The BEST August 2023 Temperature Update includes a section ‘Causes of Recent Warmth’ with an interesting graphic showing an attribution of recent global temperature anomalies. This graphic provides an explanation for my question-begging.
The BEST attribution puts values to today’s global warming in terms of five factors – (1) AGW, (2) ENSO, (3) the solar cycle, (4) the Hunga Tonga eruption & (5) the reduced pollution from shipping. (Abnormal levels of Sahara dust over the Atlantic is also mentioned but are absent from the graphic.) Scaling the graphic (which is a bit beyond its call of duty, certainly for anything too exacting), the 10-year warming being attributed to the various factors totals +0.33ºC and over the full 10-years is dominated by AGW (ie GHG forcing), as one would expect.
10 year attribution
Warming (attributed) … +0.33ºC … (actual) … +0.60ºC
AGW … … … … … 60%
ENSO … … … … .. 21%
Volcano … … … … 11%
Shipping pollution . 6%
Solar … … … … … . 2%
But the actual 10-year warming (the BEST record being used here) shows August 2023 is a lot warmer than +0.33ºC 10-years-ago. It is +0.60ºC warmer than 10-years-ago. That is quite a big difference.
And we can repeat this for the more-recent portions of the graphic. This shows the actual warming continues to be far higher than the sum of the attributed factors.
1 year attribution
Warming (attributed) … +0.20ºC … (actual) … +0.35ºC
AGW … … … … ….. 9%
ENSO … … … … … 65%
Volcano … … … ….. 8%
Shipping pollution . 2%
Solar … … … … … 16%
3 month attribution
Warming (attributed) … +0.08ºC … (actual) … +0.31ºC
AGW … … … … ….. 5%
ENSO … … … … … 80%
Volcano … … … ….. 2%
Shipping pollution . 1%
Solar … … … … … 11%
There is perhaps +0.2ºC of warming missing from the attribution, roughly the sort of level of warming that appeared back in June, what the BEST ‘August 2023 Temperature Update’ calls “the surprising recent warmth.” And at time of writing, as shown by the Uni of Maine Climate Reanalyser, it is still with us.
I would suggest it is important to be aware of this “surprising” +0.2ºC. For one thing, if it arrived quickly and if it cannot be attributed to some known factor, it is then not impossible that this “surprising” warming could “surprise” us again by disappearing just as quickly. Or not.
We must end the use of fossil fuels. Do everything you can, even if it seems impossible or it is made to seem impossible by the fossil industry, to make that happen.
Hundreds of scientists signed a letter endorsing the demands of the March to End Fossil Fuels. Take the letter with you to every elected official you have, at every level and ask them to act. Here is the core message:
“With the climate crisis raging all around us – in the form of fires, floods, hurricanes, drought, heat waves, crop failures, and more – we call on you directly, clearly, and unequivocally to stop enacting policies contrary to science and do what is needed to address the crisis. Embrace the demands of the March to End Fossil Fuels:
1. Stop federal approval for new fossil fuel projects and repeal permits for climate bombs like the Willow
project and the Mountain Valley Pipeline.
2. Phase out fossil drilling on our public lands and waters
3. Declare a climate emergency to halt fossil fuel exports and investments abroad, and turbo charge the
build-out of more just, resilient distributed energy (like rooftop and community solar)
4. Provide a just transition to a renewable energy future that generates millions of jobs while supporting
workers’ and community rights, job security, and employment equity.”
https://www.foodandwaterwatch.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/09/March-to-End-Fossil-Fuels-Scientist-Letter-to-Biden_Format.pdf
The good news is that the legal route might ultimately solve the climate emergency, by getting fossil business out of the fossils or out of business, from the huge win in Held vs. Montana to n ongoing lawsuits in the US, to the 6 young Portuguese taking 32 European countries to court over climate policies.
Of possible general interest.
A History of Climate Denialism
1A, WAMU NPR
Broadcast a few days ago, you can listen here:
https://the1a.org/segments/a-history-of-climate-denialism/
re: my comment above on the history of climate denialism, that last line should have been part of the blockquote.
Radge Havers:
Of possible general interest.
A History of Climate Denialism
1A, WAMU NPR
Broadcast a few days ago, you can listen here:
https://the1a.org/segments/a-history-of-climate-denialism/
V: I’ve refrained from posting here for some time, but the thinking exhibited by the amateurish author of this new book is so typical and at the same time so misleading, I could not resist responding. What it all boils down to is yet another conspiracy theory: those greedy fossil fuel magnates and their (well paid) shills are blatantly lying to the public to protect their own dastardly interests. Yes, folks, it’s that simple. And as a result the pressing need to “take action” to “tackle” climate change is being systematically undermined by the cultivation of systematic climate “denial.” What such action actually might entail if it’s actually going to make a significant difference, is, as always, simply assumed.
Real climate scientists consult evidence garnered over long periods of time, but lately public attention is being directed to certain extreme events of the last year or so. In the past, most scientists would have referred to such events as “noise.” But now that it suits them, a great many have decided such events are a sure sign of nothing less than “climate catastrophe.” And anyone evil enough to contest this conclusion is denigrated, as not only a “denier,” but a liar as well.
Recently, a peer-reviewed paper authored by respected scientists Gianluca Alimonti et al., presenting long-term evidence to the contrary, was retracted by its publisher (Springer) due to complaints by certain climate scientists long known as activists. The questionable basis for this action has been strongly contested by no less an authority than Roger Pielke, in two extensive blog posts: https://rogerpielkejr.substack.com/p/the-alimonti-addendum and https://rogerpielkejr.substack.com/p/think-of-the-implications-of-publishing
According to Pielke, “To be clear, there is absolutely no allegation of research fraud or misconduct here, just simple disagreement. Instead of countering arguments and evidence via the peer reviewed literature, activist scientists teamed up with activist journalists to pressure a publisher – Springer Nature, perhaps the world’s most important scientific publisher – to retract a paper. Sadly, the pressure campaign worked.”
The retracted paper can be found here: https://link.springer.com/article/10.1140/epjp/s13360-021-02243-9
Hey Weaktor,
We’ve missed our favorite denialist chew toy! Well, rather than listen to Roger the Dodger, I thought I’d read what someone respectable had to say. The retraction says that a review of the data by scientific experts found that the data did not support the conclusions. That is not surprising given that none of the authors was really expert in the field on which they were writing. One was an atmospheric scientist. One had done some very limited writing on consequences of warming in areas like Viticulture, and two are particle physicists. None of they have any sort of expertise or experience investigating the sort o climate catastrophes likely to occur as we continue to warm.
I would also note that this is a difficult subject. It takes a low of experience and expertise to tease out which statistics are likely to be sensitive enough to climate trends as they now stand. The peer review should have included subject matter experts to begin with, but I doubt the European Physical Journal Plus has much experience reviewing papers on this subject. BTW THAT should have been a red flag as well. If you are submitting a paper to a journal that doesn’t normally publish that subject, one has to ask, “Why?” It demonstrates either an unfamiliarity with the field by the authors, perhaps…or it can represent an intent to deceive the peer reviewers. Suspicious in any case.
So, sorry Weaktor. Nothin’ to see here. I would say that you can pick up the ashes of your credibility at the door, but your didn’t really bring any to begin with.
Victor
“I’ve refrained from posting here (my comment: what a relief that has been) for some time, but the thinking exhibited by the amateurish author of this new book is so typical and at the same time so misleading, I could not resist responding. What it all boils down to is yet another conspiracy theory: those greedy fossil fuel magnates and their (well paid) shills are blatantly lying to the public to protect their own dastardly interests. Yes, folks, it’s that simple. And as a result the pressing need to “take action” to “tackle” climate change is being systematically undermined by the cultivation of systematic climate “denial.” What such action actually might entail if it’s actually going to make a significant difference, is, as always, simply assumed….”
Victor is wrong, and he’s displaying his lack of knowledge of history. The fossil fuels industry has engaged in climate denialism,and there has been a conspiratorial element with some of the industry. While most conspiracies have no credibility some are real, eg the libor scandal proven in court. The following is just one example of the fossil fuels industry spreading denialism and internally conspiring to do so:
“Exxon disputed climate findings for years. Its scientists knew better. Research shows that company modeled and predicted global warming with ‘shocking skill and accuracy’ starting in the 1970s…”
“Projections created internally by ExxonMobil starting in the late 1970s on the impact of fossil fuels on climate change were very accurate, even surpassing those of some academic and governmental scientists, according to an analysis published Thursday in Science by a team of Harvard-led researchers. Despite those forecasts, team leaders say, the multinational energy giant continued to sow doubt about the gathering crisis…”
“The current debate about when Exxon knew about the impact on climate change carbon emissions began in 2015 following news reports of internal company documents describing the multinational’s early knowledge of climate science. Exxon disagreed with the reports, even providing a link to internal studies and memos from their own scientists and suggesting that interested parties should read them and make up their own minds…”
““That’s exactly what we did,” said Supran, who is now at the University of Miami. Together, he and Oreskes spent a year researching those documents and in 2017 published a series of three papers analyzing Exxon’s 40-year history of climate communications. They were able to show there was a systematic discrepancy between what Exxon was saying internally and in academic circles versus what they were telling the public. “That led us to conclude that they had quantifiably misled the public, by essentially contributing quietly to climate science and yet loudly promoting doubt about that science,” said Supran.”
https://news.harvard.edu/gazette/story/2023/01/harvard-led-analysis-finds-exxonmobil-internal-research-accurately-predicted-climate-change/#:~:text=We%20now%20have%20totally%20unimpeachable,Harvard%20University%20Faculty%20Development%20funds.
