University of Toronto study finds atmosphere will adapt to hotter, wetter climate
TORONTO, ON – A study led by atmospheric physicists at the University of Toronto finds that global warming will not lead to an overall increasingly stormy atmosphere, a topic debated by scientists for decades. Instead, strong storms will become stronger while weak storms become weaker, and the cumulative result of the number of storms will remain unchanged.
“We know that with global warming we’ll get more evaporation of the oceans,” said Frederic Laliberte, a research associate at U of T’s physics department and lead author of a study published this week in Science. “But circulation in the atmosphere is like a heat engine that requires fuel to do work, just like any combustion engine or a convection engine.”
The atmosphere’s work as a heat engine occurs when an air mass near the surface takes up water through evaporation as it is warmed by the Sun and moves closer to the Equator. The warmer the air mass is, the more water it takes up. As it reaches the Equator, it begins to ascend through the atmosphere, eventually cooling as it radiates heat out into space. Cool air can hold less moisture than warm air, so as the air cools, condensation occurs, which releases heat. When enough heat is released, air begins to rise even further, pulling more air behind it producing a thunderstorm. The ultimate “output” of this atmospheric engine is the amount of heat and moisture that is redistributed between the Equator and the North and South Poles.
“By viewing the atmospheric circulation as a heat engine, we were able to rely on the laws of thermodynamics to analyze how the circulation would change in a simulation of global warming,” said Laliberte. “We used these laws to quantify how the increase in water vapour that would result from global warming would influence the strength of the atmospheric circulation.”
The researchers borrowed techniques from oceanography and looked at observations and climate simulations. Their approach allowed them to test global warming scenarios and measure the output of atmospheric circulation under warming conditions.
“We came up with an improved technique to comprehensively describe how air masses change as they move from the Equator to the poles and back, which let us put a number on the energy efficiency of the atmospheric heat engine and measure its output,” said Laliberte.
The scientists concluded that the increase in water vapour was making the process less efficient by evaporating water into air that is not already saturated with water vapour. They showed that this inefficiency limited the strengthening of atmospheric circulation, though not in a uniform manner. Air masses that are able to reach the top of the atmosphere are strengthened, while those that can not are weakened.
“Put more simply, powerful storms are strengthened at the expense of weaker storms,” said Laliberte. “We believe atmospheric circulation will adapt to this less efficient form of heat transfer and we will see either fewer storms overall or at least a weakening of the most common, weaker storms.”
###
The findings are reported in the paper “Constrained work output of the moist atmospheric heat engine in a warming climate” published January 30 in Science. The work was supported by grants from the Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada.
F. Laliberte, J. Zika, L. Mudryk, P. J. Kushner, J. Kjellsson, K. Doos. Constrained work output of the moist atmospheric heat engine in a warming climate. Science, 2015; 347 (6221): 540 DOI: 10.1126/science.1257103
AGW adherants won’t care. They tend to ignore anything contrary to their view.
Yes, you called? Sorrt, that was a dog-like response 🙂
But how can they write about global warming when there is none? They should have said; in the event of future global warming…
“Instead, strong storms will become stronger while weak storms become weaker, and the cumulative result of the number of storms will remain unchanged”
.
Didn’t have time to read the rest, but seems this statement can easily be interpreted…and will be interpreted by the alarmists, as consistent with their self-serving views on extreme weather. I don’t see why skeptics are celebrating.
I agree. Also this sounds like so much “hand waving”. Much of what passes for “climate science” today are just collections of “just so” stories.
This is probably all you need to know about storms.
http://www.breakingcatnews.com/comic/theres-a-thunderstorm-outside/
Ok, got it: “…strong storms will become stronger while weak storms become weaker, and the cumulative result of the number of storms will remain unchanged…”.
HOW DOES THS TRACK TO REAL DATA?
Maybe all that happens is that thunderstorms start forming 2 minutes earlier in the day, and thus pump more heat, but the number and severity does not change at all.(concept put forward by Willis E, I believe.)
What Global Warming??
Is Wills mentioned as a co-author?
Found it interesting to put the author of the paper’s name into a google news search to see how others reported on it: http://imgur.com/iu3ml8I
Fabulous, Aldous. Proof they either can’t read, or can’t comprehend, what the paper was saying.
