This month’s open thread on climate-related topics.
Reader Interactions
334 Responses to "Unforced Variations: Feb 2025"
Dean Myersonsays
And when I said that “that we had basically won” in my post above, I think “we had turned a corner,” would be more accurate. Now it seems like it was more of a speed bump for the other side.
PS – Just read that the government will be shutting down existing EV chargers at government buildings, decommissioning them.
Piotrsays
Tomas Kalisz: “Dear Piotr, I stepped into the “water vapour warming or cooling” debate […] because I thought that the original question asked by E. Schaffer [was misleading].
And to disagree with the question by E. Schaffer you decide to reply …. to my post:
– which I started with a quote NOT from E. Schaffer but from …. JCM (“JCM: WV contributes 39% to greenhouse effect in S2010“)
– which I devoted to challenge words of not E. Schaffer, but JCM
– and which, in fact, I didn’t even mention E. Schaffer at all?
And then you quoted the words of NOT E. Schaffer, nor JCM, but MINE:
“the large effect of WV make the climate MUCH MORE VULNERABLE to our changes in the … GHG emissions, not LESS vulnerable”
trying to discredit them as a product NOT of a falsifiable logic, but some of subjective …. “strong belief ”
And that’s why have chose my words, not those of E. Schaffer or JCM, as “in fact, misleading” ????
If you can’t take the responsibility for your own words – how are you going to learn anything from your mistakes?
TK and because you mentioned me in your post of 14 Feb 11:00 PM
Huh? My mention of you there had NOTHING to do with WV or “framing of the question”:
– JCM: “I take it as a mark of respect that you chose to engage with me ”
– me: “I wouldn’t read too much into it – we regularly engage with other deniers too – T. Kalisz, Mr. KiA, Ken Towe, Keith Woolard, Victor etc – not exactly because we respect them for their intellect and ethical integrity.”
===
See?
TK I still think that if other state-of-art climate models confirm the results of Lague 2023,
Since Lague 2023 supports my point, based on Clausius-Clapeyron, that we can expect avg. WV to increase with GMST – then why should root for Lague showing the increase in WV in the warmer world – to be contradicted???
As I have said – you have no idea what other people are saying and what are the implications of your own sources. And yet despite that and despite of your ignorance of the subject matter – you lecture others of either “misleading” or being oblivious to being “misled”?
And since haven’t addressed in any meaningful way my core arguments – I’ll just repost them, for the record:
===
No Mr. Kalisz – mine is a falsifiable argument: supported not only by your own sources, but also by Clausius–Clapeyron, the observed increase in WV, and the CERES data:
[…] if we warm the Earth with GHGs – there will be more WV in air without crossing into supersaturation and thus condensation of WV into the clouds The increase in WV with temp can be seen.
– in your own source – Lague (Fig. 6) ,
– in the 7% per K increase the max. capacity of air to hold WV in Clausius- Clapeyron
– in the 6% per K increase in the _observed_ WV in _your_ other source
And since the removal of W V cools the Earth (see Schmidt et al. 2010, Table 3), the increase of WV would have the warming effect. Ergo: “the large effect of WV [on climate] make the climate MUCH MORE VULNERABLE to our changes in the … GHG emissions, not LESS vulnerable”
And since you brought up the clouds – the same rule that warmer air can hold more WV without condensation of it into the clouds: means that as we are warming atmosphere with human emissions of GHGs – that warming will be AMPLIFIED NOT ONLY by the extra warming from the increased WV conc., but would be FURTHER AMPLIFIED by the warming from the reduced cloudiness: seen both in:
– your Lague et al. – See Fig 7.
– and in observations (CERES data)
Therefore, making the climate even MORE vulnerable to the human actions than it would have been to the increase in [GHGs] alone.
====
“it appears that you still do not admit that the message of Lague 2023 can be construed the way that (at least with respect to land hydrology and land climate) the effects (i), (ii) and (iii) of the water cycle may be in a broad range independent from each other, due to limited water availability for evaporation from terrestrial surface and due to water vapour transport from the ocean.”
For your convenience, a reminder what I meant under (i), (ii) and (iii):
(i) the greenhouse effect of water vapour, which is generally warming,
(ii) effects of clouds, which, depending on cloud type, may be warming or cooling, and
(iii) the effect of latent heat flux, which is cooling.
Please note that I no way disprove your argument that
“[…] if we warm the Earth with GHGs – there will be more WV in air without crossing into supersaturation and thus condensation of WV into the clouds The increase in WV with temp can be seen.
– in your own source – Lague (Fig. 6) ,
– in the 7% per K increase the max. capacity of air to hold WV in Clausius- Clapeyron
– in the 6% per K increase in the _observed_ WV in _your_ other source”
I only think that this argument has nothing to do with my question if (and if so, how) water availability for evaporation from the land influences climate sensitivity. Once again:
there may, in fact, be a quite counter-intuitive relationship between latent heat flux on one hand and water vapour concentration (and its greenhouse effect) on the other hand. Namely, the modelling experiments described in this article suggest that water vapour concentration may be HIGHER on Earth with dry continents providing little water for evaporation, in comparison with Earth wherein the land is water-rich and thus provides lot of cooling latent heat flux.
In other words, I am aware of your arguments, however, I have still a feeling that they are based solely on your belief that “water vapour” is a mere feedback to atmospheric concentration of non-condensing greenhouse gases, although at least the results of modelling experiment published by Lague et al suggest that this simple view may be incorrect.
If your basic assumption is in fact false, it is in my opinion well possible that better availability of water for evaporation from the land may in fact IMPROVE Earth climate stability, in the sense that Earth with intensive continental water cycle can be indeed LESS vulnerable to rising atmospheric concentrations of non-condensing GHG than present Earth with significant proportion of continents in an arid hydrological regime.
As I further wrote in my post 21 Feb 2025 at 9:14 AM, I do not say that you are wrong and that I am right – I say only that I do not think that your arguments are falsifiable in this dispute. I personally see more convincing the opposite view, nevertheless, I think that with a reasonable certainty, my question can (and should) be resolved by dedicated modelling experiments only.
Greetings
Tomáš
P.S.
I have not seen any reason to anyhow mention Schmidt 2010, because it is still my understanding that the model used in this work assumed a fixed land hydrology and thus did not touch the question if (and how) climate sensitivity towards GHG concentrations may depend on water availability for evaporation from the land.
P.P.S.
It is still my understanding that Lague et al have not made in the cited 2023 publication any modelling experiment with changing GHG concentration and that their study was not directed to the question how the climate sensitivity towards GHG concentration may depend on water availability for evaporation from the land.
“Since Lague 2023 supports my point, based on Clausius-Clapeyron, that we can expect avg. WV to increase with GMST – then why should root for Lague showing the increase in WV in the warmer world – to be contradicted???”
Please imagine a certain increase in CO2 concentration in Lague’s “desert land”. Let us assume that it causes a certain “initial” surface temperature increase that starts to increase water vapour concentration. Continuing in this feedback loop, we finally arrive at a new steady state, represented by a new, higher mean global surface temperature T1desertland.
I suppose that if Lague et al are correct, the “swamp land” with the same CO2 concentration would have started at a lower global mean surface temperature (ca 8 K less) than the “desert land”. Additionally, I think that the initial temperature increase caused by the same CO2 concentration increase might have been smaller than in the “desert land”, due to more intensive surface cooling by latent heat flux and weaker “cloud dilution” response. These aspects might contribute to a generally weaker feedback loop in comparison with the “desert land”.
In a summary, I think that besides the advantage that the “swamp land” has a better starting position with respect to ca 8K lower global mean surface temperature T0swampland against T0desertland, it may in parallel exhibit also a less steeper temperature increase caused by the same CO2 concentration increment, due to more intensive surface cooling by higher latent heat flux. It would have resulted in a smaller deltaTswampland = T1swampland – T0swampland in comparison with deltaTdesertland = T1desertland – T0desertland, in other words, in a lower climate sensitivity of the “swamp land” in comparison with the “desert land”.
Greetings
Tomáš
P.S.
Your question suggests that you might have missed following four paragraphs in my post of 21 Feb 2025 at 9:14 AM,
I would like to repeat these paragraphs below, for a comparison with my recent attempt to explain the same idea above.
—
“I do not disprove that the greenhouse effect (i) of water vapour in the atmosphere will amplify the greenhouse effect of non-condensing greenhouse gases. The prerequisite for this amplification, known as “water vapour feedback” is, however, a global mean surface temperature increase which – if the model used by Lague et al reflects the reality correctly – may be (perhaps somewhat counter-intuitively) lower in the “wetland” case in comparison with the “desertland” case.