Other commentary on the same issue:
https://www.theguardian.com/business/2023/jan/12/exxon-climate-change-global-warming-research
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ExxonMobil_climate_change_denial
“Recently, a peer-reviewed paper authored by respected scientists Gianluca Alimonti et al., presenting long-term evidence to the contrary, was retracted by its publisher (Springer) due to complaints by certain climate scientists long known as activists. The questionable basis for this action has been strongly contested by no less an authority than Roger Pielke, in two extensive blog posts…’
Blah, blah blah. The paper was retracted because multiple scientists pointed out multiple, undeniable flaws. I think that trumps the views of Pielke – a known climate sceptic/ denialist rushing to the aid of his denialist buddies and making unconvincing claims in blog posts.
V: What it all boils down to is yet another conspiracy theory: those greedy fossil fuel magnates and their (well paid) shills are blatantly lying to the public to protect their own dastardly interests.
J: The following isn’t as scholarly as Nigel’s references, but the source might surprise you.
“Exxon Mobil issued its first public statement that burning fossil fuels contributes to climate change in 2006, following year of denial. In public forums, the company argued that the risk of serious impact on the environment justified global action.
“Yet behind closed doors, Exxon took a very different tack: Its executives strategized over how to diminish concerns about warming temperatures, and they sought to muddle scientific findings that might hurt its oil-and-gas business, according to internal Exxon documents reviewed by The Wall Street Journal and interviews with former executives.
“Exxon’s public acceptance in 2006 of the risks posed by climate change was an early act of Rex Tillerson, an Exxon lifer who became CEO that year. Some viewed him as a moderating force who brought Exxon in line with the scientific consensus.
“The documents reviewed by the Journal, which haven’t been previously reported, cast Tillerson’s decadelong tenure in a different light. They show that Tillerson, as well as some of Exxon’s board of directors and other top executives, sought to cast doubt on the severity of climate change’s impacts. Exxon scientists supported research that questioned the findings of mainstream climate science, even after the company said it would stop funding think tanks and others that promoted climate-change denial.”
Quoted from “Inside Exxon’s Climate Two-Step” – Wall Street Journal, Sep. 15, 2023
Re: “V: I’ve refrained from posting here for some time,”
And it’s been wonderful. You know, in your absence people have occasionally mentioned your name, and my fear has been that they’d accidentally say your name three times in a row, and you’d pop up again like Beetlejuice.
Now I see that I’m the one to have accidentally opened the portal to whatever exotic universe it is that you inhabit. For that, I offer my sincerest apologies to the the people who run this site and all who comment here. I am mortified. I will do penance.
About latent heat flux and evapotranspirations.
Those termjs were new to me until they came up here, and as we can see they are put together by the words Latens, heat, and flux, and by evaporation & transpiration.
So, what is so special?
ENTIA NON SUNT MULTIPLICANDEM PRÆTER NECESSITATEM. according to Roger Bacon,
a very good scientific advgice.
Probably because a lot of you are lacking experience and education on how to see and reallize and apply those rather basic words and conscepts. So you get it as intellectual “scientific ” kits” for uneducated workers, dilettants, amateurs, and consumers,…..
………..that is alltogether blind believers,…….
……..in the form of modules and patented regulated and massproduced artifricial Half- fabricata that you are supposed to use and nothing else in daily life and on your artificially flattened factory floor.
,
So you cannot take it out of raw materials and reality in wild nature anymore, but dependent of having reality and nature also rinsed, sterilized portioned and vacuum- packed and labeled from the experts..
That sales promotion of LEGO= and Playmobil is intensionally stupidifying also in the climate dispute.
You are loosing the grip and training on axiomatic deductive systems in science and in daily life and on the websites / the free market and at war, and become superficially uniformed and ROBOTifried-stupidified, ready for tyranny and artificial intelligence under the experts in anonymeous plural.
I warn everyone against that.
=============000
On how measures are taken, and on how accuracy origines:
I have a story also about that from pysics of pnevmatic oscillators from conscious musical minds point of wiew.
For baroque woodwinds we have woodturning. Where the “Makers” buy the SKF ball bearing on the hundredhs of millimeters, mount it and turn wood “severely accurate” down to the tenths of a millimeter in all irrelevant details along with manifest lacks of technological and physical understanding. And wear down those very sublime SKF ball bearings.
They are buying and just ruining accuracy.
But how did accuracy origine?….. That fameous SKF bearing did actually origine up from sands and dirts and mosses, fire and smoke and watersplash and air blast out in wild nature………… and further all the way up to that very sublime SKF ball bearing that came out on the free market in recent time.
Just to be worn down and ruined again by modern knowitall- barbarians.
I thought it over and found back to human knowledge of a set of certain self- regulating and self adjusting, self-cleansing and rinsing self. centering, self balancing technical physical processes and principles known from alchemy and from the antiques allready, that are also natural.
But it takes Mastersclass and Mastership on that fameous Higher spiritual level, to take it for serious, to know about it, find it in Nature, and to chose it, set on it and rather build on that
Further known as “Gods work” different from Human work and worms- work, on true autentic Masterclass & teacher- Philosopher / GURU -level from ancient on.
Autentic Masterclass tells you to set on some Natural constants and principles that are beyond human warrant to change and to moove on or to improove, , namely on REALIA.
Beware of immitations.
To come to that also in the air and at sea and on earth, in the ices, in space on the planets, and in life and in the climate dispute,…. that takes certain higher spiritual learnings and not quite indifferent which higher spiritual learnings.
“Of possible general interest.”…Whatever else could “real scientists” read if we didn’t read V’s comments of general interest?
“Real climate scientists consult evidence garnered over long periods of time”…However else could “real scientists” go about producing good science if V. didn’t tell us how?
“…authored by respected scientists Gianluca Alimonti et al., … no less an authority than Roger Pielke,”… However would “real scientists” be able to discriminate scientific “respect” and accepted scientific “authority” from “activist” scientists if V. didn’t inform us?
All-in-all a truly wonderful demo of the Dunning Kruger. effect.
Yes.
I looked after dunning Kruger. A definition is “unscilled and unaware of it.”
In combination to that, I would suggest Aisopos` conscept of borrowed feathers, with moral:
Moral:
Borrowed fine feathers hardly makes fine birds!.
They are so “scientific” you see.
Crawatte and titles, labels , fine hats and shiny shoes deodorants and perfumes lipsticks dust powders from leading and fameous institutions worldwide have been quite cheap on the free market.
I had my SPAM mailbox full every day 10 years ago on where and how to buy it.
After that, it came out that “More and more doctors and professors, scientists scientists from leading institutions worldwide are finding that the hockeystick is broken”
re my https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2023/05/unforced-variations-may-2023/#comment-811733 :
…” https://www.thesolarnerd.com/blog/can-solar-panels-be-made-without-silver/#:~:text=Another%20way%20to%20eliminate%20silver%20is%20to%20develop,light%20from%20hitting%20the%20front%20of%20the%20cell.
Before I read that, I actually thought the Ag was used because of electronic compatibility or thermodynamic/chemical stability (eg., don’t connect Au wires to Al wires – you’ll invite the purple plague!) but apparently it’s just because it’s slightly better conductor than Cu. It’s important for front contacts because obviously you want them as small as possible to let as much solar radiation (> bandgap) through. But maybe they could use Al and just make the fingers taller, with sloped sides that reflect most light down into the cell? “…
no, actually it is harder to replace Ag than that, but see: “Undecided with Matt Ferrell”: “The Problem with Solar Panels” (substituting Cu for Ag) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6UI90_YFABA
(linked from my essay (link : https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2023/08/unforced-variations-aug-2023/#comment-813847 – Why a (net)-CO2(eq) tax makes sense (or at least, it did), and also why it may not be enough
–
on that point:
my idea of value in things being natural, ie., not of our design, pertains to aesthetic and scientific value, as opposed to ‘material’ value.
–
, see also: Sabine Hossenfelder: “Capitalism is good. Let me explain.” https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CRPHp2EjNR8
-)
Also, re my: https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2023/05/unforced-variations-may-2023/#comment-811730 – I have since realized it isn’t quite that easy; the economic incentives for outright discarding or recycling degraded panels include optimizing not just area but any BOS (mounting, wiring…) – or at least that which is newly installed as well as longer-lasting than the panels themselves. I expect reuse of old panels to eventually regularly occur, though.
It’s been known for years that copper is a diffusing contaminant and can form deep recombination centers in silicon. Hate these videos that treat the subject matter as a mystery, teasing at first and then dropping a commercial before the reveal. I stopped watching at that point.
I wish I knew that 4 months ago! (….”that copper is a diffusing contaminant and can form deep recombination centers in silicon.“) How about Al? Is there a database out there where I could look this stuff up (diffusivity, electronic+optical impact, potential for chemical reaction (eg. intermetalic compounds).