It’s proof of biased reporting.
Good catch. The headlines are going right over the top.
@pokerguy- That did not take long.
Study say?
jus’ sayin’…
The Laws of Thermodynamics ain’t got nothin’ on the Laws of Makinclimatuptus!
“We know that with global warming we’ll get more evaporation of the oceans,” said Frederic Laliberte, a research associate at U of T’s physics department and lead author of a study published this week in Science.
Is that referring to the global warming that has stubbornly refused to occur for the best part of two decades? Or did he mean climate change? Or is it climate disruption this week?
It’s very hard to keep track of what it’s called at any one moment.
https://thepointman.wordpress.com/2014/05/08/conflation-confusion-and-conditioning/
Pointman
I hear we had
worse storms during the Little Ice Age….more
Have strong storms actually become stronger since 1975? I mean global warming has hit ‘unprecedented’ levels on the temperature records and we have just had the hottest year evaaaaah….and decade.
Here is the Little Ice Age and storminess.
New study suggests global warming decreases storm activity and extreme weather
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/01/25/new-study-suggests-global-warming-decreases-storm-activity-and-extreme-weather/
See the first and second graphs.
http://ars.els-cdn.com/content/image/1-s2.0-S0277379113004976-gr8.jpg
jimbo
Some years ago a Met Office scientist explained to me that the temperature gradient between the equator and the poles was the crucial factor in the creation of severe weather. Basically, the greater the energy gradient-cold poles warm equator- the greater the amount of energy could be released as storms. In periods when the temperature gradient is more equal-relatively warm poles and warm equator) the energy gradient is less and so are storms.
Having gone through the records over the last five years it appears true that generally (but not always) the most extreme weather was during the more severe years of the LIA.
Has the energy gradient theory been superseded?
tonyb
Nope. And it isn’t just the gradient between equator and polls that matters. It takes less energy to raise the temperature of something that is cold by one degree than it does something that is warm. So, any effect of an increased energy flux means that night warms more than day, winter warms more than summer, low altitudes warm more than high ones, and arctic regions warm more than equatorial. So, the gradients between night/day, winter/summer, low altitude/ high altitude and arctic/equatorial all get reduced. It isn’t the total energy in the system that matters, it is the total differential between high and low energy systems that matters. Take two fully charged car batteries and connect them in parallel. Nothing happens. Connect them in series though and LOOK OUT. There will be a shower of sparks when you connect them, and if you get a good solid connection, the cables will get so hot they will melt.
They seem to be focusing only on the way evaporation affects given storm cells in this study, and ignoring the larger macro effects of reduced gradient on a daily, seasonal, altitude and global basis. A quick glance at the tropical cyclone page (scroll down for the graphs) shows that the biggest storms are in decline in both strength and frequency. Once again we have a model that they haven’t bothered to even try to reconcile with measured data, and the measured data (at first glance in any event) seems to falsify their conclusion:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/reference-pages/climatic-phenomena-pages/tropical-cyclone/
Indeed tonyb.
There was a sharp uptic in global temps since around the middle of the 1970s. Here is one result.
http://policlimate.com/tropical/global_running_ace.png
It takes less energy to raise the temperature of something that is cold by one degree than it does something that is warm.
===============
the energy to raise water 1 degree C remains constant regardless of the temperature of water, so long as there is no phase change involved.
ferd berple February 2, 2015 at 10:42 am
It takes less energy to raise the temperature of something that is cold by one degree than it does something that is warm.
===============
the energy to raise water 1 degree C remains constant regardless of the temperature of water, so long as there is no phase change involved.
That’s an issue of heat capacity. In order to maintain that temperature, you need an on going energy flux, otherwise the water cools back to its original temperature. See Stefan-Boltzmann Law. The energy flux required to raise the temperature from -40C to -39C is 2.9 w/m2 while the energy flux required to raise the temperarture from +40C to +41C is 7.0 w/m2. Heat capacity only dictates the lag in the system to achieve the temperature difference for a given energy flux.
tonyb: Has the energy gradient theory been superseded?
That was a gross simplification. When you start working with other details, such as rate of evaporation of surface water and the rise of the column of hot, moist air, not much follows from the simple observation that there are perpetual, but fluctuating, gradients between the Equator and the poles.
