Arguments
Recent Comments
Prev 96 97 98 99 100 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110 111 Next
Comments 5151 to 5200:
-
Eclectic at 00:37 AM on 14 September 2021CO2 effect is saturated
MA Rodger @626 : Thank you. You are as always, a grand source of climate information and analysis. Encyclopedic !
Yes, I am guilty of being insufficiently attentive to the non-publication status of the Wijngaarden & Happer paper. And yes, the paper seems to have drifted toward oblivion during the past year ~ even within the hallowed precincts of Wattsupia University.
Nevertheless, there is a scientific duty to keep a weather eye in the direction of all fringe-dwellers, just in case there really might develop "a small cloud on the horizon". ~Improbable though that might be.
In one sense, the main obfuscation in the W & H paper is the prominent semantic mis-use of the term "saturation". That is a matter which seems to have misled the propagandist Dr David Wojick (or perhaps he - and his Heartland colleagues - are being disingenuous in not seeing through it. A novel thought! )
-
coolmaster at 23:46 PM on 13 September 2021It's albedo
@GPWayne:
"We know the planet is warming, and that human agency is causing it. What we cannot say yet is how climate change is affecting albedo, how it might be affected in the future, and what contribution to climate change - positive or negative - it may make."
coolmaster: The albedo is relative ... and depends primarily on the wavelength of the light that hits the body/molecule. We should therefore always specify a wavelength range for the albedo. Otherwise, strictly speaking, the entire incoming spectrum of the sun ( UVC140nm up to Micro waves10cm) is decisive. This relativity to the albedo is particularly important for an element as widespread worldwide as H²O. I.e. ice and snow with an albedo of up to 0,9 in the visible range(380-780nm) has an albedo in the micro wave range of only < 0,1.
Albedo of the earth ist 0,3 because absorbtion is 0,7(0,5 on the surface + 0,2 in the atmosphere) --> so the atmosphere has an albedo. Higher concentrations of GHG specially CO² is lowering the albedo of the atmosphere and is thus increasing temperature. We could always increase the albedo elsewhere: clouds, white color in the outdoor area or lighter field crops through foliar fertilization with light clays are just a few of the many possibilities.
The temperature of the earth's surface is globally determined by the radiation balance, the radiation budget. This records the interaction between absorption and reflection as well as re-emission and scattering.
But no matter which albedo you are looking at, whether short or long wave - a higher albedo can never cause a rise in temperature or energy. Conversely, every falling albedo increases temperatures or energy on earth.
So I suggest that you update the last sentence of your basic rebuttal.@Moderation response: "last warning"
In my last comment, which you would like to see in the slr section, the word albedo appears 3 times - the words clouds and cloud cover even more often. You should also warn others, who do exactly the same(i.e. MAR,BL).
The inseparable connection between albedo - clouds - water and SLR was invented by an immovable mover (Aristotle's definition of God) ! not me !
I don't want to discuss religion here, if only because I don't belong to any official religious community and because my religion is art. For me, climate science is a discipline, just like painting, sculpture, dance, music, and theater, etc.Nevertheless, I noticed that there once was a man who said he wanted to save the world. Among other things, because he supposedly could move over the water ...
I also want to save the world ... and move (spiritually & physically) over the water.If you don't like my holistic, alternative climate protection strategy, which lowers sea level rise and earth temperatures - I can't change it, but I can't understand it either. In my opiniont it is the very last opportunity for you, your readers, commentators, your descendants, and the rest of creation to escape from climate hell (as long as anybody presents a much better, faster or cheaper concept.)
That was my last warning to you...
Moderator Response:[DB]
Please note that posting comments here at SkS is a privilege, not a right. This privilege can and will be rescinded if the posting individual continues to treat adherence to the Comments Policy as optional, rather than the mandatory condition of participating in this online forum.
Moderating this site is a tiresome chore, particularly when commentators repeatedly submit unsupported assertions (sloganeering) or off-topic posts. We really appreciate people's cooperation in abiding by the Comments Policy, which is largely responsible for the quality of this site.
Finally, please understand that moderation policies are not open for discussion. If you find yourself incapable of abiding by these common set of rules that everyone else observes, then a change of venues is in the offing.Please take the time to review the policy and ensure future comments are in full compliance with it. Thanks for your understanding and compliance in this matter, as no further warming shall be given.
https://www.skepticalscience.com/comments_policy.shtml
Sloganeering and moderation complaints snipped.
-
MA Rodger at 23:19 PM on 13 September 2021CO2 effect is saturated
Eclectic @625,
Of course, there is the point as to whether you should be referring to that paper as Wijngaarden & Happer (2020). Academic work is usually only dated if it is properly published or if it is presented at a conference. Otherwise it would be demoted to being a working paper which is thus not complete and thus not properly dateable. And I would suggest that up-loading a paper onto Cornell University's "free distributon service" arXvi doesn't count as 'publication', it being no-more 'published' than this comment I post here at SkS.
But the proof of the pudding and all that....
Whatever tha nature of a piece of work's origin, it is its usefulness to the science that is the proper measure of it. A look at google scholar for Wijngaarden & Happer (unpublished) 'Dependence of Earth’s Thermal Radiation on Five Most Abundant Greenhouse Gases' shows today just four citations, which is pretty rubbish. And one of those is a reference from a further Wijngaarden & Happer paper posted @arXvi which is but an updated version of the same while accounting for two more GHGs, CF4 & SF6. Of the remaining three, one explicitly styles itself a working paper. (I note its reference list is stuffed full of denialist nonsense: Koonin & Jon-boy Christy, Lewis & Dicky Lindzen, McIntyre & McKitrick & Monckton, Svensmark & Woy Spencer.) The final two citations do initially appear to be by published work. But in tracking down both ♣Pascal Richet (2021): 'Climate and the temperature-CO2 relationship An epistemological re-examination of the ice core message', History of Geo- and Space Sciences, Vol 12, pp97-110. and ♣David Coe; Fabinski, Walter & Weigleb, Gerhard (2021): 'The Impact of CO2, H2O and Other "Greenhouse Gases" on Equilibrium Earth Temperatures' Int J. Atmos. & Oceanic Sci.,Vol 5, Issue 2, pp29-40. I see either a blank space in the pp97-110 page-numbering or the pages pp29-41 taken by another paper. So it appears that the final two citations have failed to gain publication; not so uncommon with denialist works which both these final two citing paper evidently are. (An on-line French version of the first of these two simply presents a common climate myth while a posting of the second's Abstract still visible on a denialist website shows its finding is an ECS=+0.5ºC.)
....turns out to be a large bowl of rather-sticky humble pie.
-
Eclectic at 20:24 PM on 13 September 2021CO2 effect is saturated
Hari-Seldon @624 : Thank you for that. Me and my slide-rule were vaguely following the Wijngaarden & Happer (2020) paper, but, allowing for possible bias on my own part, it seemed I might well be missing some vital point.
The paper was discussed rather briefly on this thread, about a year ago. I gather the paper had been rejected by several journals initially. Yet, despite the bizarre political statements that continually come from both W. and H., their scientific contributions should be worthy of respectful attention, at the outset anyway.
The (non-expert) impression I felt while reading this paper, was that W. and H. were trying to carefully examine one tree ~ while studiously ignoring the forest. The clear-sky & constant humidity focus, the downplaying of Top-Of-Atmosphere aspects . . . and the later verbal diminution of the ECS figure (by van Wijngaarden) ~ were all part of an overall impression that W. and H. were in the business of obfuscating their own findings (in their own minds as well as in the minds of their acolytes).
Disappointing, in two scientists with good track records in non-climate areas. But our subconscious minds have the power to make fools of us all, when we permit such.
-
Hari-Seldon at 18:39 PM on 13 September 2021CO2 effect is saturated
Michael sweet. Quantum statistical physics apologizes to you for their misunderstadings. On the other hand I think that this whole page is not worth of my time. The reason is that there is a post titled: "How could global warming accelerate if CO2 is logarithmic."(https://skepticalscience.com/why-global-warming-can-accelerate.html)
Thus in one post my reasoning is valid in another is misunderstandings ... This is crap.