(It’s just as well, then, that the “solarnerd” link no longer goes to what I had cited; it only had half (or 1/3) of the story.)
You can skip the commercials by going to the script+citations under “more”: https://undecidedmf.com/fixing-solar-panels-fatal-flaw/
Part way through:
…”It’s difficult to get copper to stick to solar panels, so poor contact adhesion has stumped scientists and scared industrialists.” […] “Copper’s tendency to peel may reduce the reliability of cells plated with it, so it’s not hard to imagine why manufacturers would be nervous about making the switch.49”
next paragraph:…” Sure, narrower fingers in copper cells mean less shading and higher efficiency, but if copper diffuses into the silicon below, the solar panel will experience performance losses. Copper diffusion turns parts of the semiconducting silicon into a conductor, shorting out sections of the panel. In general, the potential for copper diffusion introduces additional risk, which isn’t something you want for a product meant to last for decades. Creating barriers against diffusion is tricky and adds an extra layer of expense in production. Plus, there’s concerns about how oxidation limits copper’s ability to conduct current.27421”
… Reading farther describes progress made, at least with the adhesion. I’ll have to go through it again to see if achievements have been made in adding a barrier (to diffusion).
Well well. It’s like old times. No sooner do I post a comment, after a hiatus of several months, then I’m (predictably) attacked by the usual contingent of thought police, as so many times in the past. How touching. Makes me feel right at home, I’m getting teary-eyed. I like the bit about the sock puppet by the way — very clever. And the Beetlejuice reference is right on. Mention my name three times and I’ll be there.
David Lipsky, author of a book intended as an exposé of so-called “denialism,” is neither a climate scientist, a psychologist, nor someone with any degree of scientific training whatsoever. Judging from his comments in this interview (https://the1a.org/segments/a-history-of-climate-denialism/), he has a hopelessly simplistic grasp of the views he’s so eager to debunk.
Case in point: “And then by the 1920s, people were noticing that the temperatures were getting warmer worldwide, and this is a great detective story of these scientists trying to figure out what is causing this.” As is well-known, the burning of fossil fuels could not have been a significant factor in the warming trend evident during the first 40 years of the 20th century, as CO2 levels rose only slightly during this period.
And, as is equally well-known, global temperatures fell rather drastically in the ten years following 1940, then remained essentially level until the mid to late 70s, another (roughly) 40 year period, during which CO2 levels were rising significantly. To explain the lack of any warming trend during this period advocates have assumed that the expected rise in temperatures was neutralized by the cooling effect of industrial aerosols. And this assumption is dutifully repeated by Lipsky. As will be well known to my “fans” reading here, I’ve thoroughly debunked this assumption, reporting a lack of any sign of an underlying warming trend in several regions where industrial activities were rare or nonexistent — for the details, see http://amoleintheground.blogspot.com/2021/03/thoughts-on-climate-change-part-10.html
Moreover Lipsky conveniently ignores the controversial 18 year “hiatus” beginning in 1998, when temperature rise slowed down considerably while CO2 levels continued to soar. All this is old news to those reading here, so there’s no point in getting into it again.
As I stated in my earlier post, Lipsky’s book appears to be little more than yet another of the many conspiracy theories now being floated all over the Internet. While the behavior of certain fossil fuel companies does seem to indicate a degree of hypocrisy, the notion that climate change skepticism (aka “denial”) is driven solely or even largely by their shenanigans is little more than yet another straw man. A great many highly trained and experienced scientists share the skeptical view and there is NO evidence the any of them were “paid off.” That’s an outright slander. If anyone wants to make such an accusation about any one of them, let him produce the evidence.
Victor
“David Lipsky, author of a book intended as an exposé of so-called “denialism,” is neither a climate scientist, a psychologist, nor someone with any degree of scientific training whatsoever.”
This is a useless ad hominem. Prove him wrong on specifics . This is precisely what Victor has demanded other people so talk about hypocrisy. And what qualifications as Victor got to be commenting on the climate issue? His degree is in anthropology. More hypocrisy.
“As I stated in my earlier post, Lipsky’s book appears to be little more than yet another of the many conspiracy theories now being floated all over the Internet. While the behavior of certain fossil fuel companies does seem to indicate a degree of hypocrisy, the notion that climate change skepticism (aka “denial”) is driven solely or even largely by their shenanigans is little more than yet another straw man. ”
Who claimed climate denialism is driven solely or largely by fossil fuel companies? Sounds like Victors own statements are a strawman. In my experience most people attribute climate denialism to multiple causes not mainly fossil fuels companies. Those claiming it is largely or entirely from fossil fuels companies appear to be in a minority.
“A great many highly trained and experienced scientists share the skeptical view and there is NO evidence the any of them were “paid off.” That’s an outright slander. If anyone wants to make such an accusation about any one of them, let him produce the evidence.”
Well “paid off” is one thing, but there is certainly a mountain of evidence scientists are PAID by fossil fuels companies one way or the other:
“Six fossil fuel companies funneled more than $700m in research funding to 27 universities in the US from 2010 to 2020, according to a new study.Such funding at universities that conduct climate research can shift not just research agendas, but also policy in the direction of climate solutions the industry prefers, the report’s authors argue.Those solutions typically include biofuels, carbon capture, and hydrogen, according to the research by the thinktank Data for Progress and the nonprofit group Fossil-Free Research. Oil majors also invest in public policy and economics research that favors deregulation.“$700m is probably an absolute bare minimum,” Grace Adcox, polling analyst for Data for Progress, said. “There’s so little transparency around these gifts.”
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2023/mar/01/fossil-fuel-companies-donate-millions-us-universities
https://www.thenation.com/article/politics/oil-gas-university-greenwashing/
“A prominent academic and climate change denier’s work was funded almost entirely by the energy industry, receiving more than $1.2m from companies, lobby groups and oil billionaires over more than a decade, newly released documents show. Over the last 14 years Willie Soon, a researcher at the Harvard-Smithsonian Centre for Astrophysics, received a total of $1.25m from Exxon Mobil, Southern Company, the American Petroleum Institute (API) and a foundation run by the ultra-conservative Koch brothers, the documents obtained by Greenpeace through freedom of information filings show. According to the documents, the biggest single funder was Southern Company, one of the country’s biggest electricity providers that relies heavily on coal.”
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2015/feb/21/climate-change-denier-willie-soon-funded-energy-industry
Well, I’d never claim “solely,” as there are psychosocial and political drivers as well.
But “largely” might be arguable, given the effort and expense that Big Fossil (and allies, such as petrochem companies and all-too-many utilities) has been demonstrated to have applied over decades–plus the probability that the documented portion is far from the whole story, thanks to the ‘dark monies’ that have evaded public documentation. (C.f., Jane Mayer’s “Dark Money,” as well as quite a few less-known books covering similar terrain.) That denialist echo chamber didn’t just build itself; the likes of the Kochs and Mercers were very strategic, intentional, and persistent in building it up.
Kevin, I agree that if you add in things like utilities and right wing foundations the picture changes. However I would say fossil fuel companies taken alone fund and promote about 25% of the denialism. Think of all the other businesses with vested interests in promoting denialism: Power companies, virtually the entire industrial sector, agriculture, transport, right wing foundations and wealthy right wing individuals (which you did mention). Think of the combined size of that sector compared to just the fossil fuel companies. And I’ve certainly seen examples of all these groups pushing denialism.
But its a facts nit pick really, and just a counter to Victors assertion. Clearly fossil fuel companies are a large part of the denialism.
Yes, if the point is that it’s not only fossil fuel companies, but a wider selection of industrial interests, that seems accurate. (Dunno ’bout “virtually the entire industrial sector”, though–that’s a bridge too far for me. But you’re right, this is getting awful nit-picky.)
The bottom line: denialism is clearly and demonstrably well-funded, strategic, and historically all-too-successful. It’s NOT just a few plucky little skeptics with the courage of their scientific convictions, boldly daring to challenge Big Climate. In cameo, it’s Willie Soon producing “deliverables” for a coal-centric utility:
https://insideclimatenews.org/news/21022015/documents-reveal-fossil-fuel-fingerprints-contrarian-climate-research-willie-soon-harvard-smithsonian-koch-exxon-southern-company/
Victor
“And, as is equally well-known, global temperatures fell rather drastically in the ten years following 1940, then remained essentially level until the mid to late 70s, another (roughly) 40 year period, during which CO2 levels were rising significantly. To explain the lack of any warming trend during this period advocates have assumed that the expected rise in temperatures was neutralized by the cooling effect of industrial aerosols. And this assumption is dutifully repeated by Lipsky. As will be well known to my “fans” reading here, I’ve thoroughly debunked this assumption, reporting a lack of any sign of an underlying warming trend in several regions where industrial activities were rare or nonexistent.”
Victor has not debunked the aerosol theory. Multiple people showed Victor evidence that aerosols have a strong cooling effect and travel long distances from their source, as do the cooler air masses, and multiple people gave Victor other information and research studies relevant to the issue.
Victor is very stubborn and has a lot of dunning kruger going on. I don’t know why, but some psychological issues can make people unusually stubborn, like narcissistic personality disorder.
nigelj: “I don’t know why, but some psychological issues can make people unusually stubborn, like narcissistic personality disorder.”