Jumbo
Well the theory sounds plausible and we have evidence of severe weather events during the lia from numerous records so I guess that’s settled then.
So, rising temperatures due to increased co2 cause less severe weather events. How come that has seems to have evolved into rising temperatures from increased co2 Cause MORE severe weather events?
Tonyb
Jumbo
Sorry, my iPad changed your name.
Matthew
Virtually all things are simplified but is the theory basically correct, all things considered.?
Tonyb
davidmhoffer: A quick glance at the tropical cyclone page (scroll down for the graphs) shows that the biggest storms are in decline in both strength and frequency.
Total storm energy did increase when the Earth surface was warming, up through about 1998, but not during the time that the surface temperature has shown little to no mean change.
Equally important, storms are regional phenomena, and will depend on the heat transfers within those regions, and the global models do not make reasonable region-level projections. From a first reading of the paper, it seems as though the anticipated changes are not very large, and we need detailed regional data to make any tests of the model with respect to measured changes.
Clearly (?) this is not the last word on the subject.
tonyb: Virtually all things are simplified but is the theory basically correct, all things considered.?
Oh, sorry. The paper does not imply that the simple theory you cited is incorrect.
davidhoffer says
As I always understood it, the specific heat (at least within a certain range of temperatures), is a constant. In other words, it takes the same energy to raise the temperature of a gram of water 1C whether you are raising it from 3C to 4C or from 30C to 31C. Are we confusing things with the Stefan-Boltzmann radiative cooling proportional to the fourth power of temperature for a black body?
Robert Austin February 2, 2015 at 2:59 pm
>>>>>>>>>>>>
Yup I misworded it. Apologies to all and double to Ferd for not explaining that part in my reply correcting myself upthread. I blame it on only having imbibed 1/2 cup of coffee at time of writing. Global warming is reducing caffeine effectiveness you see…
“davidmhoffer
February 2, 2015 at 9:19 am
Take two fully charged car batteries and connect them in parallel. Nothing happens. Connect them in series though and LOOK OUT. There will be a shower of sparks when you connect them, and if you get a good solid connection, the cables will get so hot they will melt.”
Having owned a vehicle with two 12V/DC 400A/H batteries connected in series (An ex-military 109 V8 fitted for radio (FFR) Land Rover) I can confirm that there will be no sparks. What will happen is you will have a 24V/DC system rated at 800A/H rather than a 12V/DC system also rated at 800A/H.
[if no other 12VDC device burns out from too high a (24VDC) voltage. .mod]
Patrick,
I think davidhoffer was talking about shorting two batteries together.
*****
tonyb,
tell your spellchecker a Jumbo is the African name for a male elephant.
.
/nitpick
Patrick February 2, 2015 at 8:37 pm
Having owned a vehicle with two 12V/DC 400A/H batteries connected in series (An ex-military 109 V8 fitted for radio (FFR) Land Rover) I can confirm that there will be no sparks.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>.
Of course not. The two batteries are in series with the vehicle’s ignition and other systems, not to each other! If it was not apparent that I meant to each other with nothing else in the circuit then the fault is mine. I’m just dense.
David, I have run and built both voltage rated systems (For off-road). If your system is rated at 12V/DC, hooking two batteries in series will cause the effect you state. If the system is configured AND rated at 24V/DC and your system of configured correctly, you will not get problems hooking 2 12V batteries in series. You have to understand basic vehicle electrics. You get problems when you try to work outside the “limits”. You can run 12V/DC devices on a system that has a primary 24V/DC generating system. All you do is connect to both terminals on ONE battery, either or. You don’t connect to both batteries in series, + terminal on one battery and – on the other for 12V. 12V/DC devices will burn out on a 24V/DC buss. 24V/DC devices may work, and may not, on a 12V buss. If your primary generating system/buss is 24V/DC, you can connect 12DC devices to one or the other battery, protected by fuses (NO sparks). You can also run a split charging system on any votage rated system, 2 batteries (Isolated), one alternator, and a splitter. Or, you can run 2 isolated systems; 2 alternators, 2 batteries. On a 24V system you can run an isolated 12V alternator and battery, or just “plumb” into one batter of the other. This approach is VERY common on serious offroading vehicles. But your claim that hooking 2 “car batteries” in series will cause sparks. No it won’t! A SHORT will cause sparks. And I know what a short with 2 400A/H 12V batteries, connected in series, delivering 24V and 800A/H looks like. Wring looms don’t last long!