I do not know it – I guess only, in a quite bold extrapolation of the conclusions made by Lague et al, who showed that the global climate in the “wetland” hydrology regime was cooler than the global climate in the “desertland” hydrology regime, although atmospheric concentrations of non-condensing greenhouse gases (GHG) were the same in both cases.
Based on these (still unique and therefore possibly questionable) modelling results, I boldly assumed that, by analogy, if global mean temperature response in the “wetland” to the same rise in GHG concentrations will be smaller than in the “desertland”, then the water vapour amplification of this response could be also smaller in the “wetland” in comparison with the “desertland”.
If so, climate sensitivity to rising GHG concentrations would be lower in the “wetland” than in the “desertland”, contrary to your conclusions that seem to be still based on the direct greenhouse effect (i) of the water vapour only and not considering the possibility revealed by Lague et al. that the effect (i) can be reversed by effects (ii) and (iii). I do not assert that I am right and that my bold extrapolation of Lague et al to climate sensitivity is correct – I only think that this is still an open question that is potentially relevant and therefore might deserve attention of climate modellers. In this respect, you do not need to assign this idea as a “lie”.”
Piotrsays
Tomas Kalisz Feb.23 “ I only think that this argument has nothing to do with my question if (and if so, how) water availability for evaporation from the land influences climate sensitivity ”
Don’t change the subject – you joined the discussion with a claim that my conclusion: “the large effect of WV [on climate] make the climate MUCH MORE VULNERABLE to our changes in the … GHG emissions, not LESS vulnerable” was “ in fact, misleading” [(c) TK]
So before moving on to another discussion – you must come clean on the original one. And no – you “explanation” that by calling MY conclusion “misleading” you … DIDN’T imply that _I_ was misleading – won’t cut it.
TK: “ I only think that this argument has nothing to do with my question if (and if so, how) water availability for evaporation from the land influences climate sensitivity.”
“water availability for evaporation from the land” WAS NOT discussed on your opening claim, NOR is RELEVANT to the discussion of the AGW, since any realistic “human changes water availability for evaporation from the land” are INSIGNIFICANT to the mitigation of AGW. As you have unwittingly proved YOURSELF – with your surreal proposal of irrigation of Sahara (many trillions of dollars A YEAR for 100s of years for …. a fraction of 0.3K reduction in AGW).
As for your trying to prop up yourself by association with Lague et al. – I have already shown that you understood NOTHING from that paper:
TK: 23 Feb: “in fact, a quite counter-intuitive relationship between latent heat flux and water vapour concentration”
thus REPEATING the same claim that I have already addressed in the post you are supposedly replying to:
=======
Piotr 20 Feb: “Which may seem “counterintuitive” only to somebody who refers to Clausius-Clapeyron without having the slightest idea what are its implications to AGW. The higher abs. humidity was not caused there, by the lack of evaporation on continents, but by higher temperature[…]:
if we warm the Earth with GHGs – there will be more WV in air without crossing into supersaturation and thus condensation of WV into the clouds The increase in WV with temp can be seen.
– in your own source – Lague, Fig. 6) ,
– in the 7% per K increase the max. capacity of air to hold WV in Clausius- Clapeyron
– in the 6% per K increase in the _observed_ WV in your other source
And since the removal of W V cools the Earth (see Schmidt et al. 2010, Table 3), the increase of WV would have the warming effect. Ergo my original statement: “the large effect of WV make the climate MUCH MORE VULNERABLE to our changes in the … GHG emissions, not LESS vulnerable”
=====
See?
Unfortunately, I must admit that I have not grasped your explanations yet, how / why you infer from Schmidt 2010 and/or Lague 2023 that higher water availability for evaporation from the land will increase climate sensitivity towards increasing CO2 concentration, although none of these two publications addresses climate sensitivity.
Are you sure that you have not missed the paragraphs wherein I offered my alternative to your explanations? I attached them for your convenience again. Could you comment thereon?
“Please imagine a certain increase in CO2 concentration in Lague’s “desert land”. Let us assume that it causes a certain “initial” surface temperature increase that starts to increase water vapour concentration. Continuing in this feedback loop, we finally arrive at a new steady state, represented by a new, higher mean global surface temperature T1desertland.
I suppose that if Lague et al are correct, the “swamp land” with the same CO2 concentration would have started at a lower global mean surface temperature (ca 8 K less) than the “desert land”. Additionally, I think that the initial temperature increase caused by the same CO2 concentration increase might have been smaller than in the “desert land”, due to more intensive surface cooling by latent heat flux and weaker “cloud dilution” response. These aspects might contribute to a generally weaker feedback loop in comparison with the “desert land”.
In a summary, I think that besides the advantage that the “swamp land” has a better starting position with respect to ca 8K lower global mean surface temperature T0swampland against T0desertland, it may in parallel exhibit also a less steeper temperature increase caused by the same CO2 concentration increment, due to more intensive surface cooling by higher latent heat flux. It would have resulted in a smaller deltaTswampland = T1swampland – T0swampland in comparison with deltaTdesertland = T1desertland – T0desertland, in other words, in a lower climate sensitivity of the “swamp land” in comparison with the “desert land”.”
“I do not disprove that the greenhouse effect (i) of water vapour in the atmosphere will amplify the greenhouse effect of non-condensing greenhouse gases. The prerequisite for this amplification, known as “water vapour feedback” is, however, a global mean surface temperature increase which – if the model used by Lague et al reflects the reality correctly – may be (perhaps somewhat counter-intuitively) lower in the “wetland” case in comparison with the “desertland” case.
I do not know it – I guess only, in a quite bold extrapolation of the conclusions made by Lague et al, who showed that the global climate in the “wetland” hydrology regime was cooler than the global climate in the “desertland” hydrology regime, although atmospheric concentrations of non-condensing greenhouse gases (GHG) were the same in both cases.
Based on these (still unique and therefore possibly questionable) modelling results, I boldly assumed that, by analogy, if global mean temperature response in the “wetland” to the same rise in GHG concentrations will be smaller than in the “desertland”, then the water vapour amplification of this response could be also smaller in the “wetland” in comparison with the “desertland”.
If so, climate sensitivity to rising GHG concentrations would be lower in the “wetland” than in the “desertland”, contrary to your conclusions that seem to be still based on the direct greenhouse effect (i) of the water vapour only and not considering the possibility revealed by Lague et al. that the effect (i) can be reversed by effects (ii) and (iii). I do not assert that I am right and that my bold extrapolation of Lague et al to climate sensitivity is correct – I only think that this is still an open question that is potentially relevant and therefore might deserve attention of climate modellers. In this respect, you do not need to assign this idea as a “lie”.”
Piotrsays
Tomas Kalisz: “ how/why you infer from Schmidt 2010 and/or Lague 2023 that higher water availability for evaporation from the land will increase climate sensitivity towards increasing CO2 concentration”
I said nothing of the kind. In AGW, the water cycle changes as a result of human-caused increase in GMST caused by the human increase in GHGs, NOT as result of the ” higher water availability for evaporation from the land ” on which humans have NO meaningful influence on.
Hence the explanation you still can’t wrap your head around:
=== open quote =====
P: ” if we warm the Earth with GHGs – there will be more WV in air without crossing into supersaturation and thus condensation of WV into the clouds The increase in WV with temp can be seen.
– in your own source – Lague, Fig. 6) ,
– in the 7% per K increase the max. capacity of air to hold WV in Clausius- Clapeyron
– in the 6% per K increase in the _observed_ WV in your other source
And since the removal of W V cools the Earth (see Schmidt et al. 2010, Table 3), the increase of WV would have the warming effect. Ergo my original statement: “the large effect of WV make the climate MUCH MORE VULNERABLE to our changes in the … GHG emissions, not LESS vulnerable”
===== close quote ===============
As for my point that you don’t understand even your own source:
– Lague is useless for providing the mechanism for AGW – which is driven by GHGs emissions, NOT by higher water availability for evaporation from the land
– if anything – they show that its the GMST and not water availability for evaporation from the land that matters to WV – hence your “counter-intuitive” results.
– if the availability for evaporation were the limiting factor (your belief) – then a desert simulation should have LOWER WV.
– instead Lague shows the HIGHER WV- countering your belief. And meaning that increase in T overpowers the lack of evaporation from land – warmer air can store more WV advected from the oceans WITHOUT condensing it into clouds.
And that’s why I said that you don’t understand even your own sources – neither inapplicability of Lagues simulations as mechanisms for AGW, nor the fact that your own source proves that WV change is dominated by T, and not by your “ water availability for evaporation from the land“. So, no I didn’t “miss” your “alternative” explanations – I have shown them false.