I often wonder. Speaking as an old-timer, age will sometimes do that to a person.
I also have relatives with a baked in view of the world that’s wrapped inextricably into their identity, to whom a challenge to their world view seems like a threat to the integrity of their person. But a few have been somewhat open to persuasion over time, by peers or authorities they have some trust in. It comes down to heuristics, not reason, I guess, notwithstanding that the implications of global warming represent a revolution in thinking of epic proportions. We are set to inherit the wind.
Then there’s Victor saying:
“…I’m (predictably) attacked by the usual contingent of thought police…”
Um, we’re pretty much heroes in our own movies, but he seems to be exceptionally deep into his…
From a meta-literacy perspective, and judging from all the would be Galileos scurrying around, I’d say most of the trolls here apply an outdated paradigm to how modern science actually works, a serious problem of fundamental understanding. No easy fix that I can see…
——
Note; David Lipsky is an author and journalist. No, he’s not qualified to publish in scientific journals (neither is Victor by they way) but he is well qualified and capable of writing a social history of denialism. Conflating the two spheres of expertise won’t wash.
Nigelj
The best term is in French. Delire de negation. On Cotards syndrom.
nigelj
Aerosols, volcanic activity, climate oscillations have all been used to in an attempt to explain why climate models fail to predict the cooling periods and “pauses” in temperature. The science is far from settled here either because it’s wrong, or because the complexity is beyond our current understanding.
There is a simple alternative explanation, which is variations in solar forcing as shown here:
https://github.com/bobf34/GlobalWarming/blob/main/hybridmodel.md
Here’s a simplified version implemented in Excel for those that don’t want to scrutinize python code.
https://localartist.org//media/SunspotPredictionExcel.xlsx
Disclosure: I’m not funded by anyone.
Robert Cutler Sept. 24: “ The science is far from settled here either because it’s wrong, or because the complexity is beyond our current understanding.”
And you hope to solve the complexities beyond the understanding of teams of climate scientists running massively complex 3-D models on supercomputers – with …. a few lines in Python?
PS. Check my invention, described in Matlab. I call it: “Wheel” (a square-cross-section structure you mount underneath of what I call: “cart”, for fast moving forward).
I am currently working on the further refinements – if I find a way to tie komodo dragons to the cart, the cart might possibly move even faster. I still have to run some simulations to see whether it is more advantageous to have them tied at the front of the “cart”, or at the back. I think Elon Musk might be interested in my invention – his Tesla would never work.
R. Cutler: Disclosure: I’m not funded by anyone
I am … not surprised.
Hr R.Cuttler
denying the role of S IV, (sulphuric acid nano and microparticles) in the atmosphere due to combustion of worst coal and heaviest oil in enormeous quantities for open chimney without any shrubbing,…….and…. massive vulcanic eruptions,…that give their typical shorttime marks on the worlds temperatures,…
………..is a hopeless sale of state religious industrialized surrealism and denialism, that pollutes our open access websites.
RC: Here’s a recent paper based on sunspots controlling climate that has been retracted (among many others). Your idea is no different, so read it carefully and decide whether you want to follow this path to oblivion: Two main temperature periodicities related to planetary and solar activity oscillations
Robert Cutler. Thanks for the suggestions however I dont have the expertise to evaluate the methodology and conclusions in your two links so perhaps someone else could.
I would however refer you to this link figure 2.
https://skepticalscience.com/solar-activity-sunspots-global-warming.htm
It shows warming plotted against solar irradiance for the last 140 years. Just eyeballing this chart, there does not seem to be any correlation between solar irradiation and warming for the entire 140 year period, or at most it would be weak.
There does not seem to be a correlation between warming and solar irradiance after 1980.
There might be a weak correllation between warming and solar irradiance 1940 – 1970. You would also have to consider whether the changes in solar irradiance were strong enough to have any meaningful impact on temperatures, which was absent from your links. My understanding is its not a strong effect. So its far from conclusive that solar trends fully explain the flat period of temperatures mid last century. Of course it might have contributed something..
Hi nigelj,
The https://skepticalscience.com/solar-activity-sunspots-global-warming.htm plots show nothing more than a moving average of the sunspot signal, which is, more or less, tracking the amplitude modulation of the Gleissberg sunspot cycle. This is not the whole of solar activity. The process of reducing the sunspot signal to amplitude, cycle length, or to tones in a harmonic model needlessly throws away a lot of potentially useful information. My model, simple though it is, is responding to more of the information encoded in the sunspot signal, which is a proxy for solar activity, not the solar activity. Obviously the complexity in the my prediction isn’t coming from the model.
The other problem with the skepticalscience article, and many like it, is that it assumes that the earth responds instantly to solar forcing, when in fact the earth appears to have a long thermal response (e.g. deep oceans) that integrates sustained solar forcing. There is a faster response of surface temperatures, but there’s a longer response as well. A kettle doesn’t start boiling the instant I turn on the heat.
Finally, almost everyone assumes that TSI is the only component of solar forcing. What my model is suggesting to me is that solar magnetic fields also play a significant role. I discuss this in a recent comment to Gavin here:
https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2023/09/as-soon-as-possible/#comment-814402
In particular take a look at this plot and observe the interaction between m(x1) and m(x2) between 1960 and 1980. The x1 and x2 components sum to the sunspot signal, m(x1) is the model applied to x1. Also, m(x1) and m(x2) sum to the same prediction as applying the model directly to the sunspot signal.
https://localartist.org/media/SeperateComponents.png
Obviously I can’t prove that magnetic fields play a role with this empirical model, but I am finding other clues. For example, I can find very little evidence in the data that suggests that 11-year cycle impacts global temperatures. However I have found that the temperature and sunspot data are coherent for the 22-year cycle Hale cycle.
Nigelj: I caution you not to venture down the path so well-trodden by Victor. Correlation is a linear measure of relationship between two variables over the ENTIRE DATASET. Breaking the dataset into pieces and trying to correlate each one based on eyeballing for slope is a form of cherrypicking and statistically invalid.
As you noted, there is also a requirement for an underlying physical relationship for any correlation to be meaningful. That’s fairly obvious for TSI. Not as obvious for sunspots except insofar as they relate to TSI.
Not noted so far is that any phase delay, especially in a cycle, will result in a nonlinear response not captured by correlation, even if there is an underlying causality. An obvious example as a tidal cycle. The overall correlation between moon position and tide height is zero through the full cycle, even though the cause is there. By filtering and averaging, Robert Cutler has attempted to allow for the influence of cycles. However, the choice of filters requires an underlying physical cause. It’s not obvious why there would be a 99 year filter needed, for example.
The result of applying various filters, lags, etc. to a dataset without a physical cause, with an eye to improving the fit of the curve, is generally an overfitted curve that has no statistical or physical significance. The relationship fails when extended beyond the fitting period. It takes a while to verify that you have produced a failure, allowing you plenty of time to pursue another spurious relationship. There was a substantial literature indulging in this exercise up until it became possible do dynamic climate modeling to examine physical causality – instead of relying on solar fluctuations as the only good long-term time series to work with.
nigelj,
The workings presented in the links by Robert Cutler were politely described in another link to Cutler’s website (linked from another RC comment thread by Paul Pukite (@whut)) as being “garbage.” Myself, I don’t believe such politeness is warranted.
The grand finding of crazy-man Robert Cutler is that you can curve-fit sunspot numbers (as a proxy for TSI) onto the global temperature record 1900-to-date. To achieve this magnificent example of curve-fitting you first take 99-year rolling averages of SSN which will then provide the increasing SAT 1900-40 and 1970-to-date. This does leave the wobbles from the 11-yr SSN cycles which rather spoil the impression of a good fit so the model is refined to provide a curve-fitting which looks much better.
But as this Robert Cutler tells us on his website, “The 99-Year Moving average supplies most of the information in the prediction” so these refinements are pretty-much ignorable.
However, what is also ignored in the account by crazy-man Cutler is the off-set of 13.5 years he uses to prevent the problems caused by these SSN 99-year averages having been flat (if not declining) for the last 20 years. Of course, this is, a period when temperatures have been obviously rising.
But let’s be positive: this 13.5 year off-set. It does mean Cutler’s curve-fitting would allow a prediction of zero increases in SAT through 2016-36. He’s not brave enough to tell you that himself.
Cutler also ignores the predictions in his model of pre-1900 SAT with the bold assertion “sunspot data accuracy prior to 1800 limits prediction accuracy prior to 1900.” But don’t be fooled. The sunspot data back to 1700 is accurate enough for his purpose and it doesn’t yield an SAT profile which looks anything like the SAT records. The deviation 1885-1905 amounts to 0.5ºC but this isn’t the real problem. Cutler tells us “As the model can’t predict volcanoes and minor climate oscillations, the temperature will fluctuate around the prediction.” and volcanoes could at a pinch explain why his grand model fails to capture a 0.5ºC cooling 1885-1905. But the SAT records run back to 1850 and what volcanoes will not begin to explain is the +0.3ºC warming predicted in his grand model 1850-85.