“you will not get problems hooking 2 12V batteries in series.”
In fact, you’ll likely get a nice explosion. Hook the positive of one battery to the negative of the other, then repeat on the other terminals and stand back!
But if you connect positive to positive, and then negative to negative, and the batteries are in a similar state of charge, nothing will happen.
So getting this back to climate topic; work happens when there’s a difference in potential (voltage for the battery, temperature for weather).
Many examples exist. How much power do you expect to get out of a hydropower generator (turbine) when the water level at the inlet penstock is the same as the water level at discharge? None whatever, even if the lake is a thousand meters above sea level. That lake may have quite a lot of potential energy but you won’t be doing any work until you give it a place to go and a reason to go there.
And to finish, last post on the OT subject (Sorry mods), I connected a 12V radio to the 109 V8 FFR military Land Rover in exactly in one of the ways I desccribe (Using one of the batteries, fused). And it was, largely thanks to the New Zealand military in Wellington, who supplied me with a wiring diagram for the vehicle (I kid you not). Wished I’d kept it now (The diagram that is – museum item)!
Patrick February 3, 2015 at 3:21 am
You have to understand basic vehicle electrics.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
I do. What YOU have to understand is that I provided an example that rests on two batteries and some jumper cables. No vehicle electrics involved in the circuit. This has now been explained to you twice by me and once by dbstealey.
“davidmhoffer
February 2, 2015 at 9:19 am
Take two fully charged car batteries and connect them in parallel. Nothing happens. Connect them in series though and LOOK OUT. There will be a shower of sparks when you connect them, and if you get a good solid connection, the cables will get so hot they will melt.”
Your original quote, above, I responded to! Connecting 2 12V batteries in parallel, that is connecting + to + terminals and – to – terminals on the 2 batteries, as you say, nothing happens, but you get 12V/DC at the combined rated amp/hour of the batteries. In series, assuming we start with the + terminal on battery 1, you have to connect the + terminal on battery 1 to the – terminal on battery 2 that TOO will not result in sparks, or hot cables *UNLESS* you connect the – terminal on battery 1 to the + terminal on battery 2 (Thats your short circuit and WILL result in sparks and hot cables). It’s really easy to disprove your claim! Have a look at any multi-battery powered device today, how are the batteries connected? I will pay you US$100 if you say anything other than series.
Done!
Patrick,
My Apple mouse uses 2 AA batteries connected in parallel. What’s your billing address?☺
No it does not. 2 AA 1.5V batteries in SERIES. Your mouse is 3V/DC.
Too funny DBStealy. Yes the (Cr)Apple “magic” mouse batteries are *inserted* “in parellel”, ie, + and + at one end and – and – at the other. 1.2V/DC each, but the device is rated at almost 3V/DC. How is that?
Patrick
It seems you are deliberately being dense as a method to troll the thread from its subject.
The issue is that an effect is driven by an energy difference. The power of a weather system is provided by temperature difference, the power of a water flow is provided by gravity difference, the power of an electricity supply is provided by voltage difference, etc.
davidmhoffer illustrated this issue by saying
Clearly, he was suggesting
“connect them in parallel” to form a circuit with the same voltage difference
and
“connect them in series” to form a circuit with double the voltage difference
because in the absence of a circuit there would be no current to heat the wires. Indeed, an additional circuit (i.e. sparks) may be generated if the voltage difference is sufficient.
davidmhoffer is right and his illustration is right.
Since the early 1980s, I and others have persistently pointed out that anthropogenic (i.e. man-made) global warming (AGW) would reduce the pole-to-equator temperature gradient which drives weather systems and, therefore, AGW could be expected to reduce storms. As davidmhoffer says, this is analogous to reduced voltage in an electrical circuit reducing the current which heats wires of the circuit.
But you are saying you cannot understand this. And now you are trying to establish discussion of electrical devices which are designed to be powered by batteries in parallel and in series.
I don’t believe your claimed inability to understand the issue: I think you are trolling the thread from its subject.