To conclude – I went into these details, at the considerable risk of further aggravating Russel Seitz, not for you, and only partly to aggravate Russel Seitz some more, but mainly because similar lapses in logic and similar not understanding of the implication of own source – exhibits your water guru, JCM. To borrow from a classic – “I don’t think Lague et al. means what you two think it means”.
With that completed, I don’t foresee the need to flog that particular dead horse. Unless you come up with a completely new and valid question that is of interest to me, or others.
JCMsays
I understand just fine, thanks. Desertland represents a hotter, less cloudy environment with 40% higher specific humidity and a much higher equilibrium temperature. The experiment was designed to isolate the effect of eliminating terrestrial evapotranspiration, compared to the cooler, more stable scenario with unlimited ET and rapid moisture cycling.
In reality, humanity is both increasing trace gas concentrations and directly destroying landscapes, introducing confounding factors in assessing CO₂ sensitivity and the drivers of hydrological and temperature extremes. Terrestrial influences also complicate interpretations based on proxy records, models of past equilibrium climates, and process-based physical understanding.
Additionally to my reply of yesterday, please let me react also to your objection that I change the subject. You are right. I did it repeatedly, because I still think that the subject of the original debate, namely the question “Does water vapour warm the Earth?” makes little sense.
Of course you can, rightly, repeat that Schmidt 2010 showed that “It does.”
In my opinion, such discussions may unnecessarily divert the attention away from potentially important broader context showed by Lague (et al) 2023. They suggest that more water evaporated from the land may finally cause less water vapour in the atmosphere, due to surface cooling by latent heat flux and by cloud response.
Therefore, keeping the focus further on the “water vapour”, and ignoring the broader context that includes water availability for evaporation from the land, may be in my opinion not only counter-productive but potentially harmful. It puts aside open problems, such as my question if (and if so how) water availability for evaporation influences climate sensitivity . This is what I strived to express.
Apology
I hereby apologize for the imprecise formulations in my comment of 15 Feb 2025 at 5:27 PM,
I am afraid that framing this discussion as the question “Is water vapour cooling or warming Earth?” is confusing and therefore somewhat unfortunate.
I think that with respect to global mean surface temperature, it is important to distinguish
(i) the greenhouse effect of water vapour, which is generally warming,
(ii) effects of clouds, which, depending on cloud type, may be warming or cooling, and
(iii) the effect of latent heat flux, which is cooling.
there may. in fact, be a quite counter-intuitive relationship between latent heat flux on one hand and water vapour concentration (and its greenhouse effect) on the other hand. Namely, the modelling experiments described in this article suggest that water vapour concentration may be HIGHER on Earth with dry continents providing little water for evaporation, in comparison with Earth wherein the land is water-rich and thus provides lot of cooling latent heat flux.
In this respect, I think that your strong belief that
“the large effect of WV make the climate MUCH MORE VULNERABLE to our changes in the … GHG emissions, not LESS vulnerable”
may be, in fact, misleading.
I still think that if other state-of-art climate models confirm the results of Lague 2023, it is well possible that better availability of evaporation from the land may in fact IMPROVE Earth climate stability, in the sense that Earth with intensive continental water cycle can be indeed LESS vulnerable to rising atmospheric concentrations of non-condensing GHG than present Earth with significant proportion of continents in an arid hydrological regime.
It would be, of course, better if these speculations were confirmed or disproved by respective modelling studies, properly designed for clarifying how the climate sensitivity towards GHG depends on water availability for evaporation (instead of just on “water vapour”).
I do not think that our dispute on this blog can resolve this open question and provide a trustworthy conclusion.
Greetings
Tomáš”
I admit that particular sentences, taken out of the context, for example
“..your strong belief that “the large effect of WV make the climate MUCH MORE VULNERABLE to our changes in the … GHG emissions, not LESS vulnerable” may be, in fact, misleading.”
could be understood also the way that you strive to mislead others.
This was not my intention.
Greetings
Tomáš
JCMsays
Complementing the idealized experiment – when examining actual estimates, it’s uncontroversial that the uncertainty effect surrounding the ensemble of land surface parameters across models spans up to 2C for the current Earth system today, not to mention how these processes are evolving over time. As such, studying these issues is just as vital as any other aspect of climate science, whether one is fixated exclusively on calibrating sensitivity to trace gas or not. While this line of inquiry may not be particularly fashionable, any person dissembling and obsessively fighting against it in a bid to feel a sense of personal virtue is obviously confused.
zebrasays
Dean, you comment is mostly reasonable but I have to keep reminding people who are blaming the situation on whatever their favorite issue is, and complaining about the Dems policies, that the data doesn’t tell us that there has been some sea change in the politics.
2016: Trump beats a White woman while losing EC.
2020: Trump loses to a White man, losing EC even worse.
2024: Trump loses to a Black woman, barely winning EC.
But the Dem policies were essentially the same for each election, and the Trump/MAGA nonsense was also the same. If Biden had stuck to one term, and the primaries had come up with any reasonable White male candidate, who had time to run a full campaign, Trump would have lost again.
Now, will we still have a democracy in 4 years?? I don’t know. But half the voters who did show up would probably prefer that.
And while protests are nice expressions of discontent, what wins elections is not about policies, but the perceptions about the candidate. I would suggest that any conventional Republican (not deranged MAGA) White male candidate would have beaten Clinton, and most certainly Harris, given the same circumstances.
How Trump could be derailing a major global climate report
The Trump administration’s actions in recent days have cast unprecedented uncertainty upon the climate panel’s work.
My opinion on why the Trump administration is doing all this “cost cutting” (DOGE) is to help(justify) renew the 2017 Trump Tax Law in 2025 which was expensive and eroded the U.S. revenue base and failed to deliver the promised economic benefits. The 2017 Trump Tax Law was famous for skewing the tax code to the rich. 2017 Law Created New Tax Advantages for Wealthy People and Profitable Corporations
Secular Animistsays
FYI:
Trump bars federal scientists from working on pivotal global climate report
Article quote: ““The decision to exclude US scientists significantly undermines this collaborative effort and risks compromising the process at a time when robust climate action is needed more than ever,” he told CNN in a statement.”
We already “know” that the climate is warming. How is putting out another report considered “robust climate action”? How much carbon reduction from the atmosphere will occur because that report is published, and how much less carbon will be removed because scientists that get their funding from the federal government did not participate?
Adam Leasays
Some good news from the UK. Britain’s net zero economy is booming, flying in the face of the usual right wing denial:
Don Williams, the link posted by Adam Lea is talking about the renewables economy booming not the overall economy. Did you even read it?
Don Williamssays
1) Actually I read the report and was being tactful in my reply. Britain’s 2024 Gross Value Added was 2, 565 Billion pounds –renewables contribution was only 28.8 Bil pounds. About 1.1 percent and slightly more than the 25.7 Bil pound trade deficit with China in case you are wondering where the solar panels come from.
2) From China for the moment – one wonders if they will be available in the future and at what cost. A concern given that Britain is currently importing 20 percent of her power from the evil EU –but don’t tell Farage.
3) The renewable transition is expensive and I wonder if Britain will have the money. In 2008, her Real GDP Per Capita (RGPC) was 31,165 pounds and by 2022 it had only risen to 33,497 pounds. In the meantime the pound had fallen in value from $1.99 to $1.22. In dollar terms, her RGPC fell from $62,018 per person in 2008 to $40,966 per person in 2022 – a drop of 34 percent.
4) Compare that to Liechtenstein’s $186,000 per person (a monarchy not a democracy) and I wonder if Britain needs a better monarch.
“The renewable transition is expensive and I wonder if Britain will have the money”.
Britain will have the money. Studies by the UK climate change committee and several other organisations show it would cost the UK about 1% of yearly gdp to fully transition to renewables and also achieve net zero. It’s obvious this is affordable because it’s a small percentage, and the UK are a relatively high income country and the amount of cost cutting in other areas to achieve that 1% is very small. Even if the number was twice as high it’s still affordable. There is plenty of wasted spending that could be cut to afford renewables.
Mr. Know It Allsays
zebra: “And while protests are nice expressions of discontent, what wins elections is not about policies, but the perceptions about the candidate.”
In the USA, both count. Trump’s policies are mostly what won the election this time: close the border, stop inflation, punish criminals instead of letting them go, strengthen the military, get men out of women’s sports (and related issues), get the US out of endless wars that are not in our interest, stop the weaponization of government against political opponents, protect our 1A and 2A rights, make energy abundant and affordable, cut wasteful spending, etc.
zebra: “….that the data doesn’t tell us that there has been some sea change in the politics.” and also zebra: “2024: Trump loses to a Black woman, barely winning EC.”