The main take-away presumably intended from Cutler’s pile of steaming garbage is that, with the solar effect on global temperature providing ” most of the information in the prediction,” the role of CO2 in global temperature is thus diminished sixteen-fold. So presumably ECS will likewise be diminished to something like 0.2ºC.
And do take on board the warning given by Paul Pukite (@whut) in the comment I linked above. Robert Cutler “can’t handle a rigorous discussion.” Mind he does do a pretty good job with producing muddled thinking.
John Pollack
You wrote “Robert Cutler has attempted to allow for the influence of cycles. However, the choice of filters requires an underlying physical cause. It’s not obvious why there would be a 99 year filter needed, for example. ”
While desirable, a physical cause is not a requirement for an empirical model. That said, I do have an explanation for ’99’ which I hope to make public in the coming weeks, certainly by the end of the year. When the paper is available, I’ll put a link on my github page.
When I first discovered the model by randomly performing a 100-year moving average I too was skeptical, and also very surprised that no one had discovered this before. My skepticism worsened when I discovered how sensitive the results were to changing the moving-average length. In the past I’ve come to associate overly sensitive parameters with spurious correlations, This is especially true for parameters for which there wasn’t an obvious reason for the value. The thing is, the result didn’t look like a spurious result. The results were too detailed, and everything was causal. For that reason was motivated to try and solve this puzzle.
When I first started trying to understand how the model worked — if it worked — I made the same mistake I’ve seen many others make when they see my result for the first time, I took an earth-centric view of the problem. To understand this model requires a system approach. That’s one of the reasons you’ll find code on my github site for downloading Wilcox Solar Observatory synoptic data.
MAR,. Thanks for that convincing explanation on Robert Cutlers methods, and going to the trouble of writing it. I get the general idea. Sounds like what I believe is called “mathturbation.” Thanks to John Pollack as well.
Robert Cutler:
My most fundamental objection to your procedure is that it is indeed an empirical method. I see that as an unnecessary sidetrack to a successful and wide-ranging program to develop and improve dynamic climate models, and to research the important physical processes that produce uncertainties in those models.
My outlook is heavily influenced by my experiences as a weather forecaster. 50 years ago when I started, weather modeling was in its early stages, and there was an abundance of empirical rules used to make a “cookbook” forecast. These were needed because of unreliable model performance and a need for detail. In retrospect, the rules that worked fairly well had an underlying dynamical explanation, but you still needed to be cautious about applying them to situations where they might not be valid. Failure to do so resulted in some nasty forecast surprises. I still remember the time I was off by 40F on a high temperature forecast for the next day, among other egregious examples. You had to learn from mistakes, or you wouldn’t get better. The rules that didn’t work out tended to be the ones that had no root in comprehensible dynamics, such as those involving timing and cycles. The might seem to do well for a while, but would let you down when you needed them, and with no prospect of improvement. The only cycles that survived winnowing have a substantial dynamic component, such as the Madden-Julian Oscillation, and of course ENSO. Even with those, we are better off understanding the dynamics, rather than just applying rules of thumb.
In that context, you aren’t going to convince me about the influence of any putative solar cycle lasting approximately 100 years. As a generic consideration, the statistical tests needed to assure it isn’t some random production of cycle hunting would require many hundreds of years of data, which is lacking. Specific to your current product, that error from 1880-1900 sticks out like a sore thumb. It’s a warning sign of an overfitted curve. Adding another epicycle won’t cure the underlying problem, either.
I don’t know what you mean by a system approach rather than an earth-centric view. I’m not sure how it would address my methodological concerns.
John Pollack
You wrote “My most fundamental objection to your procedure is that it is indeed an empirical method. I see that as an unnecessary sidetrack to a successful and wide-ranging program to develop and improve dynamic climate models, and to research the important physical processes that produce uncertainties in those models.”
How can accurate dynamic climate models be developed without properly accounting for solar activity? How can an empirical model, which appears to explain a lot of the detailed dynamics in global temperature, be deemed an unnecessary sidetrack? Sorry, but that sounds more political than scientific. Granted, there are a lot of questionable models that should be ignored, but not this one. I don’t say that because I discovered it, I say that because of simplicity of the model coupled with the amount of detail in the prediction, all of which is coming from a solar proxy dataset that is unbiased by climate,
https://github.com/bobf34/GlobalWarming/blob/main/hybridmodel.md
About the prediction failing prior to 1900. Your response is fair, and I originally had similar concerns. I also knew that by making that failure public it would be seized upon as a lifeline by anyone who wants to unsee the post 1900 result, or prevent others from seeing it. Let me explain why I’m no longer as concerned about that divergence. While I believe poor sunspot data is the reason for that particular prediction failure, there are three possible contributors: poor sunspot data, poor temperature data, and a model failure.
Starting with the temperature data. While the pre-1900 global temperature data is less accurate due to of a lack of global monitoring stations, I could find no reason to believe that the temperature data was a significant contributor to the prediction error,
As for the sunspot data, there were very few observers and observations prior to 1800. I’ve read several papers on the challenges associated with piecing together early sunspot records. There’s a link to one of the papers on the github page . Allow me to quote from another highly cited paper. (Hoyt and Schatten, 1998), They wrote: “Our major conclusion is that solar activity for 1700 to 1882 is lower than that given by Wolf by 25 to 50%.”. Based on that comment I ran an experiment where I decreased the amplitude of the sunspot data prior to the Dalton minimum by 25%. With that modification I found a significantly better match between the prediction and the temperature. This is why I suspect sunspot data is the major contributor to the prediction error prior to 1900.
As for the model failing, that’s possible because I know for a fact that the model likely won’t work without some minor tweaks over a different one or two century time period. The reason I know that is that the 99-year length is determined by the sun, and the sun changes over time. Over a different time period, a different moving-average length might be required. I also know that the model is short relative to some of the hypothesized longer cycles (e.g. the 2400 year Hallstatt cycle) .
You and others keep mentioning overfitting. So let me address that. The core model has exactly one parameter that affects shape, the moving average length. It’s pretty hard to overfit with one degree of freedom. Length is tweaked a bit to minimize error, but the amount of tweaking is highly constrained by solar characteristics.
You won’t get any arguments from me about the need for longer datasets. That said, I was able to perform some credible frequency-domain statistical analysis, which will be included in the paper. While it might take another 100 years of data to prove the model correct, it could only take a few years to prove it wrong. If temperatures start rising significantly between now and 2036, then the model is wrong.
As for my system approach comment, the moving average model is not the impulse response of global temperature to solar forcing. This much should be obvious as a boxcar shape is not in any way a credible thermal response. If we think of the sun-earth system we have; solar activity; solar activity which influences global temperatures (e.g. TSI and/or solar magnetic fields); solar activity affecting sunspot generation; and finally, the earth’s response to that solar activity. The model has to extract solar activity from the sunspot data, then extract solar activity that affects climate, and then model the earth’s response. That’s actually a lot to ask from a simple filter.
John Pollack
You wrote “My most fundamental objection to your procedure is that it is indeed an empirical method. I see that as an unnecessary sidetrack to a successful and wide-ranging program to develop and improve dynamic climate models, and to research the important physical processes that produce uncertainties in those models.”
How can accurate dynamic climate models be developed without properly accounting for solar activity? How can an empirical model, which appears to explain a significant number of the detailed dynamics in global temperature, be deemed an unnecessary sidetrack? Sorry, but that sounds more political than scientific. Granted, there are a lot of questionable models that should be ignored, but not this one. I don’t say that because I discovered it, I say that because of simplicity of the model coupled with the amount of detail in the prediction, all of which is coming from a solar proxy dataset that is unbiased by climate,
https://github.com/bobf34/GlobalWarming/blob/main/hybridmodel.md
About the prediction failing prior to 1900. Your response is fair, and I originally had similar concerns. I also knew that by making that failure public it would be seized upon as a lifeline by anyone who wants to unsee the post 1900 result, or prevent others from seeing it. Let me explain why I’m no longer as concerned about that divergence. While I believe poor sunspot data is the reason for that particular prediction failure, there are three possible contributors: poor sunspot data, poor temperature data, and a model failure.
Starting with the temperature data. While the pre-1900 global temperature data is less accurate due to of a lack of global monitoring stations, I could find no reason to believe that the temperature data was a significant contributor to the prediction error,
As for the sunspot data, there were very few observers and observations prior to 1800. I’ve read several papers on the challenges associated with piecing together early sunspot records. There’s a link to one of the papers on the github page . Allow me to quote from another highly cited paper. (Hoyt and Schatten, 1998), They wrote: “Our major conclusion is that solar activity for 1700 to 1882 is lower than that given by Wolf by 25 to 50%.”. Based on that comment I ran an experiment where I decreased the amplitude of the sunspot data prior to the Dalton minimum by 25%. With that modification I found a significantly better match between the prediction and the temperature. This is why I suspect sunspot data is the major contributor to the prediction error prior to 1900.
As for the model failing, that’s possible because I know for a fact that the model likely won’t work without some minor tweaks over a different one or two century time period. The reason I know that is that the 99-year length is determined by the sun, and the sun changes over time. Over a different time period, a different moving-average length might be required. I also know that the model is short relative to some of the hypothesized longer cycles (e.g. the 2400 year Hallstatt cycle) .