Richard
Hey, I did not raise the battery analogy. David is wrong. He means a SHORT! Connecting batteries in *series* does NOT result in sparks and melted cables! Simply DOES NOT! A simple torch demontrates that!
In terms of power systems, I have worked/qualified on/in low DC/V systems, from cars etc, 12v AND 24v systems with separate and splt charging systems, to 750V/DC systems to 110V/AC 50hz, to 240V/AC 10 and 13AMP 60hz, to 415V/AC 63Amp “delta” and “y” configurations.
“David is wrong. He means a SHORT! Connecting batteries in *series* does NOT result in sparks and melted cables!”
I’ll see your argument and raise you a First Class FCC license. Two batteries wired in series where the load is just another wire is STILL a SERIES connection. It will very likely result in sparks and melted wires with a possibility of explosion.
The scenario being discussed is hooking two batteries together. One way does nothing, the other way produces sparks, fire and melted wires. It is the exact same scenario as giving a jump start from one battery to another. Do it right, namely parallel, all good. Do it wrong, namely series, sparks and fire. And yes, it is also a short circuit. These terms are not mutually exclusive.
Patrick,
I got out my voltmeter and checked. You’re right, it’s series. The batteries appear to be parallel but electrically they’re not.
That said, davidhoffer wasn’t wrong, his explanation was just a little vague. Like Richard Courtney, I understood what he meant with no problem.
“I understood what he meant with no problem.”
I also had no problem understanding what he meant. Borderline obvious.
DBStealey, you owe me US$100. PayPal? Richard, David’s battery quote is *WRONG*. Totally totally wrong! No disrespect to anyone, not trolling (I would be “clipped” for that).
Patrick
Your reply to me confirms that you are attempting to troll the thread from its subject.
davidmhoffer was illustrating a point about weather storms and their power. His analogy was to illustrate that greater energy difference provides greater energy flow with resulting increase to work done.
Your reply stresses that he introduced the battery analogy so tries to ‘blame’ him for your trolling while you ignore my point – which was boldened for emphasis – that his illustration was about effect of energy gradients and not equipment design.
In the unlikely event that you really do want to discuss automotive electrics then please go to a blog which exists to do that. A good start is links from here.
Richard
Michael 2
February 3, 2015 at 12:44 pm
“you will not get problems hooking 2 12V batteries in series.”
In fact, you’ll likely get a nice explosion. Hook the positive of one battery to the negative of the other, then repeat on the other terminals and stand back!”
That’s a SHORT! Don’t need 2 batteries for that! Just a + and – terminal!
Patrick says “That’s a SHORT! Don’t need 2 batteries for that! Just a + and – terminal!”
For sure that is so; but with two batteries you get at least twice the bang.
“richardscourtney
February 4, 2015 at 2:44 am
Patrick
Your reply to me confirms that you are attempting to troll the thread from its subject.”
Given David posted an INACCURATE “opinion”, I felt the need to respond. I have seen you do the same over the years. So, I am a troll? I am not trolling, nor thread “bombinging”, nor am I in breach of site policy (So far). Your “labelling” me as a “troll”, is your opinion, and wrong. This blog, with thanks to Anthony and mods, is about truth! The truth is many people DIE because they simply do not understand ELECTRICITY! Get it wrong, which David did, you can die. It’s as simple as that!
Patrick;
That’s a SHORT! Don’t need 2 batteries for that! Just a + and – terminal!
If you hook up two batteries in parallel with no resistive load you will have a “short” that produces a current of zero. If you hook up the same two batteries in series with no resistive load you will have a “short” that produces sparks upon connection and a massive amount of current. The purpose of illustrating the issue with two batteries was to show the difference between TWO energy sources acting in equal and opposite ways and producing nothing of consequence. It could be 500 volt batteries for that matter, hooked up in parallel, they produce a current of ZERO. The whole point of the example was to ELIMINATE everything EXCEPT the batteries from the circuit.
NOW do you understand it? I suspect not as you seem more determined to shove your definition of my example into everyone’s faces to prove that you are right. There’s no vehicle in my example, there never was, and that has been explained to you several times.
You apology is accepted.
And along that line, what’s their definition of “strong storms” or “severe weather”? How can they say it’s stronger or more severe if the terms aren’t defined?
jl
You definitely have not been paying attention.