If an EC count of 312 to 226 is “barely winning”, then you are correct:
American voters shifted to the right almost everywhere, and you are correct that Harris was part of the problem, but the biggest problem was the previous 4 years and the fact that she said she would not change a single thing that Biden did:
The good news is that MAYBE we’ll have a leaner, more efficient government in 4 years, and in the meantime NOBODY is stopping anyone from pursuing solutions to AGW on a personal or state level.
zebrasays
Sorry, I meant popular vote not EC.
So, White woman won PV, White man won PV by much more, Black woman barely lost PV.
Policies in all three elections were consistent for each election.
I’ve posted this in various venues multiple times, but yet to get an answer as to why Biden won if it is all about policies. He is the quintessential Dem politician.
I know, I know, it was trans immigrant ninja spies stealing the votes, right?
Nigeljsays
I would say Clinton and Harris lost some votes due to misogyny and racism given the bigotry out there in society, but the significant difference in the popular vote between Biden and the two women could largely be due to Biden being more liked as a person.
Nigeljsays
KIA, regarding your overlords so called election promises:
“stop inflation”
ROFL. Inflation has risen significantly since Trump has been leader, directly attributed to Trumps policies including excessively high and widespread tariffs and other policies and all the uncertainty its created. I assure you much worse is to come. You have voted for a lot of pain and no gain. Tariffs are useless policy in todays world, with the possible exception of some military components where it makes sense to be self sufficient. The last time Trump had tariffs jobs in manufacturing went DOWN.
“punish criminals instead of letting them go,”
By all means in principle, but just ejecting a million illegal immigrants, will only cause America pain and won’t make much difference to people trying too illegally enter America. People are desperate will do anything. Build your silly wall instead.
“strengthen the military”,
ROFL. Trump is reducing military spending. That will weaken the military.
“get men (meaning transgender people) out of women’s sports (and related issues), ”
Totally unnecessary. Sure it’s unfair they compete in certain sports like weight lifting and generally they are barred from this in various countries. But many sports are not an issue. Americans have a strange set of priorities when they worry about transgender people, who are not out there committing crimes and threatening to steal Palestinian land and Greenland, and comprise about 0.0001% of the population.
“get the US out of endless wars that are not in our interest,”
So just abandon other countries. How decent and moral of you. You also give no thought to how wars can escalate and ultimately hurt Americas interests.
“stop the weaponization of government against political opponents, ”
You are doing this yourselves. Trump has replaced government officials with useless unqualified Trump supporters out for revenge. Example the FBI.
“protect our 1A and 2A rights,”
No sane constitution allows absolutely anyone to own a gun in any circumstances. The democrats understand this while The Republicans have a total lack of commonsense on the issue..
“make energy abundant and affordable,”
Then why Is Trump encouraging coal when renewables are cheaper per mwhr? How illogical is that? Costs of electricity:
By all means. But Trump and Musk aren’t cutting wasteful spending. They are cutting useful spending such as cancer research, climate research, air safety control and consumer protection. Its insanity.
No need to say more except that IMHO the USA taking sides with Russia and refusing to condemn their invasion of the Ukraine is just pure evil.
Strangersays
“punish criminals instead of letting them go,” How about the rioters on 1/6?
Right after the Capital riot, on January 7, 2020,Trump said on Fox in a prepared statement,, “Like all Americans, I am outraged by the violence, lawlessness and mayhem.” He went on to describe the riot as a “heinous attack.” He was actually throwing them under the bus. The Fox network believed Trump was in trouble so he needed to make a phony statement. He soon learned that his personality of cult was stronger then he realized. So he went into full Orwellian mode. After it went through the Ministry of Truth those rioters came out as patriots. The voters disgraced themselves! All those criminals were cleaned by the guy who was willing to sell them down the river so he could escape accountability.. Now America is living in a Fool’s Paradise.
Looks like someone removed the source URL for NASA | This World Is Black and White youtube.com/watch?v=sCxIqgZA7ag This video is public domain and can be downloaded at: http://svs.gsfc.nasa.gov/goto?10898 (404)
The initial hit on science is at NIH, NOAA, NASA, etc. The next one will be the efforts to coerce universities across the country to implement Trump’s Soviet Science, where only ideologically acceptable research and results are allowed. Maybe there will be an effort to build an independent science ecosystem in the US. Not sure how that could work, but clearly the sciences in the US will be in deep decline.
Did you see that Trump hired a hunting buddy of his son to run the food division at FDA? This after the previous division head resigned after DOGE fired 89 of his food safety staff. The guy is a lawyer who apparently has had some practice in the regulatory fields.
jgnfldsays
Again, Lysenkoism hurts the country practicing Lysenkoism first and worst.
I watched as the last “conservative” govt quite literally hauled a science library in Newfoundland into the landfill (one of 11 libraries they ordered destroyed as I remember). I have rarely felt so empty in my life though 1/6 was close being a US citizen, Eagle Scout, and all.
Piotrsays
Re jgnfld – the landfilling of multiple scientific libraries, was only one of the achievements of Steven Harper. Some others included defunding any research with “climate change” in the proposal, preventing government scientists from going to international conferences, requiring the permission of the administration to speak even to the Canadian media. And in the same vein a pettiness as Trumps ripping out the already installed EV charging in government buildings or bringing back the plastic straws – Harper shut down the unique Experimental Lakes Area – a set of 58 formerly pristine freshwater lakes in which whole-lake controlled experiments took place – you split a lake in half, add to one fertilizers, or add acid to simulate acid rains, or higher CO2 environment, keep the other half as a control. thus combining the strengths of manipulative experiments with realism on the natural experiments. But the last thing Conservatives wanted was the strong scientific results – they prefer to fish in muddy water: “the science is not settled [because we tied its hands behind its back, and gagged it] – so let’s not rock the boat and let’s err on the side of … the tar sands. After all, the uncertainty will be our friend!”. (the Lakes were restarted by private consortium and provincial government, but not until the continuity of many year experiments was compromised).
And after 10 years out of power, one of the former ministers of Harper is poised to return to power as the new PM – on the strength of his central lie – portraying the revenue-neutral carbon tax of Justin Trudeau as a …. tax grab, and the cause of the post-COVID inflation (despite our inflation being the same or lower than in the countries that …didn’t have the carbon tax).
So dark times are upon us too, but until then, our sympathies – what you guys are going through already are what we had with Harper, but on steroids, or rather – on crack. The Mad King and his Hand, Elon the Destroyer.
And when I said that “that we had basically won” in my post above, I think “we had turned a corner,” would be more accurate. Now it seems like it was more of a speed bump for the other side.
PS – Just read that the government will be shutting down existing EV chargers at government buildings, decommissioning them.
Tomas Kalisz: “Dear Piotr, I stepped into the “water vapour warming or cooling” debate […] because I thought that the original question asked by E. Schaffer [was misleading].
And to disagree with the question by E. Schaffer you decide to reply …. to my post:
– which I started with a quote NOT from E. Schaffer but from …. JCM (“JCM: WV contributes 39% to greenhouse effect in S2010“)
– which I devoted to challenge words of not E. Schaffer, but JCM
– and which, in fact, I didn’t even mention E. Schaffer at all?
And then you quoted the words of NOT E. Schaffer, nor JCM, but MINE:
“the large effect of WV make the climate MUCH MORE VULNERABLE to our changes in the … GHG emissions, not LESS vulnerable”
trying to discredit them as a product NOT of a falsifiable logic, but some of subjective …. “strong belief ”
And that’s why have chose my words, not those of E. Schaffer or JCM, as “in fact, misleading” ????
If you can’t take the responsibility for your own words – how are you going to learn anything from your mistakes?
TK and because you mentioned me in your post of 14 Feb 11:00 PM
Huh? My mention of you there had NOTHING to do with WV or “framing of the question”:
– JCM: “I take it as a mark of respect that you chose to engage with me ”
– me: “I wouldn’t read too much into it – we regularly engage with other deniers too – T. Kalisz, Mr. KiA, Ken Towe, Keith Woolard, Victor etc – not exactly because we respect them for their intellect and ethical integrity.”
===
See?
TK I still think that if other state-of-art climate models confirm the results of Lague 2023,
Since Lague 2023 supports my point, based on Clausius-Clapeyron, that we can expect avg. WV to increase with GMST – then why should root for Lague showing the increase in WV in the warmer world – to be contradicted???
As I have said – you have no idea what other people are saying and what are the implications of your own sources. And yet despite that and despite of your ignorance of the subject matter – you lecture others of either “misleading” or being oblivious to being “misled”?