Eclectic: This paper calculates the forcing due to the different green-house gases. The authors find a "logarithmic forcing" for CO2 concentration. Their value for the forcing is only 3.0 W/m^2 (where MODTRAN finds 3.7). Their words are "Note from Table 2 that doubling or halving the column density of CO2 changes the
forcing F by almost the same amount, either at the tropopause or at the mesopause. " (page 18 at https://arxiv.org/pdf/2006.03098.pdf). They also say that "In addition to line intensities, three of the calculations used a
continuum CO2 opacity, and all five used a continuum H2O opacity. The physical origin
of these continua is unclear. They are added to make the calculations agree better with
observations [10, 13]. " This means that they do not understand why they have to use that model. However they also say "The mesopause spectral intensities,
calculated with only HITRAN lines and with no continuum contributions, are in excellent
agreement with satellite measurements over the Sahara Desert, the Mediterranean Sea and
Antarctica, as discussed in Section 8". This means that they are confident for their mesopause calculations. In the conclusions they say that "Fig. 9 as well as Tables 2 and 4 show that at current concentrations, the forcings from all
greenhouse gases are saturated. The saturations of the abundant greenhouse gases H2O and
CO2 are so extreme that the per-molecule forcing is attenuated by four orders of magnitude
with respect to the optically thin values. " When the authors say that the concentrations are in the saturation regime it means that they have passed the area of a large slope and they are in an area with small slope (no constant forcing). An important result is that: "The calculated flux increment
from simultaneously doubling CO2, N2O and CH4 is the slightly smaller value, ∆F = 4.7 W/m^2". This is important because we have to examine closely how an increased CO2 concentration affects the concentrations of the other gases.I am not confident enough about the earth temperature part because there are too many parameters and I am not an expert on that.
-
Eclectic at 14:22 PM on 13 September 2021CO2 effect is saturated
Hari-Seldon, I would very much like you to give your opinion on the WH2020 paper, as well. Likewise I appeal to all others expert enough in these matters.
-
Eclectic at 14:18 PM on 13 September 2021CO2 effect is saturated
Speaking of saturation and "error of interpretation of the resulting data" :-
Coolmaster, you may be the very person I could ask for an interpretation of the recent paper by Wijngaarden & Happer (2020).
I confess to being very nearly a physics naif (and a naif who habitually thinks in terms of two-and-a-half significant figures as afforded by my trusty slide-rule). So, in reading the WH2020 paper, I skipped through the numerous formulae, and sought the Take Home message. ~Which, verbiage aside, seemed to be minimally different from the mainstream climate science on GHG "saturation".
Yes, assorted "AGW-deniers" immediately seized upon the WH2020 paper as a conclusive debunking of a half-century of climate physics & observations. But there are always fringe-dwellers who seize upon anything within a million miles of the idea that no AGW is occurring (or alternatively ~ that the AGW will doom the world irreversibly by the year 2030).
Coolmaster, I will be grateful for your opinion, if you have time to look at the WH2020 paper. ( I do realize that both van Wijngaarden and Happer are afflicted by severe emotional/political bias producing major motivated reasoning problems in their climate assessments ~ but all that aside, is there something of useful scientific value in their paper? )
-
michael sweet at 12:05 PM on 13 September 2021CO2 effect is saturated
I think MARodger answers your misunderstandings better than I do so I will leave it to his comments. It seems to me that his post at 618 answers your question and shows that CO2 is not saturated. It appears that you do not have a calculation error, it is an error of interpretation of the resulting data.
-
coolmaster at 10:47 AM on 13 September 2021It's albedo
MA Rodger93:
MAR: "Your proposed grand scheme seems to be assuming atmospheric water can increase by 0.001335M km^3 annualy, or a 10% annual increase."
No - I never ever assumed, wrote or thought about that I plan or can increase atmospheric water by 1335km³ annualy.You are making a very similar mistake as Prof. Stefan Rahmstorf from PIK in Potsdam in response to my comment in another climate forum.
Your mistake is probably that you have not read my posts with due attention, even though they are kept very simple and straightforward.
An increase in atmospheric water by 10% / year would mean that, according to the CCF, earth temperatures rise by approx. 1.4 ° C per year. A state of the climate which means certain death for all life on earth.So you also completely misunderstood me.
My climate protection strategy would like to take the volume of 3.7mm SLR(1335km³) from the global rivers discharge when their water levels are sufficient(&clean) or even specially in flood events after rain- !!! to store it in soil moisture and groundwater over the land mass.
In principle a simple, seasonal storage of retained river water also to adapt to droughts and floods.In dry seasons, this water will be mainly evaporated from agriculture, but also the before mentioned “amunas” of the old inca culture and their water management are a perfect way to rewet forests & moors.
hidraulicainca.com/lima/sistema-hidraulico-amunas/
This in turn ensures an increasing relative (and specific) humidity and additional cloud formation over land in a regional drought season.
After an average of ~8.5 days in the atmosphere it will return – even with a relatively high probability – as precipitation over another land area. There will be a multiplier effect that increase together with soil moisture and evaporation rate (wet regions become wetter).
As a result, the water cycle over the land areas is intensified by ~ 1-1,5% and thus the increasing size of the annual mean cloud cover over land areas leads to a higher albedo & CRE, which I estimate to be at least a cooling RF of ~ -0.2W/m² / year.
A really cooling, additional radiative forcing, which, in my opinion, can more than compensate for the current annual radiative forcing caused by CO² .A holistic, functioning climate protection strategy,(stopping SLR AND global temperature rise & adaptation to droughts and floods) which works alternatively and independently of the reduction in CO² emissions, which only promises to stop the temperatures rise perhaps after ~ 2070 (if we as humanity can reduce emissions immediately – which I personally do not believe)
In the latest IPCC report / WG1 Chapter 7.4.2.4.3, the positive feedback of the cloud cover on an atmosphere warmer by 1 ° C is given with +0.42W m-2 ° C-1.
We are slowly but steadily losing not only areas of ice and snow albedo, but also the clouds albedo due to decreasing global mean cloud cover and higher lapse rate.
The cooling CRE with ~-19W m-2 (chapter 7.2.1. in the same report) should decrease accordingly.The slower warming of the oceans means that there has not been enough moisture evaporated into – and then held in – the air above the oceans to keep pace with the rising temperatures over land. This means that the air is not as saturated as it was and – as the chart below shows – relative humidity has decreased, desertification is spreading rapidly mainly caused by human activities.
Dryness is a temperature driver and cloud killer.
That is why I (as an artist - not a climate scientist) think it's a good idea to create additional “artificial” clouds by additional artificial irrigation retained by river discharge from the superfluous water of the oceans.---
MAR: but the reported 10% increase in evaporation rate 2003-19 over land equates to some 7,000km^3/y while the reported 3% increase in rainfall equates to 3,300km^3/y and the decrease in direct discharge from land to ocean a further 3,000km^3/y.
This suggests your grand scheme wouldn't make a ha'p'orth of difference. Evaporation over land is shown to have increased five-time the amount you propose yet AGW and SLR continued apace.
coolmaster: ???
360.57M km² ocean area * 3.7mm SLR = 1334.1km³ water = 8.93mm above the land area.
149.43M km² land area * 2.3L / m² increasing evaporation per year = 343.689km³ water.
* 1L / m² increasing precipitation per year = 149.43km³
* -1.01L decreasing runoff through the rivers per year = -150.92km³
* -0.75L decreasing groundwater level per year = -112.07km³Your calculator probably has a built-in joker.
And if you are holding a PhD, you should hand it over (to me ?) as soon as possible.Moderator Response:[RH] Once again, please browse the topics on this site and move discussions on SLR to that thread. Last warning on this one.
-
Hari-Seldon at 08:03 AM on 13 September 2021CO2 effect is saturated
And some simple facts from elementary quantum mechanics.
Fact No 1. In the graphs that MODTRAN (http://climatemodels.uchicago.edu/modtran/) presents the area under the intensity curve with the horizontal axis is the trasmitted power per m^2.
Fact No 2. This area is FINITE (for a CO2 concentraion of 280 ppm is around 300 W/m^2)
Fact No 3. The valley we see near 15 μm is due to the CO2. The area of this valley is the power/m^2 that CO2 absorbs. For a concentration of 280 ppm is around 30 W/m^2.
Fact No 4. Increasing the CO2 concentration the area of the valley increases due to the increase of the width of the spectral line.
Fact No 5. Due to the fact that the total area is finite the area of the valley can not increase linearly with the CO2 concentration. If a linear behaviour existed a concentration of 2800 ppm should absorb all the existing energy. Thus there should be a "saturation" mechanism. This is the logarithmic relation that this results show.
Fact No 6. Even at very large concentrations of CO2 such as that in Venusian atmosphere the area of the valley is less than one third of the total.
Fact No 7. If there is a regime where the area of the valley increases linearly with CO2 concentration, this regime would be very limited. After that a stronger "saturation" mechanism should appear.
Thus the program of MODTRAN has the essential physics correct. Maybe it is not accurate enouth and there is some error in some concentrations. But overall the behaviour that this program present is correct. And its results are solid (maybe not for all concentrations but for most and maybe with an error of 10-15%).
-
Hari-Seldon at 02:51 AM on 13 September 2021CO2 effect is saturated
Ma Rodger.
I read Asimovs story in 1977 , when I was 13 years old. It is my favorite, so yes the name comes fron Trantor.
We have to be self-consistent with what we claim. In this article the authors support the idea that the CO2 effect in atmospheric radiance comes form the increasing of the width of the spectral lines. This program shows that effect, and that effect shows a logarithmic behaviour which is leading to a decrease of the slope of the increase anount of the energy confined in the atmosphere.