You and others keep mentioning overfitting. So let me address that. The core model has exactly one parameter that affects shape, the moving average length. It’s pretty hard to overfit with one degree of freedom. Length is tweaked a bit to minimize error, but the amount of tweaking is highly constrained by solar characteristics.
You won’t get any arguments from me about the need for longer datasets. That said, I was able to perform some credible frequency-domain statistical analysis, which will be included in the paper. While it might take another 100 years of data to prove the model correct, it could only take a few years to prove it wrong. If temperatures start rising significantly between now and 2036, then the model is wrong.
As for my system approach comment, the moving average model is not the impulse response of global temperature to solar forcing. This much should be obvious as a boxcar shape is not in any way a credible thermal response. If we think of the sun-earth system we have; solar activity; solar activity which influences global temperatures (e.g. TSI and/or solar magnetic fields); solar activity affecting sunspot generation; and finally, the earth’s response to that solar activity. The model has to extract solar activity from the sunspot data, then extract solar activity that affects climate, and then model the earth’s response. That’s actually a lot to ask from a simple filter.
Robert Cutler:
“How can accurate dynamic climate models be developed without properly accounting for solar activity? How can an empirical model, which appears to explain a lot of the detailed dynamics in global temperature, be deemed an unnecessary sidetrack?”
Accurate dynamic climate models do need to take into account solar activity. The problem with empirical models is that they don’t “explain” anything dynamic such that it can be incorporated into a model. For example, let’s say that there is a real 99-year cycle of some sort in solar activity. How does it wield its influence on terrestrial climate? It it through TSI, modulation of cosmic ray influx, interactions between magnetic fields, something else, or all of the above? What is the physical mechanism, in sufficient detail that it can be incorporated into a dynamic model? Wouldn’t we be better off trying to measure and understand interactions than cycle hunting? We’d have to do that, even if a cycle is somehow verified. That’s why I call it a sidetrack.
“You and others keep mentioning overfitting. So let me address that. The core model has exactly one parameter that affects shape, the moving average length. It’s pretty hard to overfit with one degree of freedom.”
Here’s how you can overfit. First, assume that a solar cycle of arbitrary and variable length is exerting an influence on Earth’s climate, simplified to a smoothed curve of mean surface temperature. You pick a cycle length (of 99 years), an amplitude of the cycle, and a lag time. Why? Because they give you the best fit. That’s three degrees of freedom right there. Then, you apply a 42-year filter, for the same reason. You filter out the 11-year cycle. Why do that? Do you have evidence that the Sun is wielding a different type of influence on the Earth in a quasi 100-year cycle than in a sunspot cycle? All of these manipulations have been chosen to give you the best fit to 1 1/4 of the long cycle. What’s happening at early end isn’t a pretty fit, and what transpires in the next few years won’t be either, because there doesn’t seem to be an underlying physical basis for your procedure.
“The model has to extract solar activity from the sunspot data, then extract solar activity that affects climate, and then model the earth’s response. That’s actually a lot to ask from a simple filter.”
I agree. I think it’s entirely too much to ask from a simple filter, and it won’t appear to work so well when extended beyond the period from 1900-2020.
John Pollack
“Accurate dynamic climate models do need to take into account solar activity. The problem with empirical models is that they don’t “explain” anything dynamic such that it can be incorporated into a model.”
I think you’ll agree that empirical models are the first step when you don’t have enough knowledge to build physical models, which is where I believe we are today with regards to solar forcing of climate. Empirical models also inform the research for physical models. Did you happen to see my response to the Soon posting?
https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2023/09/as-soon-as-possible/#comment-814402
These results suggest, but far from prove, that global temperature is affected by both TSI and magnetic fields, and that most of the recent rise in temperature comes from magnetic fields. I’ve found further evidence to support this when I compute the coherence between sunspot and temperature data. The coherence is low for the 11-year, and high for the 22-year cycle. I don’t know how to explain that except for the influence of magnetic fields. If the coherence had also been high for the 11-year cycle, then there could possibly be some other odd-even cycle behavior. A 22-year cycle coherence suggests an interaction between the earth’s fixed magnetic field and the solar magnetic field which changes polarity every 11 years. I’ve also found high coherence for a 2.5 year cycle, which is suspiciously close to the length of the QBO, and at a frequency that I also associate with solar magnetic activity.
I’m not cycle hunting and this isn’t a harmonic model, its a simple filter, but the sun does have a lot of periodicities, so I don’t think anyone should be surprised that there’s some link between the model’s length and the sun. That’s why I said the model won’t work elsewhere without adjustments, but believe that it will work with adjustments.
The sun is very dynamic as shown in this next plot. STFT stands for short-time Fourier Transform. The upper and lower graph are for two different observation lengths, the lower graph having better frequency resolution at the expense of lower sensitivity to temporal dynamics.
https://localartist.org/media/stftSunspots100_180grid.png
Rather than your hypothetical 99-year cycle. Look at the 11-year cycle (0.09 year^-1) in the top graph. Now, consider this question. Why is the cycle frequency low in 1920 when the earth was cooler, and high in 2000 when the earth was warmer? Then ask how does the earth respond to the frequency of the 11-year cycle? The answer is, it doesn’t. The frequency of the 11-year sunspot cycle is a proxy for solar activity. Why does the frequency change? I can’t answer that question, but it seems reasonable to me that if the sun’s nuclear core was running warmer, the convection layer might circulate a bit faster.
Let me ask you a question, John. Do you seriously believe that I have enough degrees of freedom in any of the model variants to accidentally predict not just the overall trends, but also a significant number of very distinct features?
https://github.com/bobf34/GlobalWarming/blob/main/images/with_El_Ni%C3%B1o_Events.png
As for the degrees of freedom afforded by the two enhancements. Both the 11-year notch filter and the 42-year compensation were designed by comparing the temperature and sunspot spectrums. I don’t even know if the 42-year compensation is helpful. it may be incorrectly attempting to compensate for a time-variant response of the earth to solar forcing rather than for excessive sunspot energy.
“I agree. I think it’s entirely too much to ask from a simple filter, and it won’t appear to work so well when extended beyond the period from 1900-2020.”
The filter is doing everything I indicated, and will likely work just fine outside of the current period, with minor adjustments to track changes in the sun. The only caveat I’ll add is that it may not work across solar minimums. It is a sunspot-based model.
V: No sooner do I post a comment, after a hiatus of several months, then I’m (predictably) attacked by the usual contingent of thought police
BPL: I keep my Thought Police badge in my upper desk drawer. It’s awfully handy for impersonating an officer.
So, that explains a lot. B.P.Levenson is opening his upper desk draqwer quite oftenly then..
“Den der laaner Aand og Sjel
forskriver sig til Fanden.
Thi,denn der ikke er sig selv
er heller ingen anden,”
SANN.
By Piet Hein / Kumbel. About borrowed, high officer feathers.
Fanden is etym. Finn Fein Faen, old Norse Irish and Frisean psevdonyms for Satan. German Feind,
alian enemy.
Translation:
Who borrows spirit and soul signs under to that man d/o. Because, who is not him/ herself,is also nobody else.
As that fameous man is especially known for sniffing potenciallyly roasted pork.
PS Obviously because they forbid hardcore theology at the Presbyterians Else, Levenson would have known it and found ways rather to resign on it. DS
Victor: No sooner do I post a comment, after a hiatus of several months, then I’m (predictably) attacked by the usual contingent of thought police,
Ever thought of posting an original, well-researched, logical comment, consistent with the current knowledge in the field?
That’s all I’ve ever done.
Nope.
Piotr to Victor: “Ever thought of posting an original, well-researched, logical comment, consistent with the current knowledge in the field?”
Victor:” That’s all I’ve ever done.”
Good one, Victor! You can certainly deadpan with the best of them. Buster who?
That comment alone shows you have no clue about the scientific method. And are too insecure to admit to being completely wrong on the basics. You never learn. You just pretend that somehow you know more than literally every professional atmospheric science organization in the world. And those experts who have spend decades doing research in the field. There is no excuse for your continued ignorance.
Bwwwaaaaaahaaaaahaaaaahaaaa! Oh, stop. Yerkillin’ me!
Weaktor, you are even in denial about your own denial. Until you at the very least accept the validity of statistic and probability, you are ineducable.
Er, no.
You complain of being “attacked,” and that’s probably somewhat fair as the current status quo goes–but then, that seems to be all you ever categorize, or ever have categorized, attempts to discuss as being.
The consequences are that:
1) You never learn anything from these discussions; and
2) You accordingly have long since induced irritation in those attempt said discussions.
Well said
Victor
Piotr “Ever thought of posting an original, well-researched, logical comment, consistent with the current knowledge in the field?”
Victor “That’s all I’ve ever done.”
Nigel: Ha ha ha. Would this be like Victors comments above displaying ignorance of the history of climate denialism?
Or Victors previous comments going back years where he thinks eyeballing a graph is more reliable and useful than mathematically calculating a correlation coefficient?
Or Victors complete lack of knowledge and understanding of the physical properties of aerosols ?
Or the way Victor stated that aerosols couldn’t be cooling the climate mid last century because he quoted a recent study showing the worlds largest cities mostly have low levels of aerosol pollution in 2020? Oh the stunning logic. he should be in class teaching logic with logic like that.