And since haven’t addressed in any meaningful way my core arguments – I’ll just repost them, for the record:
===
No Mr. Kalisz – mine is a falsifiable argument: supported not only by your own sources, but also by Clausius–Clapeyron, the observed increase in WV, and the CERES data:
[…] if we warm the Earth with GHGs – there will be more WV in air without crossing into supersaturation and thus condensation of WV into the clouds The increase in WV with temp can be seen.
– in your own source – Lague (Fig. 6) ,
– in the 7% per K increase the max. capacity of air to hold WV in Clausius- Clapeyron
– in the 6% per K increase in the _observed_ WV in _your_ other source
And since the removal of W V cools the Earth (see Schmidt et al. 2010, Table 3), the increase of WV would have the warming effect. Ergo: “the large effect of WV [on climate] make the climate MUCH MORE VULNERABLE to our changes in the … GHG emissions, not LESS vulnerable”
And since you brought up the clouds – the same rule that warmer air can hold more WV without condensation of it into the clouds: means that as we are warming atmosphere with human emissions of GHGs – that warming will be AMPLIFIED NOT ONLY by the extra warming from the increased WV conc., but would be FURTHER AMPLIFIED by the warming from the reduced cloudiness: seen both in:
– your Lague et al. – See Fig 7.
– and in observations (CERES data)
Therefore, making the climate even MORE vulnerable to the human actions than it would have been to the increase in [GHGs] alone.
====
In re to Piotr, 22 Feb 2025 at 5:34 PM,
https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2025/02/unforced-variations-feb-2025/comment-page-2/#comment-830519 ,
22 Feb 2025 at 12:02 PM,
https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2025/01/comparison-update-2024/#comment-830508
and 22 Feb 2025 at 12:03 PM,
https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2025/01/comparison-update-2024/#comment-830509
Hallo Piotr,
In my post of 21 Feb 2025 at 9:14 AM,
https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2025/02/unforced-variations-feb-2025/#comment-830450 ,
I wrote:
“it appears that you still do not admit that the message of Lague 2023 can be construed the way that (at least with respect to land hydrology and land climate) the effects (i), (ii) and (iii) of the water cycle may be in a broad range independent from each other, due to limited water availability for evaporation from terrestrial surface and due to water vapour transport from the ocean.”
For your convenience, a reminder what I meant under (i), (ii) and (iii):
(i) the greenhouse effect of water vapour, which is generally warming,
(ii) effects of clouds, which, depending on cloud type, may be warming or cooling, and
(iii) the effect of latent heat flux, which is cooling.
Please note that I no way disprove your argument that
“[…] if we warm the Earth with GHGs – there will be more WV in air without crossing into supersaturation and thus condensation of WV into the clouds The increase in WV with temp can be seen.
– in your own source – Lague (Fig. 6) ,
– in the 7% per K increase the max. capacity of air to hold WV in Clausius- Clapeyron
– in the 6% per K increase in the _observed_ WV in _your_ other source”
I only think that this argument has nothing to do with my question if (and if so, how) water availability for evaporation from the land influences climate sensitivity. Once again:
As suggest the results published by Lague et al,
https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/acdbe1
there may, in fact, be a quite counter-intuitive relationship between latent heat flux on one hand and water vapour concentration (and its greenhouse effect) on the other hand. Namely, the modelling experiments described in this article suggest that water vapour concentration may be HIGHER on Earth with dry continents providing little water for evaporation, in comparison with Earth wherein the land is water-rich and thus provides lot of cooling latent heat flux.
In other words, I am aware of your arguments, however, I have still a feeling that they are based solely on your belief that “water vapour” is a mere feedback to atmospheric concentration of non-condensing greenhouse gases, although at least the results of modelling experiment published by Lague et al suggest that this simple view may be incorrect.
If your basic assumption is in fact false, it is in my opinion well possible that better availability of water for evaporation from the land may in fact IMPROVE Earth climate stability, in the sense that Earth with intensive continental water cycle can be indeed LESS vulnerable to rising atmospheric concentrations of non-condensing GHG than present Earth with significant proportion of continents in an arid hydrological regime.
As I further wrote in my post 21 Feb 2025 at 9:14 AM, I do not say that you are wrong and that I am right – I say only that I do not think that your arguments are falsifiable in this dispute. I personally see more convincing the opposite view, nevertheless, I think that with a reasonable certainty, my question can (and should) be resolved by dedicated modelling experiments only.
Greetings
Tomáš
P.S.
I have not seen any reason to anyhow mention Schmidt 2010, because it is still my understanding that the model used in this work assumed a fixed land hydrology and thus did not touch the question if (and how) climate sensitivity towards GHG concentrations may depend on water availability for evaporation from the land.
P.P.S.
It is still my understanding that Lague et al have not made in the cited 2023 publication any modelling experiment with changing GHG concentration and that their study was not directed to the question how the climate sensitivity towards GHG concentration may depend on water availability for evaporation from the land.
In Re to Piotr, 22 Feb 2025 at 5:34 PM,
https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2025/02/unforced-variations-feb-2025/comment-page-2/#comment-830519
Hallo Piotr,
In addition to my post of 23 Feb 2025 at 4:14 PM,
https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2025/02/unforced-variations-feb-2025/comment-page-2/#comment-830555
I will try to address specifically your question
“Since Lague 2023 supports my point, based on Clausius-Clapeyron, that we can expect avg. WV to increase with GMST – then why should root for Lague showing the increase in WV in the warmer world – to be contradicted???”
Please imagine a certain increase in CO2 concentration in Lague’s “desert land”. Let us assume that it causes a certain “initial” surface temperature increase that starts to increase water vapour concentration. Continuing in this feedback loop, we finally arrive at a new steady state, represented by a new, higher mean global surface temperature T1desertland.
I suppose that if Lague et al are correct, the “swamp land” with the same CO2 concentration would have started at a lower global mean surface temperature (ca 8 K less) than the “desert land”. Additionally, I think that the initial temperature increase caused by the same CO2 concentration increase might have been smaller than in the “desert land”, due to more intensive surface cooling by latent heat flux and weaker “cloud dilution” response. These aspects might contribute to a generally weaker feedback loop in comparison with the “desert land”.
In a summary, I think that besides the advantage that the “swamp land” has a better starting position with respect to ca 8K lower global mean surface temperature T0swampland against T0desertland, it may in parallel exhibit also a less steeper temperature increase caused by the same CO2 concentration increment, due to more intensive surface cooling by higher latent heat flux. It would have resulted in a smaller deltaTswampland = T1swampland – T0swampland in comparison with deltaTdesertland = T1desertland – T0desertland, in other words, in a lower climate sensitivity of the “swamp land” in comparison with the “desert land”.
Greetings
Tomáš
P.S.
Your question suggests that you might have missed following four paragraphs in my post of 21 Feb 2025 at 9:14 AM,
https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2025/02/unforced-variations-feb-2025/#comment-830450
to which you have replied.
I would like to repeat these paragraphs below, for a comparison with my recent attempt to explain the same idea above.
—
“I do not disprove that the greenhouse effect (i) of water vapour in the atmosphere will amplify the greenhouse effect of non-condensing greenhouse gases. The prerequisite for this amplification, known as “water vapour feedback” is, however, a global mean surface temperature increase which – if the model used by Lague et al reflects the reality correctly – may be (perhaps somewhat counter-intuitively) lower in the “wetland” case in comparison with the “desertland” case.
I do not know it – I guess only, in a quite bold extrapolation of the conclusions made by Lague et al, who showed that the global climate in the “wetland” hydrology regime was cooler than the global climate in the “desertland” hydrology regime, although atmospheric concentrations of non-condensing greenhouse gases (GHG) were the same in both cases.
Based on these (still unique and therefore possibly questionable) modelling results, I boldly assumed that, by analogy, if global mean temperature response in the “wetland” to the same rise in GHG concentrations will be smaller than in the “desertland”, then the water vapour amplification of this response could be also smaller in the “wetland” in comparison with the “desertland”.
If so, climate sensitivity to rising GHG concentrations would be lower in the “wetland” than in the “desertland”, contrary to your conclusions that seem to be still based on the direct greenhouse effect (i) of the water vapour only and not considering the possibility revealed by Lague et al. that the effect (i) can be reversed by effects (ii) and (iii). I do not assert that I am right and that my bold extrapolation of Lague et al to climate sensitivity is correct – I only think that this is still an open question that is potentially relevant and therefore might deserve attention of climate modellers. In this respect, you do not need to assign this idea as a “lie”.”