If someone uses another argument then we will discuss the effect of that argument, but when we speak of the width of the lines this is the result. And if we have to convince someone we have to be selg-consistent and not to change our story.
Michael Sweet You are wrong. I do not support something that is different from accepted science. On the contrary I am speaking of the accepted science. Earth is warming because it radiates less energy than it receives. Simple fact. So looking at tha spectrum (black-body or bettter gray-body) of the outward radiation will gives as the amount of energy earth radiates. I am not interested on the mechanisms that energy uses to reach the upper atmosphere. I know that almost vacuum surrounds earth so I know that the only energy leaving earth is EM radiation (and gravitational radiation but this is negligible). Thus there is one argument concerning the increase of the widths of the absorption lines more that the Doppler and Heisenbergs uncertainty effects. This program shows exactly how this effect (increase of the width) works. Simpe as that.
-
MA Rodger at 01:12 AM on 13 September 2021CO2 effect is saturated
Hari-Seldon @616,
(I assume you have adopted the name of the character Hari Sheldon from Asimov's Foundation trilogy but claim nothing of his prescience.)
Picking up on michael sweet @617 description of the mechanism of CO2 forcing and its logarithmic nature....
Chicago University's MODTRAN which you employ is a very useful on-line resource. But I don't think it is correct to suggest that CO2 levels are "in a condition similar to saturation" because the forcing is logarithmic.
You show the climate forcing incrementing due to 2x/4x/8x the pre-industrial CO2 280ppm level as being (& I correct your arithmetic) +3.30, +3.36 & +3.52Wm^-2. A further increase to 16x to 4,480ppm again yields an additional +3.74Wm^-2 with 32x incrementing +4.11Wm^-2 & 64X incrementing +4.68Wm^-2.
And a halving of the pre-industrial level to 140ppm from 280ppm yields -3.36Wm^-2. And this 'halving' sequence can be contimued down to roughly that 1ppm you mention, halvings running down from 140ppm -3.42, -3.52, -3.48, -3.45, -3.14, -2.51, -1.88Wm^-2. And these halvings from 280ppm down to 1.094ppm total to -24.8Wm^-2.
While I am not sure how well MODTRAN works at CO2 levels well beyond today's atmospheric levels (I assume the well-established 3.7Wm^-2 value does not appear in the doubling 280ppm-560ppm as the model is set for the clear-sky tropics), it is plain that CO2 creates a reasonably constant climate forcing for each doubling from roughly 20ppm up to 2000ppm. This logarithmic relationship is well-known. Al levels of CO2 above 800ppm, Zhong & Haig (2013) found the forcing from these higher CO2 levels begin to exceed the logarithmic relationship due to significant additional radiative effects appearing at 10μm which provide extra forcing as the 15μm effects diminish.
So the relationship is stronger than logarithmic and thus describing such a relationship as "in a condition similar to saturation" is neither applicable nor (given the dismissive connotations of calling it 'saturated') helpful.
-
michael sweet at 01:05 AM on 13 September 2021CO2 effect is saturated
Hari-Seldon:
Welcome to Skeptical Science. I suggest that it is better to try to phrase your comments as questions when you are asserting something that is different from accepted science.
At the surface of the Earth the greenhouse effect is in what you would describe as near saturation. That doesn't matter. The key point is that at the average escape altitude for IR radiatiom, at approximately 10,000 meters, the concentration of CO2 is about 1/3 the concentration at sea level due to lower atmospheric pressure. In addition, since it is so cold at the escape altitude, there is little water vapor present so CO2 is the ultimate control of most of the radiation escaping. I think your calculations are in error because you used the incorrect concentration of CO2.
Increasing the concentration of CO2 increases the escape altitude. The lapse rate of the troposphere is about 6K/km. If the escape altitude increases 100 meters than the temperature at the surface increases 0.6K. Positive feedbacks cause the amount of heating from CO2 to approximately triple.
Keep in mind that the greenhouse effect increases the temperature of the Earth's surface about 33K. Adding 10% to the existing greenhouse effect would increase temperature over 3K, a disastrous amount. Try calculating how much of an increase in CO2 would result in a 100 meter increase in the escape altitude for a more accurate estimate of the change required.
You are trying to do a difficult calculation without understanding the basics of the atmosphere. I recommend reading a lot more background information before you assert you are correct. It is generally accepted that doubling CO2 concentration results in approximately a 3K increase in surface temperature. About 1K is from the CO2 increase. The response to increased concentration is logarithmic.
-
Hari-Seldon at 22:17 PM on 12 September 2021CO2 effect is saturated
As a theoretical physicist I have learnt to be very carefull with my words and to closely exam the available data. Using the link I found here
(http://climatemodels.uchicago.edu/modtran/) I understand that:
Is the CO2 saturated? No it is not.
Is it in a condition similar to saturation? Yes it is. The reason is that with 1ppm of CO2 there is an upward IR flux of 325.304 W/m^2.
With 280ppm of CO2 there is an upward IR flux of 300.215 W/m^2 (lost 25 W/m^2)
With 2*280 =560 ppm of CO2 there is an upward IR flux of 296.918 W/m^2 (lost 3.7 W/m^2)
With 4*280 =1120 ppm of CO2 there is an upward IR flux of 293.559 W/m^2 (lost 3.36 W/m^2)
With 8*280 =2240 ppm of CO2 there is an upward IR flux of 290.042 W/m^2 (lost 3.5 W/m^2).In order to have an upward IR flux of 275 W/m^2, i.e. to have a decrease similar to the one from 1ppm-280 ppm (we should reach a concentration of 25000 ppm). This means that we are near the plateau of the curve which means we are in a condition similar to saturation (because I am not convinced that a real saturation exists).
-
MA Rodger at 21:56 PM on 12 September 2021It's albedo
coolmaster @92,
Your final paragraph is packed full of unsupported assertions which you say will result from your grand scheme of annually diverting 1,335km^3/y of water that would otherwise discharge into the oceans and thus radically increase global albedo through increased cloud. The "unsupported" nature of your assertions is easily demonstrated with the two references you provide.
♣ The graphic you present is from Wikithing but is adapted from Abbott et al (2019) 'Human domination of the global water cycle absent from depictions and perceptions' who provide the numbers in their Fig 3. Relevant to your grand scheme is the size of the various global water reservoirs. The giant reservoir is of course the oceans which hold 1,340M km^3. Next is ice with 25M km^3 and surface/soil water with 23M km^3 while trailing along far behind is the atmosphere holding just 0.0125M km^3 water.
Your proposed grand scheme seems to be assuming atmospheric water can increase by 0.001335M km^3 annualy, or a 10% annual increase. Note this 10% annual increase in atmospheric water would add to the GH-effect, perhaps by some 4Wm^-2 annually, so 100x stronger than today's AGW.
♣ The CarbonBrief reference describes Pascolini-Campbell et al (2021) 'A 10 per cent increase in global land evapotranspiration from 2003 to 2019' which is iteslf paywalled [Abstract] but the reported 10% increase in evaporation rate 2003-19 over land equates to some 7,000km^3/y while the reported 3% increase in rainfall equates to 3,300km^3/y and the decrease in direct discharge from land to ocean a further 3,000km^3/y.
This suggests your grand scheme wouldn't make a ha'p'orth of difference. Evaporation over land is shown to have increased five-time the amount you propose yet AGW and SLR continued apace.
-
coolmaster at 11:18 AM on 12 September 2021It's albedo
MA Rodger: "You tell us that you suppose I "can see the difference for the SLR" in regard to the source of human water use."
Sorry - - that was obviously a misjudgment on my part. The same applies to you here: All good things are 3
The oceans work like a bathtub:
'- The inflow comes from the rivers discharge ...greenland, antarctica incl. (~49500km³) & ocean precipitation (379500km³)
- and the outflow happens by ocean evaporation. (420750km³)
We take the ! additional ! 1335km³ so from the rivers and not from the groundwater ---> SLR stopped.
You already know the page that quantifies the drainage of the continents.
www.carbonbrief.org/satellite-data-reveals-impact-of-warming-on-global-water-cycle
The volume corresponds to 907 PWh and will replenish groundwater and aquifers and circulate again and again to large parts over the land areas and incl. create a multiplication effect that increases cloud cover, precipitation, evaporation and runoff.
-
coolmaster at 08:57 AM on 12 September 2021It's albedo
BL: You have to find out for yourself how the water cycle works. More than 3 attempts at explanation tell me that this will take months for you. (if any)
Anyone who asks the same question 8 times in a single comment and then does not get along with NASA's simple answer should think twice about whether he will get along here as an author at all. And please save your insults for your future readers (?) - they will surely love you.A small reading sample at the end of our funny and fruitful discussion he already provides here in advance:
BL: 70"Clear skies and overcast skies are quite different.
Land and sea are quite different.
Visible light and IR radiation are quite different.Complex? Yes.
Incomprehensible? No."