I’ve never seen anyone quite as deluded and stubborn as Victor. And he clearly likes attention, or punishment, or something. I have no sympathy for him. When people like Victor spread smooth talking, misleading nonsense it is really corrosive.
Victor
Why not try and look into Nature and into the faculty of science also to maybe understand reality and nature better?
And not just back into your own history , upbringings and background trainings at the political verbal squit faculty? Where Matter is created and mooved on …. and anihilated again by verbal squit contra- dictions?
What people like and what mooves the souls, that is REALIA. Well understood and trained and shown to, so that your readers and lookers and listeners also can share a glimpse of it.
And you never buy that industrially producel labeled and vacuum packed from the experts.
Art and performance must stand on knowledge. That is also what comes on museum and into the best schoolbooks, timeless wisdom . Fresh as morning dew, good as gold.
That precept could have been applied much more broadly.
Carbo Sept. 24 @ Thomas Kalisz How often must I tell you,…….. ………….. and now you are getting Pepper from Piotr again. He hardly dares to pepper me anymore.”
THAT’S the reason you think why people hardly comment on your post anymore? ;-)
Genosse:
Why should anyone, when they do not dare oppose me anymore?
Piotr is putting himself into the Target now, having felt rather deeply that I also can aim low and with rough buckshot
That reaction is perverse. .
Gavin et al.,
Is there an expression for the lapse rate in terms of the surface temperature (Gamma = f(Ts))?
nigelj: Victor has not debunked the aerosol theory. Multiple people showed Victor evidence that aerosols have a strong cooling effect and travel long distances from their source . . .
V: Yes, aerosols have a cooling effect. How strong has never been precisely determined. And yes some may travel long distances. But the farther they travel the more they dissipate. The contrast between the long-distance effect of CO2 and the short-distance effect of industrial aerosols has long been established and no amount of fudging is going to change that.
Victor .
“Yes, aerosols have a cooling effect. How strong has never been precisely determined. And yes some may travel long distances. But the farther they travel the more they dissipate.”
We know with enough accuracy how strong the cooling effect of aerosols are enough to be useful in the issue we are considering. And aerosols DO travel long distances. Maps and scientific studies were provided to you that you have not even attempted to falsify because I suspect you wouldn’t know where to even start.
Aerosols obviously dissipate as they travel from their source. So does CO2 although it ends up well mixed in the atmosphere. But aerosols still have a significant cooling effect even dissapated at low concentrations as was shown to you in various studies. Remember also that greenhouse gas warming in the 1950s was quite weak so not hard to counter. Remember CO2 has a significant warming effect at low concentrations.
And cooler air masses at the immediate source of aerosols also travel lengthy distances. We also know oceans were in a cooling phase mid last century which must have contributed to the situation to some extent. You seem to have a lot of trouble understanding that multiple factors operate simultaneously in the climate which is why you come unstuck. And its why I respect the experts that have the time and knowledge to consider this (a good example is the new article called old habits by Rasmus)
“The contrast between the long-distance effect of CO2 and the short-distance effect of industrial aerosols has long been established and no amount of fudging is going to change that.”
No scientific source quoted. Sources showing aerosols can spread widely were given to you.
Your rhetoric is largely the argument from incredulity fallacy: “Argument from incredulity, also known as argument from personal incredulity, appeal to common sense, or the divine fallacy, is a fallacy in informal logic. It asserts that a proposition must be false because it contradicts one’s personal expectations or beliefs, or is difficult to imagine.” (wikipedia)
Victor
You seem not to be too aquainted to the science and discussion of material chemical metabolitic theory.
Thus rather trying to phantacise and construct your own political and unqualified uncritical system.
The time- horizons and halving time constanjts for 1.stand 2. nd order reactions and all this, with both leaks and with catalyzers.
National socialists and dialectic materialists (read old and faiiled pioneering communists and their grandchildren of that bloodgroup and heritage)……..
…………… were never good at the time- axis of the processes in the universe, on earth, and in history, and can allmost be picked up from the mainstream population by that criiterium only,…. and hanged out and pointed at on a common steel- wire loop for display and admiration. That co- relates to so many other psycopolitical things…
More scientific facts for climate change science deniers such as Victor, KIA, to try to come up with more lies/disinformation/references to non-climate scientists opinions to refute::
https://www.nasa.gov/press-release/nasa-announces-summer-2023-hottest-on-record
And next year (2024) may perhaps be much hotter still. Leon Simons tweeted on Sep 25:
https://twitter.com/LeonSimons8/status/1706256107092492625
It looks like the ‘predictions’ by James Hansen, Makiko Sato and Reto Ruedy presented in Sep 2022 for:
* year-2022 ‘prediction’: “approximately a dead heat with 2017” was 0.028 °C under (2017 GISS analysis anomaly relative to 1880-1920 baseline was at +1.19 °C, 2015 was at +1.165 °C, 2022 was at +1.162 °C);
Table 1 at: http://www.columbia.edu/~jeh1/mailings/2023/Temperature2022.12January2023.pdf
* year-2023 ‘prediction’: “2023 temperature should be higher than in 2022, rivaling the warmest years“ is looking to be increasingly conservative – less than 4 months to go to final confirmation;
https://berkeleyearth.org/august-2023-temperature-update/
* year-2024 ‘prediction’: “2024 is likely to be off the chart as the warmest year on record” so far is looking increasingly likely.
https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2022/10/scafetta-comes-back-for-more/#comment-806995
What dissonant contortions will the climate science deniers offer then?
Nigel: Ha ha ha. Would this be like Victors comments above displaying ignorance of the history of climate denialism?
V: My comments were directed at the theory proposed by the author of the book being discussed in that interview, who very clearly blamed “denialism” on a conspiracy engineered by the fossil fuel industry.
N: Or Victors previous comments going back years where he thinks eyeballing a graph is more reliable and useful than mathematically calculating a correlation coefficient?
V: Once again I must direct you to the analysis presented on my blog (http://amoleintheground.blogspot.com/2018/10/thoughts-on-climate-change-part-8-tale.html), which involves much more than “eyeballing a graph.”
The problems with depending on a correlation coefficient are illustrated by Anscombe’s Quartet: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anscombe%27s_quartet
N: Or Victors complete lack of knowledge and understanding of the physical properties of aerosols ?
“The average troposphenc lifetime of aerosol particles
and of their precursor gases is of the order of only days or
weeks This is much shorter than the lifetime of most
greenhouse gases It implies that the atmospheric loading at
any one time reflects the emissions that have taken place
during the past few weeks only. No long-term accumulation in the troposphere is thus possible and any
reduction in anthropogenic emissions will immediately
result in a corresponding reduction in troposphenc
concentrations The short lifetime also implies large spatial
and temporal variability in the concentrations of aerosol
particles.” https://archive.ipcc.ch/ipccreports/far/wg_I/ipcc_far_wg_I_chapter_01.pdf
There are more things in Heaven and Earth, Nigel, than are dreamt of in your philosophy.
And yet, Victor, it is you who repeatedly rejects well-supported information, apparently in favor of a more pleasant ‘dream.’
Victor
When I said above “Would this be like Victors comments above displaying ignorance of the history of climate denialism? I made a mistake. I was referring to YOUR ignorance of the climate denial issue. Your lack of knowledge of how fossil fuels companies have funded climate denial and in at least one case conspired internally to spread denial, despite the fact its own scientists said human activity was warming the climate. As per the references I gave you.
Agree that the lifetimes of aerosol in the atmosphere is short. However aerosols do not have to accumulate to large quantities in the atmosphere over time to have a significant cooling effect. This has been proven by multiple lines of evidence already given to you.
“V: My comments were directed at the theory proposed by the author of the book being discussed in that interview, who very clearly blamed “denialism” on a conspiracy engineered by the fossil fuel industry.”
——
No. Were you wearing your magic wizard hat when you concocted that?
Here’s the link again:
A History of Climate Denialism
https://the1a.org/segments/a-history-of-climate-denialism/
Anyone who is interested, and not comprehension impaired, can listen to the episode and/or peruse the transcript (also available at the above link) and see for themselves. The conversation is lively, and a searchable transcript is a handy thing, IMO.
Victor
You show less aquainted to study and discussion of complex artificial and natural chemical systems, and biological biochemical metabolic systems for instance., and for stating proof, showing evidence, of, and qualified interfering with the same.
It seems obvious to me that you are rather taking it out of your own and from somebody elses irresponsible and unqualified propagandistic speculations.
Thus, I must repeat:
:/Non fingendum aut excogitandum , sed inveniendum quod natura faciat aut ferat./:
(Francis Bacon)
with musical notation repetition marks so that you better read it 2 times.
Your performance here is obviouslly fingendum and excogitandum.
and from Uppsala, their motto for the studies: .
“To think is grand
To think right is higher”
SANN!
. =====================000
I have a local colleague, that you can find by Galleri Finsrud Perpetuum Mobile.
He is professional magician and quite successful visual artist and an eminent technician. With some ticks also. He denies the atomic bomb, the 9-11 cathastophy in New York, and the moon landings. But for the rest he is practical and often talks sense. Today he asked me about a tricky problem in his workshop to make new silicon bite on allready polymerized silicon mass. Which to my surprize shows tricky. I must think it over for next time, because that is important technical information.