Tomas Kalisz Feb.23 “ I only think that this argument has nothing to do with my question if (and if so, how) water availability for evaporation from the land influences climate sensitivity ”
Don’t change the subject – you joined the discussion with a claim that my conclusion: “the large effect of WV [on climate] make the climate MUCH MORE VULNERABLE to our changes in the … GHG emissions, not LESS vulnerable” was “ in fact, misleading” [(c) TK]
So before moving on to another discussion – you must come clean on the original one. And no – you “explanation” that by calling MY conclusion “misleading” you … DIDN’T imply that _I_ was misleading – won’t cut it.
TK: “ I only think that this argument has nothing to do with my question if (and if so, how) water availability for evaporation from the land influences climate sensitivity.”
“water availability for evaporation from the land” WAS NOT discussed on your opening claim, NOR is RELEVANT to the discussion of the AGW, since any realistic “human changes water availability for evaporation from the land” are INSIGNIFICANT to the mitigation of AGW. As you have unwittingly proved YOURSELF – with your surreal proposal of irrigation of Sahara (many trillions of dollars A YEAR for 100s of years for …. a fraction of 0.3K reduction in AGW).
As for your trying to prop up yourself by association with Lague et al. – I have already shown that you understood NOTHING from that paper:
TK: 23 Feb: “in fact, a quite counter-intuitive relationship between latent heat flux and water vapour concentration”
thus REPEATING the same claim that I have already addressed in the post you are supposedly replying to:
=======
Piotr 20 Feb: “Which may seem “counterintuitive” only to somebody who refers to Clausius-Clapeyron without having the slightest idea what are its implications to AGW. The higher abs. humidity was not caused there, by the lack of evaporation on continents, but by higher temperature[…]:
if we warm the Earth with GHGs – there will be more WV in air without crossing into supersaturation and thus condensation of WV into the clouds The increase in WV with temp can be seen.
– in your own source – Lague, Fig. 6) ,
– in the 7% per K increase the max. capacity of air to hold WV in Clausius- Clapeyron
– in the 6% per K increase in the _observed_ WV in your other source
And since the removal of W V cools the Earth (see Schmidt et al. 2010, Table 3), the increase of WV would have the warming effect. Ergo my original statement: “the large effect of WV make the climate MUCH MORE VULNERABLE to our changes in the … GHG emissions, not LESS vulnerable”
=====
See?
In Re to Piotr,
26 Feb 2025 at 11:23 AM,
https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2025/02/unforced-variations-feb-2025/comment-page-2/#comment-830664
Hallo Piotr,
Thank you for your reply!
Unfortunately, I must admit that I have not grasped your explanations yet, how / why you infer from Schmidt 2010 and/or Lague 2023 that higher water availability for evaporation from the land will increase climate sensitivity towards increasing CO2 concentration, although none of these two publications addresses climate sensitivity.
Are you sure that you have not missed the paragraphs wherein I offered my alternative to your explanations? I attached them for your convenience again. Could you comment thereon?
Greetings
Tomáš
—
23 Feb 2025 at 5:43 PM,
https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2025/02/unforced-variations-feb-2025/comment-page-2/#comment-830557
“Please imagine a certain increase in CO2 concentration in Lague’s “desert land”. Let us assume that it causes a certain “initial” surface temperature increase that starts to increase water vapour concentration. Continuing in this feedback loop, we finally arrive at a new steady state, represented by a new, higher mean global surface temperature T1desertland.
I suppose that if Lague et al are correct, the “swamp land” with the same CO2 concentration would have started at a lower global mean surface temperature (ca 8 K less) than the “desert land”. Additionally, I think that the initial temperature increase caused by the same CO2 concentration increase might have been smaller than in the “desert land”, due to more intensive surface cooling by latent heat flux and weaker “cloud dilution” response. These aspects might contribute to a generally weaker feedback loop in comparison with the “desert land”.
In a summary, I think that besides the advantage that the “swamp land” has a better starting position with respect to ca 8K lower global mean surface temperature T0swampland against T0desertland, it may in parallel exhibit also a less steeper temperature increase caused by the same CO2 concentration increment, due to more intensive surface cooling by higher latent heat flux. It would have resulted in a smaller deltaTswampland = T1swampland – T0swampland in comparison with deltaTdesertland = T1desertland – T0desertland, in other words, in a lower climate sensitivity of the “swamp land” in comparison with the “desert land”.”
21 Feb 2025 at 9:14 AM,
https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2025/02/unforced-variations-feb-2025/#comment-830450
“I do not disprove that the greenhouse effect (i) of water vapour in the atmosphere will amplify the greenhouse effect of non-condensing greenhouse gases. The prerequisite for this amplification, known as “water vapour feedback” is, however, a global mean surface temperature increase which – if the model used by Lague et al reflects the reality correctly – may be (perhaps somewhat counter-intuitively) lower in the “wetland” case in comparison with the “desertland” case.
I do not know it – I guess only, in a quite bold extrapolation of the conclusions made by Lague et al, who showed that the global climate in the “wetland” hydrology regime was cooler than the global climate in the “desertland” hydrology regime, although atmospheric concentrations of non-condensing greenhouse gases (GHG) were the same in both cases.
Based on these (still unique and therefore possibly questionable) modelling results, I boldly assumed that, by analogy, if global mean temperature response in the “wetland” to the same rise in GHG concentrations will be smaller than in the “desertland”, then the water vapour amplification of this response could be also smaller in the “wetland” in comparison with the “desertland”.
If so, climate sensitivity to rising GHG concentrations would be lower in the “wetland” than in the “desertland”, contrary to your conclusions that seem to be still based on the direct greenhouse effect (i) of the water vapour only and not considering the possibility revealed by Lague et al. that the effect (i) can be reversed by effects (ii) and (iii). I do not assert that I am right and that my bold extrapolation of Lague et al to climate sensitivity is correct – I only think that this is still an open question that is potentially relevant and therefore might deserve attention of climate modellers. In this respect, you do not need to assign this idea as a “lie”.”
Tomas Kalisz: “ how/why you infer from Schmidt 2010 and/or Lague 2023 that higher water availability for evaporation from the land will increase climate sensitivity towards increasing CO2 concentration”
I said nothing of the kind. In AGW, the water cycle changes as a result of human-caused increase in GMST caused by the human increase in GHGs, NOT as result of the ” higher water availability for evaporation from the land ” on which humans have NO meaningful influence on.
Hence the explanation you still can’t wrap your head around:
=== open quote =====
P: ” if we warm the Earth with GHGs – there will be more WV in air without crossing into supersaturation and thus condensation of WV into the clouds The increase in WV with temp can be seen.
– in your own source – Lague, Fig. 6) ,
– in the 7% per K increase the max. capacity of air to hold WV in Clausius- Clapeyron
– in the 6% per K increase in the _observed_ WV in your other source
And since the removal of W V cools the Earth (see Schmidt et al. 2010, Table 3), the increase of WV would have the warming effect. Ergo my original statement: “the large effect of WV make the climate MUCH MORE VULNERABLE to our changes in the … GHG emissions, not LESS vulnerable”
===== close quote ===============
As for my point that you don’t understand even your own source:
– Lague is useless for providing the mechanism for AGW – which is driven by GHGs emissions, NOT by higher water availability for evaporation from the land
– if anything – they show that its the GMST and not water availability for evaporation from the land that matters to WV – hence your “counter-intuitive” results.
– if the availability for evaporation were the limiting factor (your belief) – then a desert simulation should have LOWER WV.
– instead Lague shows the HIGHER WV- countering your belief. And meaning that increase in T overpowers the lack of evaporation from land – warmer air can store more WV advected from the oceans WITHOUT condensing it into clouds.
And that’s why I said that you don’t understand even your own sources – neither inapplicability of Lagues simulations as mechanisms for AGW, nor the fact that your own source proves that WV change is dominated by T, and not by your “ water availability for evaporation from the land“. So, no I didn’t “miss” your “alternative” explanations – I have shown them false.
To conclude – I went into these details, at the considerable risk of further aggravating Russel Seitz, not for you, and only partly to aggravate Russel Seitz some more, but mainly because similar lapses in logic and similar not understanding of the implication of own source – exhibits your water guru, JCM. To borrow from a classic – “I don’t think Lague et al. means what you two think it means”.
With that completed, I don’t foresee the need to flog that particular dead horse. Unless you come up with a completely new and valid question that is of interest to me, or others.
I understand just fine, thanks. Desertland represents a hotter, less cloudy environment with 40% higher specific humidity and a much higher equilibrium temperature. The experiment was designed to isolate the effect of eliminating terrestrial evapotranspiration, compared to the cooler, more stable scenario with unlimited ET and rapid moisture cycling.