Personally, I would like to read some explanations of the final mysteries of climate research as the first topic for his entry as an author:
After the rain - comes the sun and after the sun comes the rain. Good lucklmao - MACIAS
Moderator Response:[RH] You'll please note this thread is supposed to be directed toward issues of albedo. If you wish to discuss issues related to SLR please find the appropriate thread and comment there.
-
MA Rodger at 05:29 AM on 12 September 2021It's albedo
coolmaster @87,
You tell us that you suppose I "can see the difference for the SLR" in regard to the source of human water use.
Folk familiar with SLR would know that if the (2,700+300=) 3,000 cu km mentioned @85 were added to ocean volumes, it would cause over 8mm in SLR. So the proportion of that 3,000 cu km of water sourced unsustainably from aquifers is small. Indeed, the SLR from changes to ground water is assessed as running at about 0.4mm/yr (Cáceres et al (2020) puts it at 0.39mm/y for the period 2003-16) suggesting the 3,000 cu km/yr in 2010 comprises just 5% from unsustainable aquifer.
-
Philippe Chantreau at 03:03 AM on 12 September 2021It's albedo
I've followed this exchange somewhat distractedly, but now I'm noticing this from coolmaster when confronted with the lack of cooling that has happened from exactly the physical process he argues would cause it:
"NO. The water consumption of civilization and agriculture has increased steadily with the population growth.
Agriculture in particular, as the largest consumer, has already dangerously lowered and polluted the water table in many places. Consumption continues to rise and the switch to river and rainwater is actually inevitable."How does that constitute any kind of response? It is completely beside the point and has nothing to do with the initial argument that the retained water would promote cloudiness, change albedo and lower temperatures. From that point of view, where the water comes from is irrelevant. The fact remains that the cooling imagined by Coolmaster from the physical process he described has not happened.
-
Bob Loblaw at 02:34 AM on 12 September 2021It's albedo
..and once again, coolmaster just links to a page and shows a graphic without explaining how it supports his Grand Theory.
OK. I"ll bite. On the web page at that link (which is broken - here is the correct one), we find this (emphasis added):
Another interesting relationship is that while the places with the most water vapor in any month are always among the cloudiest, it is not always true that the cloudiest places are among the most humid locations. The tropics are both very humid and very cloudy, but in many months, the Southern Ocean is among the cloudiest places on the planet, even though the amount of water vapor is relatively low. This pattern occurs because cloud formation depends on both water vapor and air temperatures. The colder the air, the more readily any water vapor in the air will condense into clouds.
Where is the part that says a 1% increase in evaporation will be guaranteed to lead to 1% more clouds?
Coolmaster probably does not even read the links or papers he posts. If he does read them, he clearly does not understand them.
Coolmaster has clearly crossed into basic trolling now.
-
coolmaster at 01:45 AM on 12 September 2021It's albedo
BL: @ 83-86
BL: - It is not directly applicable to cloud reactions to local changes in surface temperature (e.g. irrigation of land) or local changes in surface humidity (e.g. increased humidity over irrigated land).
- And coolmaster's claim that cloud cover changes in response to increased surface evaporation is basically a wave of the hand.
- He has not provided a single reference or figure to support the claim that increasing evaporation over part of the world can lead to a global increase in cloud cover
- unless he can substantiate his claim of local increase in evaporation leading to global changes in cloud cover. ..
- if you do not have to provide a reference for your claim that local surface evaporation leads to a 1% increase in cloud cover.
- Now let's look for evaporation data so that we can finally check the elusive story "1% increase in evaporation causes 1% increase in clouds". Hmmm. I'm looking hard but I don't see - I see "atmospheric water". Is that "evaporation"? I do not think so. I seem to remember that "evaporation" is flow from the surface into the atmosphere, not storage in the atmosphere.
Are we looking at a system where increased evaporation actually causes these cloud changes? I don't see any evidence of that.- Maybe one day Coolmaster will give us the evidence we need, but I'm not going to hold my breath.
earthobservatory.nasa.gov/global-maps/MYDAL2_M_SKY_WV/MODAL2_M_CLD_FR
NASA water vapor vs. cloud fraction
IF you need a reference, that evaporation is the phase change from water ---> to water vapor - just (hopefully shorter) let me know.
BL: - You may find some clues about my background and why your Google search failed on the Skeptical Science Team page. - Congratulations. I see that you are very bussy & diligent with Prof. Dr. Martin Wild have worked together. I look forward to hopefully reading your funny future posts here in the forum soon. (Sincerely) MACIAS
@MA Rodger
Unfortunately, your graph says nothing about whether these amounts of water are taken from groundwater / aquifers or from river water or bank filtrate. I suppose you can see the difference for the SLR in that regard.MAR: All we have to do now is sit back and watch global temperatures drop from year to year. And when we have time ...
NO - The water consumption of civilization and agriculture has increased steadily with the population growth.
Agriculture in particular, as the largest consumer, has already dangerously lowered and polluted the water table in many places. Consumption continues to rise and the switch to river and rainwater is actually inevitable.In middle latitudes + 2 ° C, higher temperatures are also associated with ~ 10% higher evaporation. This is a huge problem for the arid regions that are becoming increasingly arid. Saving water wherever possible is certainly a challenge there today.
-
Bob Loblaw at 22:08 PM on 11 September 2021It's albedo
Amazing what a little relevant data will tell you MAR.
Just considering Agriculture in your graph, the 1335 km^3/yr has been exceeded continuously since the early 1950s. So, 70 years times -0.07C/year gives me something like 4.9 C of cooling since I was born.
I"d better buy a parka. The glaciers will be covering Canada again once this global cooling gets its way.
I wonder why nobody has noticed this cooling. Is it possible that coolmaster is wrong?
-
MA Rodger at 20:51 PM on 11 September 2021It's albedo
coolmaster & Bob Loblaw,
While we have been blathering about the efficacy of coolmaster's grand scheme, somebody has snuck in and done it!!! And not just 'done it' but done it twice, more than twice. And all since, what was it, 1900hrs yesterday?
Diverting 1,335 cu km water onto land? According to AQUASTAT, they have managed to divert over 300 cu km water into reservoir evaporation and a further 2,700 cu km water diverted onto farmland. And more impressive still - the farms will be also delivering much more produce because they have this water resource available.
So all we need to do now is sit back and watch the global temperatures tumble year-on-year. And if we have time, perhaps digging out the scarves and woolly hats would be an idea. According to coolmaster's calculation method, this cooling will be three-times faster than the warming of AGW :)
-
Bob Loblaw at 11:49 AM on 11 September 2021It's albedo
coolmaster @ 82:
Congratulations. Another comments policy violation. You can't find anything using Google? Maybe if you look at the Skeptical Science Team page, you will find some clues about my background and why your Google search failed.
It is amusing that you complain about a lack of links or references, when you still have yet to provide a reference for your claim that local surface evaporation will lead to a 1% increase in cloud cover. Just in case you have forgetten it, here is your original claim again:
This volume can be retained by a wide variety of measures before it flows into the oceans and converted into evaporation. - 9L / m² corresponds to ~ 1% of the average annual rainfall over land and should therefore create ~ 1% additional clouds over the land mass.
You repeat a diagram previously linked to. Let's us try to find the evidence we seek in that diagram.
- Cloud cover data? Yes, for three types (high, middle, and low).
- Clear annual cycles, especially for middle and low.
- Global total cloud cover? We don't see sums, but it is obvious that the low and middle cloud amounts are counter-cyclical... when one goes up, the other goes down. Less variation in high cloud. Could it be possible that these cloud types are responding differently to whatever the seasonal cycles are? Maybe there are changes in geographical distribution? Maybe differences between land and sea?
- Trends over time? Yes, And different trends for different cloud types.
Oh, there is that pesky cloud type issue again. Maybe it's actually important?
Now, let's look for evaporation data, so we can finally verify the elusive "1% increase in evaporation causes 1% increase in clouds" story.
Hmmm. I'm looking hard, but I don't see it.
- I see "atmospheric water". Is that "evaporation"? I don't think so. I seem to remember that "evaporation" is a flux from the surface to the atmosphere, not the storage in the atmophere.
- Are we looking at a system where increased evaporation is actually causing these cloud changes? I see no evidence of that.
- Oh, wait. Coolmaster has pointed out that this graph shows "...clouds feedback during the last decades triggered by a warming atmosphere..." My mistake - I thought you were trying to show data that supported your grand theory.
This is typical of what coolmaster has produced here: links to papers or diagrams, with no explanation as to how they are supposed to support his argument, leaving the reader to try to examine the paper or diagram in search of something only coolmaster sees. There is no "there" there.
You seem to like the IPCC reports. Since you appear to have a copy of AR6, I'll skip linking to it. Maybe it has something to say about your grand theory that irrigation can increase evaporation and cool the planet.
[search]
[search]Oh, maybe this is it!
Section 7.3.4.1 Land use.