“They” don’t define much of anything, much less something that could be definitively falsified…and “they” don’t intend to.
Hell, we even get annual revisions to the recent temperature record. This “settled science” thing has so many moving parts it cannot possibly be understood by anyone without substantial government funding.
“The scientists concluded that the increase in water vapour was making the process less efficient by evaporating water into air that is not already saturated with water vapour.”
Eh? What are they trying to say?
I’m sure it is hard to add water when the air is saturated.
I saw the same thing, Moose. Why is that “less efficient” and how can you evaporate any water into saturated air?
What they are saying is that the process of evaporation takes up heat energy and it becomes “latent heat” that is trapped in the vapor and thus not availble to the atmospheric heat engine.
The opposite phenomenon is easily shown in an air conditioner in a hot and humid climate, say Maryland in the summer. The air temperature exhausted from the air conditioner won’t go below the dew point even though it is working really hard. What it is doing is sucking latent heat out of the water vapor, condensing it in the process, but releasing all that heat which is then pumped out the back of the air conditioner.
“For each kilogram of water that condenses on the evaporator coil then, the AC has to remove 2260 kiloJoules of heat.”
http://www.energyvanguard.com/blog-building-science-HERS-BPI/bid/60024/Latent-Heat-is-the-Wicked-Witch-of-the-South
http://www.engineeringtoolbox.com/latent-sensible-cooling-load-d_245.html
During the day, the air is warmed and inevitably goes below 100 percent relative humidity. At night, over the ocean, the air is typically 100 percent RH because it will rain out anything higher than that. During the day the air warms and takes up water vapor at a rate governed NOT by the air temperature but by the water temperature. So if the air is warmer, it will take longer to reach 100 percent RH, and it might not actually get there.
Since global warming increases average air temperature, that also means air’s capacity to hold water vapor is increased — and it can “hide” 2260 kiloJoules of energy per kilogram of water evaporated.
As the air mass moves over land, it might not have taken up enough water vapor to reach 100 percent RH, in which case it won’t condense and the heat engine won’t operate. No storm, in other words, or a weaker one.
michael2, good post.
Evaporation is ‘governed’ (dictated) by water temperature but how much water remains in the air is ‘governed’ by air,(of which water vapor is a constituent) temperature.
AnonyMoose: I’m sure it is hard to add water when the air is saturated.
If the water is at a higher temperature than the saturated air above it, then the surface water vapor pressure is greater than the water vapor pressure of the saturated air, and water will evaporate into it, raising its temperature. The authors’ claim is that the energy transfer is more efficient the more saturated the air into which the warmer water is evaporating. The references that they cite are mostly quite recent.
They could have just said, “Please don’t ask us, our crystal ball is on the blink again and in retrospect, we’re now not entirely sure if it has ever worked and we are somewhat humbled to realize we may not actually know our asses from our elbow. So further studies will be conducted through the spring to ascertain the veracity of these new and possibly quite consequential findings.”
On ya’s guys … striking a blow for the enlightenment … keeping the dream alive.
And, so please, send more money!
Instead, strong storms will become stronger while weak storms become weaker, and the cumulative result of the number of storms will remain unchanged.
No change,still selling the extreme weather/climate theme.
Indeed, and it’s still sheer speculation portrayed as certainty.
Well, it’s an interesting idea but does anyone think they’ve captured the complexity of the system?
You can try to rely on the laws of thermodynamics to analyse how the circulation would change but I bet they didn’t include changes in marine flora or heat releases through lightning or variations in the jet stream direction or…
If all else stays the same they will probably be right.
But it won’t will it.
M Courtney,
Marine fauna at least is covered elsewhere :http://www.thetimesgazette.com/hundreds-of-colorful-sea-slugs-migrate-to-northern-california-in-response-to-warming-temperatures/940/
“Heat Engine?” In most of my engineering classes, when this term came up we looked at both words. Heat ENGINES do “WORK”. In other words, what is moving the great masses of air and water and currents around. Seemingly small changes of velocity on extremely large masses results in changes of Work levels and the energy not put to kinetic changes results in heat changes.