In reality, humanity is both increasing trace gas concentrations and directly destroying landscapes, introducing confounding factors in assessing CO₂ sensitivity and the drivers of hydrological and temperature extremes. Terrestrial influences also complicate interpretations based on proxy records, models of past equilibrium climates, and process-based physical understanding.
In Re to Piotr, 26 Feb 2025 at 11:23 AM,
https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2025/02/unforced-variations-feb-2025/comment-page-2/#comment-830664
Hallo Piotr,
Additionally to my reply of yesterday, please let me react also to your objection that I change the subject. You are right. I did it repeatedly, because I still think that the subject of the original debate, namely the question “Does water vapour warm the Earth?” makes little sense.
Of course you can, rightly, repeat that Schmidt 2010 showed that “It does.”
In my opinion, such discussions may unnecessarily divert the attention away from potentially important broader context showed by Lague (et al) 2023. They suggest that more water evaporated from the land may finally cause less water vapour in the atmosphere, due to surface cooling by latent heat flux and by cloud response.
Therefore, keeping the focus further on the “water vapour”, and ignoring the broader context that includes water availability for evaporation from the land, may be in my opinion not only counter-productive but potentially harmful. It puts aside open problems, such as my question if (and if so how) water availability for evaporation influences climate sensitivity . This is what I strived to express.
Apology
I hereby apologize for the imprecise formulations in my comment of 15 Feb 2025 at 5:27 PM,
https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2025/02/unforced-variations-feb-2025/#comment-830284
which in its entirety read:
“In Re to Piotr, 14 Feb 2025 at 12:09 AM,
https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2025/02/unforced-variations-feb-2025/#comment-830220
and 14 Feb 2025 at 11:00 PM,
https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2025/02/unforced-variations-feb-2025/#comment-830260
Dear Piotr,
I am afraid that framing this discussion as the question “Is water vapour cooling or warming Earth?” is confusing and therefore somewhat unfortunate.
I think that with respect to global mean surface temperature, it is important to distinguish
(i) the greenhouse effect of water vapour, which is generally warming,
(ii) effects of clouds, which, depending on cloud type, may be warming or cooling, and
(iii) the effect of latent heat flux, which is cooling.
As suggest the results published by Lague et al,
https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/acdbe1
there may. in fact, be a quite counter-intuitive relationship between latent heat flux on one hand and water vapour concentration (and its greenhouse effect) on the other hand. Namely, the modelling experiments described in this article suggest that water vapour concentration may be HIGHER on Earth with dry continents providing little water for evaporation, in comparison with Earth wherein the land is water-rich and thus provides lot of cooling latent heat flux.
In this respect, I think that your strong belief that
“the large effect of WV make the climate MUCH MORE VULNERABLE to our changes in the … GHG emissions, not LESS vulnerable”
may be, in fact, misleading.
I still think that if other state-of-art climate models confirm the results of Lague 2023, it is well possible that better availability of evaporation from the land may in fact IMPROVE Earth climate stability, in the sense that Earth with intensive continental water cycle can be indeed LESS vulnerable to rising atmospheric concentrations of non-condensing GHG than present Earth with significant proportion of continents in an arid hydrological regime.
It would be, of course, better if these speculations were confirmed or disproved by respective modelling studies, properly designed for clarifying how the climate sensitivity towards GHG depends on water availability for evaporation (instead of just on “water vapour”).
I do not think that our dispute on this blog can resolve this open question and provide a trustworthy conclusion.
Greetings
Tomáš”
I admit that particular sentences, taken out of the context, for example
“..your strong belief that “the large effect of WV make the climate MUCH MORE VULNERABLE to our changes in the … GHG emissions, not LESS vulnerable” may be, in fact, misleading.”
could be understood also the way that you strive to mislead others.
This was not my intention.
Greetings
Tomáš
Complementing the idealized experiment – when examining actual estimates, it’s uncontroversial that the uncertainty effect surrounding the ensemble of land surface parameters across models spans up to 2C for the current Earth system today, not to mention how these processes are evolving over time. As such, studying these issues is just as vital as any other aspect of climate science, whether one is fixated exclusively on calibrating sensitivity to trace gas or not. While this line of inquiry may not be particularly fashionable, any person dissembling and obsessively fighting against it in a bid to feel a sense of personal virtue is obviously confused.
Dean, you comment is mostly reasonable but I have to keep reminding people who are blaming the situation on whatever their favorite issue is, and complaining about the Dems policies, that the data doesn’t tell us that there has been some sea change in the politics.
2016: Trump beats a White woman while losing EC.
2020: Trump loses to a White man, losing EC even worse.
2024: Trump loses to a Black woman, barely winning EC.
But the Dem policies were essentially the same for each election, and the Trump/MAGA nonsense was also the same. If Biden had stuck to one term, and the primaries had come up with any reasonable White male candidate, who had time to run a full campaign, Trump would have lost again.
Now, will we still have a democracy in 4 years?? I don’t know. But half the voters who did show up would probably prefer that.
And while protests are nice expressions of discontent, what wins elections is not about policies, but the perceptions about the candidate. I would suggest that any conventional Republican (not deranged MAGA) White male candidate would have beaten Clinton, and most certainly Harris, given the same circumstances.
I think one of the big news of this week is: https://www.washingtonpost.com/climate-environment/2025/02/22/trump-federal-scientists-climate-work-ipcc/
How Trump could be derailing a major global climate report
The Trump administration’s actions in recent days have cast unprecedented uncertainty upon the climate panel’s work.
My opinion on why the Trump administration is doing all this “cost cutting” (DOGE) is to help(justify) renew the 2017 Trump Tax Law in 2025 which was expensive and eroded the U.S. revenue base and failed to deliver the promised economic benefits. The 2017 Trump Tax Law was famous for skewing the tax code to the rich. 2017 Law Created New Tax Advantages for Wealthy People and Profitable Corporations
FYI:
Trump bars federal scientists from working on pivotal global climate report
https://www.cnn.com/2025/02/21/climate/trump-blocks-scientists-ipcc/index.html
Article quote: ““The decision to exclude US scientists significantly undermines this collaborative effort and risks compromising the process at a time when robust climate action is needed more than ever,” he told CNN in a statement.”
We already “know” that the climate is warming. How is putting out another report considered “robust climate action”? How much carbon reduction from the atmosphere will occur because that report is published, and how much less carbon will be removed because scientists that get their funding from the federal government did not participate?
Some good news from the UK. Britain’s net zero economy is booming, flying in the face of the usual right wing denial:
https://uk.yahoo.com/news/britain-net-zero-economy-booming-060005202.html
Financial Times:
“Real GDP per head was estimated to have fallen 0.1 per cent in the fourth quarter, the ONS said.”
“Over the whole of 2024, the economy expanded 0.9 per cent, the ONS said, a modest improvement on an expansion of 0.4 per cent the previous year.”
https://www.ft.com/content/6eb3451d-348e-4752-a033-05503bc213ce
Don Williams, the link posted by Adam Lea is talking about the renewables economy booming not the overall economy. Did you even read it?
1) Actually I read the report and was being tactful in my reply. Britain’s 2024 Gross Value Added was 2, 565 Billion pounds –renewables contribution was only 28.8 Bil pounds. About 1.1 percent and slightly more than the 25.7 Bil pound trade deficit with China in case you are wondering where the solar panels come from.
2) From China for the moment – one wonders if they will be available in the future and at what cost. A concern given that Britain is currently importing 20 percent of her power from the evil EU –but don’t tell Farage.
3) The renewable transition is expensive and I wonder if Britain will have the money. In 2008, her Real GDP Per Capita (RGPC) was 31,165 pounds and by 2022 it had only risen to 33,497 pounds. In the meantime the pound had fallen in value from $1.99 to $1.22. In dollar terms, her RGPC fell from $62,018 per person in 2008 to $40,966 per person in 2022 – a drop of 34 percent.
4) Compare that to Liechtenstein’s $186,000 per person (a monarchy not a democracy) and I wonder if Britain needs a better monarch.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_GDP_(nominal)_per_capita#Table
Don Williams, said:
“The renewable transition is expensive and I wonder if Britain will have the money”.
Britain will have the money. Studies by the UK climate change committee and several other organisations show it would cost the UK about 1% of yearly gdp to fully transition to renewables and also achieve net zero. It’s obvious this is affordable because it’s a small percentage, and the UK are a relatively high income country and the amount of cost cutting in other areas to achieve that 1% is very small. Even if the number was twice as high it’s still affordable. There is plenty of wasted spending that could be cut to afford renewables.
zebra: “And while protests are nice expressions of discontent, what wins elections is not about policies, but the perceptions about the candidate.”