It mostly covers albedo changes for land, but the second last paragraph says: "The contribution of irrigation (mainly to low cloud amount) is assessed as –0.05 [–0.1 to 0.05] W m -2 for the historical period (Sherwood et al., 2018)."
Hmmm. With those error bars, it's hard to tell if the effect is positive or negative. It's also the total effect attributable to all the increases in irrigated land over the historical period. If the -0.05 number is correct, would there be a linear response to more irrigated land, so that 100x the historical area would lead to -5W/m2 and offset the CO2 forcing? How much water is used each year for current irrigated land?
That might give coolmaster a glimmer of hope. Why has he not presented this information before? Maybe the more detailed results in the reference the IPCC uses do not support coolmaster's grand theory? Maybe he just doesn't know what to look for?
Maybe coolmaster will eventually provide us with the evidence we need, but I won't hold my breath.
-
Bob Loblaw at 11:33 AM on 11 September 2021It's albedo
MA Rodger @ 81:
Yes, coolmaster's essential error is to take a comparison between mean global clear sky radiation numbers and mean global cloudy sky radiation numbers, and treat that as if all cloud is equal and the difference can be applied to any change in cloud cover he wants. He is also failing to distinguish between cloud feedback and radiative forcing. Clouds are the result of other factors, and how they respond to forcings such as increasing temperature due to CO2 rise (or surface evaporation) cannot be evaluated using the diagrams and numbers he presents.
The "cloud feedback" section of the IPCC is discussing feedback caused by increased (or decreased) global atmospheric temperature. It is not directly applicable to cloud response to local surface temperature changes (such as irrigating land), or local surface humidity changes (such as increased humidity over irrigated land).
And coolmaster's claim of cloud cover change in response to increased surface evaporation is basically hand-waving. His introduction of his glorious "theory" is done in comment #71:
This volume can be retained by a wide variety of measures before it flows into the oceans and converted into evaporation. - 9L / m² corresponds to ~ 1% of the average annual rainfall over land and should therefore create ~ 1% additional clouds over the land mass.
He has not presented a single reference or figure that supports the claim that increasing evaporation over a portion of the globe can produce a global increase in cloud cover - let alone any specific type of cloud. Radiative effects aside, unless he can substatiate his claim of local evaporation increases leading to global cloud cover changes, how you calculate the radiative effect of the cloud cover is irrelevant.
The energy/radiation flow diagrams can be done globally, split into land/sea, or split into clear/cloudy, but each is still a general average over a wide variety of conditions.
All land? What about forest vs. grassland vs desert vs. tundra? All different. Even "forest" is not a single class: tropical rain forest vs. temperate mixed-wood forest vs. temperature rain forest vs. boreal forest.
All have different cloud cover types, and treating them as equivalent is naive at best. Regardless of how accurate the diagrams that have been presented on this thread are, coolmaster has utterly failed at providing any sort of logical explanation or evidence that the local changes will lead to the global result he claims.
Nice catch on how coolmaster assumes that a constant level of irrigation/evaporation will lead to constantly increasing temperature effect (his -0.07 C/year).
-
Eclectic at 09:34 AM on 11 September 2021Implications for mitigating methane emissions in agriculture
And . . . Evan, as you see, I won't ask the Moderator to correct my (possibly Freudian slip) typo re the pork schnitzel. I do rather prefer the beef.
Moderator Response:[BL]
I had to look more than once to see the typo.
As requested, we will leave it intact.
-
Eclectic at 09:29 AM on 11 September 2021Implications for mitigating methane emissions in agriculture
Evan @ 3&4 :
Quite so. And getting rid of anthropogenic GHG's will be a slow business ~ much slower than by 2050, I fear. We will likely muddle through, eventually, to a warmer "nett-zero-carbon" world having rather worse than today's conditions. Worse in several ways.
Like you, I am somewhat dubious about the practical efficacy of ATTP's methane-reducing suggestion ~ though I confess the matter is indeed beyond my Ken (but not beyond his). Still, as the Scots say: Many a mickle makes a muckle. (My own non-vegan contribution runs to phasing veal schnitzel into pork schitzel. Having no political ambitions in the Grand Oral Party, I eschew hamburgers.)
Evan, please do not be too concerned about committing obvious typo errors. In one way, it is regrettable that the SkS posting system does not allow past errors to be corrected . . . yet in another way it is an object lesson ~ a metaphor for Life as she is lived. (Note: if you have committed a truly egregious typo which misinforms/misleads the reader, then you may ask the Moderator to edit/correct your mistake. Of course, you would not wish to be frequently invoking the Deus-ex-machina.)
-
Evan at 04:27 AM on 11 September 2021Implications for mitigating methane emissions in agriculture
Eclectic@2
Sorry for mispelling your "name". No way to correct mistakes. :-(
Nice "bun pun". Missed that on first read.
Agree that offspring will likely protest inheriting a burger-reduced diet. They will no doubt argue to have their lives recapitalized at 100 burgers/year so that they can more easily show progress, without ever being required to make a difference. Tough problem this is getting rid of GHG's.
-
coolmaster at 02:18 AM on 11 September 2021It's albedo
BL80:
BL: I know Dr. Wild. I've worked with him in the past.
My google can`t find anything. As long as you do not respond a link, it seems to be a silly lie.
BL: ...it condenses to form cloud, but this is not always the case.
BL: ...So will this "extra" moisture cause more clouds? Maybe. Maybe not.
same problem - no link - no references
BL: I have provided references to published science that shows not all clouds cause cooling when cloud amount increases. I see you have done absolutely nothing to refute the validity of those studies.
I provided this link last week:
https://www.climate4you.com/ClimateAndClouds.htm#Cloud%20data
You see clouds feedback during the last decades triggered by a warming atmosphere measured by satelittes. Do you really think your reference of 1960 is something new to me ?
You still confuse effect and feedback.
This is clouds radiative effect: IPCC AR6 CH. 7.2.1
Without clouds, 47W/m² less solar radiation is reflected back to space globally, while 28W/m² more thermal radiation is emitted to space. As a result, there is a ~20W/m² radiative imbalance at the TOA in the clear-sky energy budget suggesting that the Earth would warm substantially if there were no clouds.
BL: - Summer is only one of four seasons. - local is not global - so that that there
please provide a specific reference to a page number and quote. Otherwise, you are just throwing out...
-— thanks MOD that`s enough ---
Moderator Response:[RH] Please, once again, go read the commenting policies for this website. Accusing people of lying is way off limits. Moderators here can be patient, up to a point. Repeated breaking the rules generally results in warnings and then being blocked from the site.
-
MA Rodger at 00:11 AM on 11 September 2021It's albedo
Bob Loblaw @80,
While it will likely not assist commenter coolmaster, there is an apparent contradiction presented within the literature, a contradiction which coolmaster seems to ignore while taking a cavilier interpretation from just one side of it. So that contradiction should perhaps be explained.♣ We have reasonably unambiguously statements from AR6 Section 7.2.4.3 'Synthesis for the net cloud feedback' (a section mentioned by coolmaster @79) which tells us Cloud Feedback is net positive unless there is "extremely large" negative contributions over certain ocean areas although there is yet "no current evidence" for such contributions.
The work supporting this conclusion includes Dressler (2013) whose Fig 5 shows (units Wm^-2):-
This finding thus contradicts the assertions of commenter coolmaster that Cloud Feedback would be net positive over land. (I will ignore the water vapour feedback which will certainly provide additional positive feedback if substantial additional evaporation occurs over land.)
♣ There is also AR6 Section 7.2.1 'Present-day Energy Budget' mentioned @79. This presents in Fig 7.2 an old friend from up thread, namely Fig 14 from Wild et al (2019).
It is from this graphic that Wild et al derive the finding "The net (shortwave and longwave combined) cloud radiative effect at the TOA then results in an overall energy loss of − 19 Wm^−2," a finding echoed in AR6 section 7.2.1 'Present-day energy budget' - "As a result, there is a 20 Wm^-2 radiative imbalance at the TOA in the clear-sky energy budget (Figure 7.2 lower panel), suggesting that the Earth would warm substantially if there were no clouds."
This -19Wm^-2 is the value used by commenter coolmaster to suggest there would be a pro rata cooling due to an increase of cloud by 1% over land (although water vapour is not similarly accounted as increasing and also for some unexplained reason the cloud result is treated as being an accumulative annual cooling).♣ These two references within AR6 appear contradictory. However, the 7.2.1 account does no more than "illustrate the overall effects that clouds exert on the energy fluxes." It simply shows that cloud effects are large while the actual Cloud Feedbacks are far more complex. Such feedbacks cannot be determined by simply comparing the average net radiation budget within areas of clear sky relative to an average for the entire planet.
So if more cloud were created, the type and location of that cloud will determine whether there is net global warming or cooling. And the sort of change in cloud resulting from additional AGW is seen to be warming. Uncertainty remains high for the size of AGW's cloud fedback, and that includes the rather jaw-dropping findings of Schneider et al (2019) and also in the CPIM6 models.