And I asked himback about practically available superelastic rubbers. Thus, we do not discuss in vain.
Having a few ticks and obviously fixed crazy ideas that you repeat again and again and again, does not make anyone impossible . But that of being fumbling in your own or anybody elses alternative reality all the time, however popular political and professional and “scientific” seems to me rather unhealthy .
Today we discussed Jehovas withnesses that I had on my door. They live partly in an alternative reality, but it shows that we can also take them down to earth and show them our realities, and they are truly interested, which makes them good after all. Then we can relate and communicate and make the best out of it from both sides.
We managed to give them superbe wild apples knowiing that they are truly interested in pristine Nature. We are sharing some common archetyps of potencially sacred foods and drinks.
But when that shows not possible? When someone shows not adressable on any dogmatic or arcetypical level?
Think over it.
To possibly solve that sillicon problem, I must take to science , to experience and consensus of electrostatics and of chemistery., I could often help him that way and he understands it as an experienced painter, how to make things stick and not stick on the next.
But if I know very much better and deny both elelctroposisitive and electronegative and van der Waals and possible chemical bonds, then I will be helpless and rather able to blatantlly misllead people, like Richard Lindzen did in Domus Academica. fighting consensus for being anti- scientific.
nigelj: You seem to have a lot of trouble understanding that multiple factors operate simultaneously in the climate which is why you come unstuck.
“Entia non sunt multiplicanda praeter necessitatem” — William of Ockham.
Babae. Te desiderari “necessitatem”.
Victor
Let’s summarise the issue. We know there was a flat period of temperatures in the middle of last century from approximately 1945 – 1980. We want to know why it was flat despite increasing CO2 levels. Possibilities include 1) high levels of industrial aerosols, 2) volcanic activity ejected a lot of aerosols during this period 3) the solar cycle was on in cooling phase, 4) the ENSO cycle had weak el ninos, and 5) the PDO ocean cycle was in a cooling phase.
All five factors are known to cause a cooling effect to at least SOME extent, so it seems to me even as a lay person that by simple logic all five factors must be part of the reason for the flat period of the global average temperature. My recollection is scientists have calculated that industrial aerosols and volcanic activity were the main factors in the flat temperatures, with the other factors being a smaller component.
Do industrial aerosols plus volcanic activity violate Occams Razor? No. Do even the five factors violate Occams Razor? No.
Definition of Occams Razor “In philosophy, Occam’s razor …is the problem-solving principle that recommends searching for explanations constructed with the smallest possible set of elements…. “(wikipedia).
Given that all five factors are proven to have a cooling effect, this is the minimum number of elements that form part of the explanation. There just happen to be a lot of them in the same time period which is probably pure coincidence.
@ Victor
You are being given many good advices from friendly, tolerant and civil sides here the best they can.
Take also my good advice and be not a Teflon and a Silicon intruder in the climate.dispute.
Then you will be perceived as something that anything can stick on, and maybe get onward with your mission..
Victor: “Entia non sunt multiplicanda praeter necessitatem” — William of Ockham
Unfortunately, you are no William of Ockham – you missed the “ praeter necessitatem” part.
If 10 different factors can affect a complex system, the explanation using only 1 factor is NOT
superior to the one accounting for all 10.
And on another note:
Victor Sep.28 – “Entia non sunt multiplicanda praeter necessitatem” — William of Ockham
might not be his after all:
“(1) The current formula was unknown to Ockham and the other Schoolmen.
(2) It was invented in 1639, substantially in its present wording, by the Scotist Commentator, John Ponce of Cork”
nigelj: “Given that all five factors are proven to have a cooling effect, this is the minimum number of elements that form part of the explanation. There just happen to be a lot of them in the same time period which is probably pure coincidence.”
V: OK, first of all Occam’s Razor is a heuristic guide, NOT an immutable law of nature. So yes it’s possible for your complex explanation to be correct. Nevertheless, the real point of the Razor is to guard against a common tendency to reinforce dubious explanations with additional hypotheses to prevent them from being falsified. Thus, in Newton’s day, it could always be argued that the Ptolemaic epicycles were just as valid as universal gravitation, since the far more complex epicycles could account for the planetary motions as well as Newton’s much simpler theory.
In the case in question here, the simplest explanation for the flat period, despite increasing CO2 levels, is that CO2 levels have relatively little effect on global temperatures. Additional hypothesis formulated to explain away the simplest hypothesis are “necessary” only to the extent that they bolster your favored theory.
Victor
“In the case in question here, the simplest explanation for the flat period, despite increasing CO2 levels, is that CO2 levels have relatively little effect on global temperatures. Additional hypothesis formulated to explain away the simplest hypothesis are “necessary” only to the extent that they bolster your favored theory.”
It might be the simplest explanation, but its not the correct explanation. The greenhouse effect and anthropogenic warming is based on good evidence. So we cannot just discard it even if it adds another influence to the planets climate, therefore complicating things.
Research on the effects of CO2 emissions on warming goes back over 100 years. Svante Arrhenius found the effect is very significant compared to other factors. Nobody has convinced the scientific community as a whole that his work is wrong. His study here:. Note that he uses the term carbonic acid to describe CO2.
https://www.rsc.org/images/Arrhenius1896_tcm18-173546.pdf
And his calculations essentially predicted 1 degree of warming in the 20th century from industrial CO2 emissions which proved reasonably accurate. If the prediction had proven to be wildly inaccurate it would have made me sceptical of AGW.
Remember the greenhouse theory explains many things well about Earths climate that would otherwise require very complex explanations. For example the planets temperature going back a long time historically is higher than would be explained just on solar energy, yet the GHE explains this.
You dont discard AGW without good cause just because it cannot explain everything easily. You look for cooling factors that explain why there might be a flat period in the temperature record. Remember they are not hypothetical themselves in the sense of things that ‘might’ be cooling factors. They are known cooling factors.
Plate techtonics and the darwinian theory of evolution explain many thing well but struggle with a few issues, needing complex explanations for some of those issues. But the alternative is the allegedly ‘simpler’ explanation of creationism, with its god living up in the sky creating things with a wave of his hand – for which we have considerably less evidence and which requires belief in the supernatural. (I’m talking here about the biblical form of creationism, not the Richard Dawkins idea that there may be a god in the sense of a great power behind the universe that we simply don’t understand at this point in time)
And even if anthropogenic warming theory was false or weak, we still have the flat period of temperatures and it would likely still need multiple factors to explain it.
The Ptolemaic epicycle is a good example of unnecessary complexity. The simplest explanation is generally preferable, but unfortunately it is sometimes absurd, or just doesn’t explain the situation adequately.
Victor. Sep.29 “: OK, first of all Occam’s Razor is a heuristic guide, NOT an immutable law of nature.
Huh? Wasn’t it YOU, who have introduced it as IF IT were an immutable law of nature, … one day earlier??? If your memory does not serve you. let me help”
================
Victor says 28 SEP 2023
nigelj: You seem to have a lot of trouble understanding that multiple factors operate simultaneously in the climate which is why you come unstuck.
“Entia non sunt multiplicanda praeter necessitatem” — William of Ockham.
=====================
See?
The Ptolemaic model, no matter how complicated you make its epicycles, can’t explain the phases of Venus, which were observed in detail by Galileo in 1610, before Newton was born.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phases_of_Venus#History
@ all and everyone
I began this sept month by describing apples.
Yesteday , 30 sept we took down 5 sacks of really superbe quality and drove it to the cider- mill
Which is record for that tree, that is a wild crossing or a seedling, a lucky Malus x-domesticus.. We also have the refrigerator allmost full of apple pourree.
It is still quite warm. Not under +5 C and up to 17 day over.
nightfrost has come as early as end of september here where I live, old measure is 10th october where the potatoes should be dug up. Steady frost dayover at 20 oct. This old rule seems to change a bit now.
Very important also for New England is autumn leave colouring and leavefall. that is primary climate signals.to be seen, understood, conscidered, and discussed.
Leavefall in the high mountains is known to be 1st week of september .with especially strong autumn colours because it is red and yellow carotenoides protecting the vegetation against strong UV light. As chlorophyll is taken back & Magnesium & Ammonium stored for next year, the flaming colours of carotenoides come to sight.
“Goldener october” is a conscept from the wineyards further south. I have seen it both in Bohemia inland and in Rhode Island & Connecticut rather in coastal climate.
Some years ago, our exotic fameous Vitis vinifera (muscato biancho a petites grains) in the sunny wall had frost in september og green leaves. And did fall all leaves in green state. That was cathastrophy and quite miserable harvest next year. But all the other broad leaved loeave falling trees took the same with elegance.
And that perhaps set the northern and frost limit of possible winery, not the winter frost as the wines can take quite deep winter frost after proper autumn adaption and leavefall. But abnormal early autumn frost is disaster for the wines, it seems.
Also for the roses. Those who “Re-mount” shooting and flowering a second time in autumn are the sensitive ones that give troubble and should be avoided in risky climates. But rose cultivars come even from inland climate in Hungaria and Russia where there may be severe winter frost. Those are well winter adapted.