In the USA, both count. Trump’s policies are mostly what won the election this time: close the border, stop inflation, punish criminals instead of letting them go, strengthen the military, get men out of women’s sports (and related issues), get the US out of endless wars that are not in our interest, stop the weaponization of government against political opponents, protect our 1A and 2A rights, make energy abundant and affordable, cut wasteful spending, etc.
zebra: “….that the data doesn’t tell us that there has been some sea change in the politics.” and also zebra: “2024: Trump loses to a Black woman, barely winning EC.”
If an EC count of 312 to 226 is “barely winning”, then you are correct:
https://edition.cnn.com/election/2024/results/president?election-data-id=2024-PG&election-painting-mode=projection-with-lead&filter-key-races=false&filter-flipped=false&filter-remaining=false
American voters shifted to the right almost everywhere, and you are correct that Harris was part of the problem, but the biggest problem was the previous 4 years and the fact that she said she would not change a single thing that Biden did:
https://eu.usatoday.com/story/graphics/2024/11/15/how-did-america-vote-2024-election-analysis/76292995007/
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/trump-election-results-map-shift-red/
https://economictimes.indiatimes.com/news/international/us/after-disastrous-2024-u-s-elections-democrats-unfavorability-rating-reaches-new-16-year-high/articleshow/117750094.cms?from=mdr
The good news is that MAYBE we’ll have a leaner, more efficient government in 4 years, and in the meantime NOBODY is stopping anyone from pursuing solutions to AGW on a personal or state level.
Sorry, I meant popular vote not EC.
So, White woman won PV, White man won PV by much more, Black woman barely lost PV.
Policies in all three elections were consistent for each election.
I’ve posted this in various venues multiple times, but yet to get an answer as to why Biden won if it is all about policies. He is the quintessential Dem politician.
I know, I know, it was trans immigrant ninja spies stealing the votes, right?
I would say Clinton and Harris lost some votes due to misogyny and racism given the bigotry out there in society, but the significant difference in the popular vote between Biden and the two women could largely be due to Biden being more liked as a person.
KIA, regarding your overlords so called election promises:
“stop inflation”
ROFL. Inflation has risen significantly since Trump has been leader, directly attributed to Trumps policies including excessively high and widespread tariffs and other policies and all the uncertainty its created. I assure you much worse is to come. You have voted for a lot of pain and no gain. Tariffs are useless policy in todays world, with the possible exception of some military components where it makes sense to be self sufficient. The last time Trump had tariffs jobs in manufacturing went DOWN.
“punish criminals instead of letting them go,”
By all means in principle, but just ejecting a million illegal immigrants, will only cause America pain and won’t make much difference to people trying too illegally enter America. People are desperate will do anything. Build your silly wall instead.
“strengthen the military”,
ROFL. Trump is reducing military spending. That will weaken the military.
“get men (meaning transgender people) out of women’s sports (and related issues), ”
Totally unnecessary. Sure it’s unfair they compete in certain sports like weight lifting and generally they are barred from this in various countries. But many sports are not an issue. Americans have a strange set of priorities when they worry about transgender people, who are not out there committing crimes and threatening to steal Palestinian land and Greenland, and comprise about 0.0001% of the population.
“get the US out of endless wars that are not in our interest,”
So just abandon other countries. How decent and moral of you. You also give no thought to how wars can escalate and ultimately hurt Americas interests.
“stop the weaponization of government against political opponents, ”
You are doing this yourselves. Trump has replaced government officials with useless unqualified Trump supporters out for revenge. Example the FBI.
“protect our 1A and 2A rights,”
No sane constitution allows absolutely anyone to own a gun in any circumstances. The democrats understand this while The Republicans have a total lack of commonsense on the issue..
“make energy abundant and affordable,”
Then why Is Trump encouraging coal when renewables are cheaper per mwhr? How illogical is that? Costs of electricity:
https://www.energy.gov/sites/default/files/2024-12/34-%20Exh.%20FF-%20Lazard%27s.pdf
Another way that renewables save people money:
https://skepticalscience.com/renewables-dont-need-expensive-backup-today.html
“cut wasteful spending, etc.”
By all means. But Trump and Musk aren’t cutting wasteful spending. They are cutting useful spending such as cancer research, climate research, air safety control and consumer protection. Its insanity.
No need to say more except that IMHO the USA taking sides with Russia and refusing to condemn their invasion of the Ukraine is just pure evil.
“punish criminals instead of letting them go,” How about the rioters on 1/6?
Right after the Capital riot, on January 7, 2020,Trump said on Fox in a prepared statement,, “Like all Americans, I am outraged by the violence, lawlessness and mayhem.” He went on to describe the riot as a “heinous attack.” He was actually throwing them under the bus. The Fox network believed Trump was in trouble so he needed to make a phony statement. He soon learned that his personality of cult was stronger then he realized. So he went into full Orwellian mode. After it went through the Ministry of Truth those rioters came out as patriots. The voters disgraced themselves! All those criminals were cleaned by the guy who was willing to sell them down the river so he could escape accountability.. Now America is living in a Fool’s Paradise.
https://video.search.yahoo.com/yhs/search?fr=yhs-reb-ext_onelaunch&ei=UTF-8&hsimp=yhs-ext_onelaunch&hspart=reb&p=Fox%2C+1%2F7%2F2020+Trump+condems&type=0_1016_102_1085_107_240102#id=1&vid=8fbfdc70c5d01f1ead928ee862a3d2b0&action=click
Looks like someone removed the source URL for NASA | This World Is Black and White youtube.com/watch?v=sCxIqgZA7ag This video is public domain and can be downloaded at: http://svs.gsfc.nasa.gov/goto?10898 (404)
Video now also available via Earthclimate https://climatestate.com/2014/03/07/the-albedo-effect-explained-with-the-daisyworld-model-nasa/
Go to Nasa.gov and type in the title and you will find it. Link:
https://plus.nasa.gov/video/this-world-is-black-and-white/
The initial hit on science is at NIH, NOAA, NASA, etc. The next one will be the efforts to coerce universities across the country to implement Trump’s Soviet Science, where only ideologically acceptable research and results are allowed. Maybe there will be an effort to build an independent science ecosystem in the US. Not sure how that could work, but clearly the sciences in the US will be in deep decline.
Did you see that Trump hired a hunting buddy of his son to run the food division at FDA? This after the previous division head resigned after DOGE fired 89 of his food safety staff. The guy is a lawyer who apparently has had some practice in the regulatory fields.
Again, Lysenkoism hurts the country practicing Lysenkoism first and worst.
I watched as the last “conservative” govt quite literally hauled a science library in Newfoundland into the landfill (one of 11 libraries they ordered destroyed as I remember). I have rarely felt so empty in my life though 1/6 was close being a US citizen, Eagle Scout, and all.
Re jgnfld – the landfilling of multiple scientific libraries, was only one of the achievements of Steven Harper. Some others included defunding any research with “climate change” in the proposal, preventing government scientists from going to international conferences, requiring the permission of the administration to speak even to the Canadian media. And in the same vein a pettiness as Trumps ripping out the already installed EV charging in government buildings or bringing back the plastic straws – Harper shut down the unique Experimental Lakes Area – a set of 58 formerly pristine freshwater lakes in which whole-lake controlled experiments took place – you split a lake in half, add to one fertilizers, or add acid to simulate acid rains, or higher CO2 environment, keep the other half as a control. thus combining the strengths of manipulative experiments with realism on the natural experiments. But the last thing Conservatives wanted was the strong scientific results – they prefer to fish in muddy water: “the science is not settled [because we tied its hands behind its back, and gagged it] – so let’s not rock the boat and let’s err on the side of … the tar sands. After all, the uncertainty will be our friend!”. (the Lakes were restarted by private consortium and provincial government, but not until the continuity of many year experiments was compromised).
And after 10 years out of power, one of the former ministers of Harper is poised to return to power as the new PM – on the strength of his central lie – portraying the revenue-neutral carbon tax of Justin Trudeau as a …. tax grab, and the cause of the post-COVID inflation (despite our inflation being the same or lower than in the countries that …didn’t have the carbon tax).
So dark times are upon us too, but until then, our sympathies – what you guys are going through already are what we had with Harper, but on steroids, or rather – on crack. The Mad King and his Hand, Elon the Destroyer.
You needn’t describe this in detail. I lived it.
Massive layoffs at NOAA:
https://www.nytimes.com/2025/02/27/climate/noaa-layoffs-trump.html
The plan is to dismantled NOAA and the weather service.. The USGS is maybe next.
Climate science records will slowly disappear of the US government.