♣ I should perhaps end by making plain that for coolmaster's scheme of global cooling, this discussed 'contradiction issue' is a minor issue relative to some of its other problematic issues it generates.
-
Evan at 23:46 PM on 10 September 2021Implications for mitigating methane emissions in agriculture
Eclectice @2
Yes, more would need to be done. I was trying, as a first step, to digest the information in ATTP's post, because these numbers are new to me.
The danger I see in my math is that it propogates the idea that we will easily stabilize climate. I find the paper cited in this post interesting, but the problem, as with many other studies, is that it assumes all other things don't change. What this article really shows is just how sensitive our climate is to CH4. So if we all reduce our hamburger intake by 1/yr or so, but if natural CH4 emissions increase to more than compensate, we have a problem. As this article points out, a really big problem. However, the average person will make a modest change to their diet, thinking we are now OK. But with natural emissions likely to increase, and with global population continuing to increase, it will likely take more than eating one less hamburger/year to really make a difference.
But the first task was to make sure I understood the ideal math, before embarassing myself with my related thoughts.
-
Eclectic at 22:41 PM on 10 September 2021Implications for mitigating methane emissions in agriculture
Evan @1 :
regarding hamburgers, your 100/year mathematical logic is irrefutable. But will the 100-per-year man's offspring be agreeable to continuing the monotonic [pun intended] diet reduction?
Perhaps a faster CH4 draw-down might be achieved by focusing your persuasive efforts on a high-consuming sub-group, such as ex-Presidents who (allegedly) have a subsistence diet of 100 hamburgers per month (an observed MAC or Mean Average Consumption). Such people would reach their personal-mitigation goal in just 25 years.
However, we would need to brace ourselves for the political heartburn when, in the 301st month, the high-consuming individuals open their meal-package to find a nothing-burger [bun unintended].
-
Evan at 20:35 PM on 10 September 2021Implications for mitigating methane emissions in agriculture
ATTP, very interesting article. How would the average reader apply this to their own mitigation goals? If a person normally ate 100 hambugers/yr, with respect to mitigation of methane emissions only, could they feel like they were doing their part to stabilize the climate at the current temperature by eliminating 1 hamburger from their diet over a 3-yr period (a reduction of about 0.33%)? The next 3-yr period they would eliminate a second hamburger, etc. A person drinking 1 cup milk/day would have to skip 1 cup of milk the first year, then 2 cups the second year, etc. I realize my examples are simplistic and assumes that everything is held constant, but ultimately we need to put this in terms that people can digest (pun intended).
-
Bob Loblaw at 11:21 AM on 10 September 2021It's albedo
Coolmaster:
Unfortunately, you have little more than a re-assertion of your previous points.
I know Dr. Wild. I've worked with him in the past. I have many years of experience in the measurment of radiation. The diagrams you have displayed are descriptive, and in no way represent a full analysis of the effects of cloud cover and global climate. I am completely confident that Dr. WIld would not consider them as evidence for the claims you are making. There is nothing wrong with what is in the diagrams - it's is what is not included.
I have provided references to published science that shows not all clouds cause cooling when cloud amount increases. I see you have done absolutely nothing to refute the validity of those studies.
You refer to the IPCC. In the most recent AR6 report (section 7.4.2.4.2), they specifically say:
In conclusion, there is high confidence in the positive high-cloud altitude feedback simulated in ESMs as it is supported by theoretical, obserrvational, and process modelling studies.
Empirical evidence. Theoretical understanding. Confirmation of the general ideas presented in the 1960s papers I cited that high cloud can cause warming, and that other factors besides area are a factor. All of which refutes your premise. All of which you have shown no evidence of considering or understanding. You simply dismiss it as "unimportant for [your] assessments". You dismiss my references to well-established scientific papers as "your speculations".
I have described the way that water vapour moves around, and the processes in cloud formation, as is covered in nearly any basic meteorology textbook. You have done nothing to argue against that, other than just declaring otherwise.
I have pointed out that increased evaporation in one location, by increasing atmospheric humidity, can lead to less evaporation elsewhere, so that that there is the possibility that little or no net atmospheric humidity increase at a global scale occurs. You have done nothing to refute that point.
The paper you link to (Chen and Dirmeyer) has "summer temperatures" in the title. Summer is only one of four seasons. It talks about local surface cooling when evaporation increases. That is not due to cloud cover changes. In the conclusions, the paper says "In summary, this study highlights the importance of irrigation in the local and regional climate..."
I will give you a hint: "local and regional" does not mean the same thing as "global". Microclimate is not global climate. If you think that part of that paper supports your claims, please provide a specific reference to a page number and quote. Otherwise, you are just throwing out journal references in an attempt to impress. (It's not working.)
Finally, you finish in your last paragraph by saying:
"1% more precipitation / evaporation will not have a major impact on the general cloud pattern."
Yet in comment 71, you said
"1% of the average annual rainfall over land and should therefore create ~ 1% additional clouds over the land mass."
Which is it? It has no major impact, or it has a 1% increase that is just so important that it will cool the globe?
You can't keep your story straight. You can't explain how your diagrams or references actually support the claims you are making. You just assert an opinion, throw out a name or two, and think you've "proven" your case.
-
coolmaster at 09:19 AM on 10 September 2021It's albedo
BL@78
BL: you double-down on your claim of a strong cooling effect for clouds. Let's examine some actual science.
I have already sent you the current science in this regard. The graphics for the global radiation balances all_sky, clear_sky, land & ocean were created and published by Prof. Dr. Martin Wild / ETH Zurich. He is a very nice person and lead author of the IPCC AR6 WGI Chapter 7: The Earth’s energy budget, climate feedbacks, and climate sensitivity. (Chapters 7.2.1 and 7.4.2.4.3 are relevant for our topic.)
You will not find our topic much more actual and precise anywhere, and if you continue to have doubts about the strong cooling influence of clouds - you should contact with Prof. Dr. M. Wild directly.BL: summary diagrams are summary diagrams - not detailed models."
You will surely see that a slr volume of 1335km³ / year has to be distributed globally and that I therefore use global, summarizing radiation balances.Using the posted information in the explanatory file on land use and irrigation,
https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/feart.2020.00245/full
you also have the opportunity to observe my claims about irrigation, cloud formation, precipitation, temperature, radiative forcing etc. on a more regional level.
BL: ...it condenses to form cloud, but this is not always the case. ...So will this "extra" moisture cause more clouds? Maybe. Maybe not.
You have provided no scientific justification for this claim, or references to suitable scientific publications to support it. You are completely wrong here. You claim that there is some kind of rest room for water vapor in the atmosphere. Could you please prove that.
99,999% of atmospheric water vapor will form a cloud before it return as precipitation. Dew e.g. is also considered to be a form of precipitation.BL: As a consequence of increasing evporation, the location where the evaporation occurs will also see less thermal energy transfer to the atmosphere, so temperatures are also affected.
Yes Sir - that´s what I mean. More latent heat flux = less sensible(thermal as you say) heat flux. H²O in the air will form clouds - dry and hot air in the atmosphere will kill them. Soil and air temperatures will decrease - and that's exactly what I intend to do with my strategy. You should also know that the extra amount of 1% precipitation/irrigation/evaporation is planed to released predominantly in spring / summer allways into a relatively unsaturated, dry and hot clear_sky atmosphere, which most closely corresponds to a drought period or desert.Intensification of the global hydrological cycle is a robust feature of global warming, BUT at the same time, many land areas in the subtropics will experience drying at the surface AND in the atmosphere. This occurs due to a ! limited water availability ! in these regions, where the cloudiness is consequently expected to decrease.
Your speculations about different clouds, with their different effects on the albedo and SW / LW radiation effects, are not conducive to the discussion and are unimportant for my assessments. In a dry, hot, sunny high pressure atmosphere, I guess at least that mostly convective fair-weather clouds or thunderclouds (cumulus or c.-nimbus) will arise.
1% more precipitation / evaporation will not have a major impact on the general cloud pattern. The natural regional variability of the amount of precipitation is often 200mm or more between dry and humid years. Since 9mm more or less per year will regionally cause no noticeable changes in the cloud regime. Maybe there will be 3-4 rainy days/year instead of increasing hours of sunshine.
BL: Coolmaster's diagrams are nice pictures that help illustrate a few aspects...
Again - these diagrams are not mine. They are calculated by professionals of IPCC experts. You have no clue about the difference between water- & air cooling, heat capacity & efficiency. That's your problem - not mine.Moderator Response:[DB] Ad hominem and inflammatory snipped. You've been warned already, so keep it clean.
-
Daniel Bailey at 09:18 AM on 10 September 2021There's no tropospheric hot spot
In the past, I've pulled out the missing versions from previous versions of the posts from archived copies found on the Wayback Machine on the Internet Archive. Then just upload them to the server and re-link the images.
-
BaerbelW at 06:40 AM on 10 September 2021There's no tropospheric hot spot
VictorVenema @27
Thanks for the heads-up, Victor! I was able to fix a few of the missing graphics two of which were sourced from IPCC-reports where "www." had to be replaced by "archive.", but still have to hunt down two of three tinypic replacements.
-
Bob Loblaw at 12:52 PM on 9 September 2021It's albedo
Coolmaster:
Little of your most recent comment has passed moderation. In what little remains, you double-down on your claim of a strong cooling effect for clouds. Let's examine some actual science.
Note that in comment 70, although I said that the diagrams you provided in comment 69 were "a useful expansion", I also noted that "summary diagrams are summary diagrams - not detailed models."
First, you claimed in #71 that 1% increase in evaporation will lead to a 1% increase in clouds, and you have repeatedly claimed that increasing cloud has a cooling effect. You also said "I look forward to your criticism and assessment", so let's see if you really mean that.
We will start with the consequences of an increase in evaporation, and we'll limit it to the land surface you have talked about (although it doesn't really make any difference to what I will present). What happens when we manipulate surface conditions to increase evaporation?
- Atmospheric water vapour will increase above that surface.
- The atmosphere will probably move that water vapour away from the surface, either vertically (convective mixing) or horizontally (advection due to wind)..
- If conditions are suitable, that extra water vapour may rise to the point where it condenses to form cloud, but this is not always the case. If it does form cloud, the location may be local, but it is more likely to be a long way away.
- As a consequence of increasing evporation, the location where the evaporation occurs will also see less thermal energy transfer to the atmosphere, so temperatures are also affected. As a result, we see changes in both temperature and humidity, and these changes will be carried downwind.
- Downwind, the changes in temperature and humidity will affect the energy fluxes in those other locations - possibly suppressing evaporation (because the overlying air is now cooler and more humid).
Now, if the additional water vapour forms cloud, we have to ask "what kind of cloud?". That depends on where and how the lifting of the air occurred which led to cooling and cloud formation. Cloud types vary a lot. Wikipedia has a nice discussion, and gives us this nice diagram:
So, will this "extra" humidity cause more cloud? Maybe. Maybe not. Maybe it will lead to a different cloud type. Maybe it wll lead to a similar cloud type, but at a different altitude. All of this will affect how radiation fluxes will be affected.
Coolmaster's argument then depends on claims that cloud cover will increase, and that the diagrams he has provided show the radiatove flux changes. Let us consider some of the possible radiative changes.
- A change in horizontal extent - but no change in any other cloud characteristics - will affect the ratios between clear sky and cloudy sky. This is easy to estimate.
- We may not have the same cloud type, though. Different cloud types have different radiative properties. High clouds tend to be thin, transparent, and let a lot of solar radiation through. They also may not behave as blackbodies for IR radiation.
- Low clouds are much less transparent. For IR radiation, two properties are important: cloud top temperature controls the IR emitted upward, while cloud base temperature controls the downward flux. Change the vertical temperature profile, or change the bottom or top heights of the clouds, and you change the IR radiation fluxes. This is not determined by cloud area.
None of these details are covered in the diagrams or discussion presented by coolmaster. I will repeat what I said before: summary diagrams are summary diagrams - not detailed models.
Can we find models that do include thse sorts of effects? Yes. I will dig back into two early climate change papers that were key developments in their day. They covered basics that more recent papers do not repeat, so they provide useful diagrams.
The first is Manabe and Strickler, 1964, JAS 21(4), Thermal Equilibrium of the Atmosphere with a Convective Adjustment.
Their figure 7a shows model results that cover different cloud assumptions:
Note that cloud type and height both have significant effects on the modelled radiative equilibrium. (Follow the link to the paper if you need more context.)The 1964 paper was followed by another in 1967: Manabe and Wetherald, 1967, JAS 24(3) Thermal Equilibrium of the Atmosphere with a Given Distribution of Relative Humidity
They give two figures of interest: 20 and 21:
Again, follow the link to the paper for context (and perhaps larger views of the graphs).
These two figures show responses to changes in cloud amounts, for several different cloud types in their model.
- In figure 20, low and middle cloud have negative slopes (temperature as a function of cloud amount), while high cloud has a positive slope. Increasing high cloud has a warming effect.
- In figure 21, we see three diagrams of equilibrium temperature, for the same three cloud types. Each diagram shows the results for three different cloud amounts (0, 50, and 100%). The diagram on the left is for high cloud, and we see warmer tropospheric temperatures for higher cloud amounts. This is the opposite for middle and low cloud, where increasing cloud amount causes cooling.
So, we can see that climate science has know for over 60 years that different cloud types and heights have significant differences in their role in radiation transfer. The papers I have cited used a one-dimensional radiative-convective model, which is simple by modern standards. Current three-dimensional general circulation models incorporate even more vertical cloud processes, and add the horizontal dimensions that include the horizontal transport of water vapour I mentioned at the start of this comment. They generate cloud internally, based on physics, rather than assuming specific distributions - but the key message is the same:
Cloud amount, cloud type, cloud height, horizontal distribution - all are important in properly assessing the radiative effect of clouds.
Coolmaster's diagrams are nice pictures that help illustrate a few aspects of the complexity of clouds and atmospheric radiation transfer, but they are totally unsuited to the sort of predictive analysis he is trying to perform.
-
sfkeppler at 05:33 AM on 9 September 2021Show me the money: a new slogan for the climate movement
By products from tropical nations, which need the standing rainforests, because we have to give more value to the living trees than to their wood or paper. Only the trees take up carbon dioxyde and humidify the atmosphere to form shading clouds and cool rain, washing out big volumes of CO2.
Stefan
Moderator Response:[BL] Repeating yourself does not make you correct.
Warning #1
Please note that posting comments here at SkS is a privilege, not a right. This privilege can be rescinded if the posting individual treats adherence to the Comments Policy as optional, rather than the mandatory condition of participating in this online forum.
Please take the time to review the policy and ensure future comments are in full compliance with it. Thanks for your understanding and compliance in this matter.
-
sfkeppler at 05:21 AM on 9 September 2021Show me the money: a new slogan for the climate movement
The answer:
You should help to protect and replant tropical forests! Mangroves and Rainforests absorb CO2 and enrich the air with vapor, what returns as rain and refrigeration on the northern and southern hemispheres, by simultaneous washing out of carbon dioxyde. Counteracting global warming is easy - DO IT!
Stefan
Moderator Response:[BL] Once again, you are simply asserting questionable "Facts" without any supporting references. This is not your first warning.
-
coolmaster at 00:31 AM on 9 September 2021It's albedo
@76
[snip]
You probably suffer from attention deficit syndrome. Thank god I am mortally bored after repeating the simplest facts of the most simplest climate knowledge more than 3 times - and BL failing to understand them.
I am not going to go around in circles with you a hundred times and then recommend psychopathological treatment to you after 3 months.
This can be done much faster. If your overview is limited to the size of a beer mat - it's not my fault.BL: ...Increased evaporation must lead to increased precipitation, but this does not necessarily mean that there will be more cloud...
BL: ...basic meteorology, where air must cool to form clouds and precipitation,...
So what now ??? the water vapor turns into a cloud ---------— before it rains -------------— or not ???
[snip] Hopefully you are not here to pluck daisies and ask yourself: Aristotle loves me - Aristotle doesn't love me - Aristotle loves me ................? #?
You knot your brain here within 3 of your own remarkably meaningless sentences - contradicting to yourselve and not at all wondering that you have tomatoes on your eyes?
I have posted the graphs(69) for the global radiation balances all sky/clear sky so that you(and others) hopefully understand that clouds basically have a strong cooling influence on earth temperatures. [snip] You are hopelessly overwhelmed with the most simplest knowledge about CRE and watercycle. You doubt that I can produce clouds ? - ridiculous - I can produce clouds and I do it daily - my tomatoes can produce clouds - the forest next to my door even more - only BL can NOT make clouds - because he's probably "too intelligent", to piss a hole into the snow. You'll end up as a pangburn here if you don't take a quick break to get your neurons in order.
It's bad enough to run into climate deniers around every corner of this world - but folks like you who circulate Babylonian Language Confusion(BLC ??#??) are a whole lot worse.
Moderator Response:[RH] Ad hom and inflammatory comments snipped. Please read the comments policy for this website before continuing to engage here.
-
José M. Sousa at 23:17 PM on 8 September 2021Show me the money: a new slogan for the climate movement
Actually, in a country with sovereign currency and a central bank working for the public interest instead of private finance, taxes are not needed to finance public expenditures. The state can issue the money needed for that spending. The only restrictions to that issuing is inflation (related to the productive capacity of the economy (how far is total spending, public and private, from full productive capcity) and the external balance (for imports, issuing your own money doesn´t work, except for a few privileged countries such as the US);
Taxes are needed not for financing public expenditure, but to redirect resources from one use to another, in the case of climate change, especially from private goods to public goods.
For more on this issue, see: How to Pay for the Green New Deal http://www.levyinstitute.org/pubs/wp_931.pdf
-
VictorVenema at 22:48 PM on 8 September 2021There's no tropospheric hot spot
Message for the mods. Several figures, apparently hosted at tinypic, seem to be no longer available.
-
Bob Loblaw at 12:10 PM on 8 September 2021It's albedo
coolmaster:
You continue to make nonsensical arguments.
I quoted your words on ocean precipitation exactly, and I explained the context of how ocean evaporation and preciaption relate to evaporation and precipation over land. The two are not at all independent.
In your most recent post, you state "...and that rain will fall into the sea." Again, you are wrong. Much of the evaporation from oceans does not fall back into the sea. How do I know this? Huge amounts of water flow through rivers and lakes from land to the oceans. The only way to get this back to the land is to evaporate it from the oceans, carry it over land, and let it fall as precipitation over land. You know this. Don't ignore it.
You ask if I am talkiing about desertification when I state "...that things other than evaporation limit both water vapour and cloud cover." No, I am not talking about desertification. I am talking about basic meteorology, where air must cool to form clouds and precipitation, and precipitation falls out of the atmosphere so that wate vapour does not increase continuously as more water evaporates. Atmospheric temperature plays a critical role in when, where, and how much cloud forms, and when, where and how much precipitation falls. Air must rise to cool, and the rise requires one of free convection, orographic forcing, or frontal systems.
Pumping more water vapour into the atmosphere will not act as a forcing for warming or cooling - it can only act as a feedback. Some other factor must cause warming for the atmosphere to hold more water vapour. Increased evaporation must lead to increased precipitation, but this does not necessarily mean that there will be more cloud. as far as radaitive effects are concerned, the latest IPCC report says that a negative cloud feedback is very unlikely. Under a warming climate, evaporation and atmospheric water vapour will both increase, and a negative feedback is what you are trying to claim with your cloud effects. There is very little scientific evidence to support this.
Your "estimate" of additional evaporation leading to "improving cloud cover" makes no sense. Clouds over land get much of their water from ocean evaporation, and much land evaporation gets transported away to make clouds in other locations - where basic meteorology explains the various processes that lead to cloud formation and precipitation.
The link I provided (to water vapour as a greenhouse gas) explains how water vapour is limited by temperature.
I am not confusing radiation effects of cloud and water vapour. I am saying that your claims of changing cloud cover through increasing evaporation are both simplistic and wrong.
Your whole argument rises or falls on your claim that increased evaporation will lead to the cloud cover changes you claim. You have provided no scientific justification for this claim, or references to suitable scientific publications to support it.
(Yes, I looked at the figures at the link you provided. The are predominately seasonal, and you provide no explanation as to what they are supposed to show. Seasonal variations are not a good indicator of of how the climate system responds to long-term changes. Too many confounding variables that you would need to sort out.)
-
coolmaster at 05:57 AM on 8 September 2021It's albedo
Bob Loblaw@74
You seem to be trying to turn the word around in my mouth - you will not succeed. I have never said that precipitation over the seas is irrelevant to the climate - but I claimed that precipitation and evaporation over the sea cannot be held back or manipulated by humans - and that rain will fall into the sea.
You can stand on the beach or on a boat with a big bucket - but is that handy to hold back 1335 km³ per year - NO. Can you give me a practical, affordable way of enhancing evaporation over the sea ? - NO. Do you need proof of this? - I hope NOT.Just note that I want to increase evaporation by 0,7W/m² over LAND AREAS with 9L/m² and year. This improves also the energy transport from the land surface to the atmosphere by 6.13KWh/m² in spring and summer when this water will be used as additional artifical irrigation.
I've posted some graphics(69) that you think will be a useful extension. There the energy transport from the oceans to the land areas is given as 19W / m² - you don't have to give me any tutoring in this regard.BL: ... that things other than evaporation limit both water vapour and cloud cover.
Are you talking about desertification? 10% of global surface is desert spreading rapidly. Here I've put together some other graphics and links that can give you an idea of what I'm referring to:...From the totality of these findings I estimate the cooling radiative forcing resulting from additional evaporation through an improving cloud cover to approx. -0.2W / m² per year over land areas.(or even more due to multiplication effects)
It is suitable to compensate the current, global, annual radiative forcing of approx. + 0.04-0.05W / m² with ease.In theory, this would stop the rise in earth temperature!
The use of additional "artificial irrigation" and retention measures with an annual, global total volume of 1335km³ = (3.7mm SLR) can reduce the predominantly CO²-related global warming with ~ -0.15W / m² "water cooling" by approx. -0,07 ° C / year.
If you take this additional volume from flowing waters and / or bank filtrate instead of using groundwater
- This also stops the rise in sea levels!
The global measures and changes in water management required for are
thus always an excellent regional protection against periods of drought, but at the same time also against heavy rain and floods.Assuming that this water volume is completely withdrawn from global runoff and supplied to transpiration through plants or groundwater reservoirs and soil moisture, there is a potential for additional CO² absorption of ~ 4.9 - 9.8Gt / year (C3-C4 plants // 1-2Kg carbon / m³).
Overall, it can be assumed that biodiversity will benefit from additional amounts of water over land and counteract the extinction of species.BL: A 1% increase in evapoartion will not lead to a 1% increase in clouds over land. (Feel free to provide an actual scientific reference for your claim, should you have one.)
Aristotle and I (and many others) believe in: What goes up - gets colder - and becomes a cloud - and must come down rapidly as water(~8,5days). A huge part of this additional evaporation will precipitate over a land area again (multiplication effect).
The link you sent is of little help. Here, too, the radiation-relevant net effect of clouds and water vapor (CRE = -19W / m²)), which is crucial for my strategy, is missing. You still seem to confuse CRE with the atmospheric feedback of the clouds, which consists in the fact that with increasing temperature less cloud cover, changed lapse rate and optical depth are determined (+ 0.42Wm-2 ° C-1).
May be it`s a good idea to work out this topic here together.
Moderator Response:[BL] Link activated.
The web software here does not automatically create links. You can do this when posting a comment by selecting the "insert" tab, selecting the text you want to use for the link, and clicking on the icon that looks like a chain link. Add the URL in the dialog box. -
louislorenziprince at 02:05 AM on 8 September 2021Why I am “angry”
As long as humans hold onto Stone Age beliefs about an invisible man who lives in the sky who knows all and monitors our thoughts - we won't do anything constructive to prevent our demise. Fantasies and delusional thinking are a hallmark of all religions because the main purpose of religion is the desire for Earthly control of people.
Moderator Response:[BL] Comments on religion snipped.
General Warning
Thank you for taking the time to share with us. Skeptical Science is a user forum wherein the science of climate change can be discussed from the standpoint of the science itself. Ideology and politics get checked at the keyboard.
Please take the time to review the Comments Policy and ensure future comments are in full compliance with it. Thanks for your understanding and compliance in this matter.
In particular, note the section that states:
"Rants about politics, religion, faith, ideology or one world governments will be deleted"
-
Bob Loblaw at 11:54 AM on 7 September 2021Skeptical Science New Research for Week #35, 2021
Coolmaster:
I have responded to your claim of an "alternate climate protection strategy" on the thread where you made the claim.
https://skepticalscience.com/argument.php?a=141&p=2#137680
Spolier alert: you are wrong.
-
Bob Loblaw at 11:42 AM on 7 September 2021It's albedo
Coolmaster:
You seem to be trying to claim that there is some sort of method of controlling climate by increasing evaporation over land, leading to increased cloud cover?
In #72, you state "The amount of precipitation over the sea is therefor also irrelevant because it cannot be held back there."
You are wrong. The amounts of precipitation and evaporation over oceans is highly relevant. to global climate. Globally, oceans evaporate much more water than falls back iinto them as precipitation. The difference is the extra precipitation over land - where precipitation greatly exceeds evaporation for global totals.
The fact that lots and lots of evaporation from oceans is incapable of forcing ever higher and higher atmospheric water vapour and clouds should tell you that things other than evaporation limit both water vapour and cloud cover.
A 1% increase in evapoartion will not lead to a 1% increase in clouds over land. (Feel free to provide an actual scientific reference for your claim, should you have one.)
You may wish to read https://skepticalscience.com/water-vapor-greenhouse-gas.htm
-
coolmaster at 06:19 AM on 7 September 2021Skeptical Science New Research for Week #35, 2021
citizenschallenge@7
...your's was the one disappointing comment...
life is hard - and then you die
If you are a simple straightforward guy, looking for simple answers - just read my comments of the last week.
You will find an alternative climate protection strategy.
A concept to stop sea level rise - and global warming.
It is so simple and straightforward that mostly nobody understands. ????
-
BaerbelW at 03:06 AM on 7 September 20212021 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming News Roundup #36
Thanks for the feedback, Jonas!
Prev 96 97 98 99 100 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110 111 Next
.jpg){kind=link}