All hail the peer reviewed scientific paper. I have read papers before saying fewer storms and weather extremes will dominate a warming earth, and other papers saying the exact opposite. IPCC implies that fewer extreme weather events should be the result, but who listens the final authority on everything about climate. What is the end result? This is the end result: blah, blah, blah, blah, and blah….
Yes indeed.
Rains will become wetter, and droughts drier. Hurricanes will become hurricanier, tornadoes tornadoier and volcanoes volcanoier. Colds will be colder and hots hotter, ice icier, and fog foggier.
Did I miss anything?
Well yes, drunks will become wetter and teetotallers drier. There will be less indoors precipitation compared to the outdoors environment. The snow in the Mall of the Emirates however, will remain constant.
How about, floods will be floodier.
Hype will be hypier?
Hypers will be Happier?
Average things will be more averagier.
Dark will be darker and light will become, yes you got it , lighter. (but their brains are not becoming brainier sadly enough).
Flat will become flattistierer, height heighttistier , steep steeptistier, deep deeptiestier and stupid become stupidtiester (as if it could), But as long as grads become grandiosertier they will keep on going.
“grands” of coursestier
Yes indeed, as CAGW scientist will jump higher, dive deeper, and come out dryer then any normal folk.
..Instead, strong storms will become stronger while weak storms become weaker, and the cumulative result of the number of storms will remain unchanged…..
Actually, strong storms will become weaker, weak storms will become strong storms, while medium storms will turn into bright summer evenings. Night will become afternoon, while hail will turn into flocks of frogs swimming across the sky..
It’s called ‘Weather Weirding”, and is a direct result of too many right-wing humans breathing. The cure, as it is for all climate related issues, is to behead the Koch Brothers.
Anndddddd, y’all may like this:
http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2015-02-01/hottest-year-record-think-again-meet-seasonally-adjusted-seasons
Oh, don’t forget “Blizzards will become more Blizzardy, and snow more snowy!”
😀
There are probably some more we forget… lol.
Sorry their theory is not borne out by Emeperical Evidence. History has shown that the strongest storms and Hurricanes etc have happened during colder climates.
What’s Up with that.
Whew, I’m so glad weak storms will get weaker. Oh wait, that could mean more droughts in some regions.
>>Instead, strong storms will become stronger while weak storms become weaker<<
Hmm. But severe storms have been decreasing since 1994.
I think the bottom line here is: "I said the right thing, my master, so please send some more cheques….." (genuflect, genuflect, genuflect)
http://policlimate.com/tropical/global_major_freq.png
Ralph
“…strong storms will become stronger while weak storms become weaker”
Hmmm. Ambiguous. Two can play at that. What about the ‘average storms’? Will they become more average, or less average.
… extremely average!
To simplify this(and not introduce dozens of interactions which have an effect) The biggest driving force is unequal heating from the sun based on latitude. This creates the meridional temperature gradient(colder as you go north)……….which results from the main driving force and causes a huge pressure differential.
Just applying global warming, which increases temperatures at higher latitudes more than lower latitudes(decreasing the meridional temperature gradient) to the MAIN force, which is unequal heating and you have less energy for things like mid latitude cyclones, violent tornado and severe storm outbreaks.
You can apply changes in the total amount of heat or water vapor or lifting condensation levels but the main driving force…………………the meridional temperature gradient from unequal heating from the sun is less/weaker.
Got that. It is weaker(less energy) when you have greenhouse gas warming of the atmosphere.
“This creates the meridional temperature gradient(colder as you go north)”……………..in the Northern Hemisphere.
So far, we haven’t seem stronger storms get stronger, so…
From the paper: Typically, con-
vection schemes artificially transport moisture
along a moist adiabat without accounting for the
work needed to lift this moisture, but in the real
world, this work is necessary to sustain precip-
itation.
The Romps et al paper on changing frequency of lightning strikes is a notable exception. The authors do not cite that paper, but earlier work by Romps and colleagues.
From a quick read, it appears that the expected changes are very slight. It is good to see an attempt to work out the details of the heat engine idea of heat flow through the climate system.
This link may be able to show us what the future may hold in regards to weather patterns when the temp is up by 1 to 1.5 C on the current average. Scroll down the page to the Medieval bit.
http://www.eh-resources.org/timeline/timeline_me.html
Grapes growing in Yorkshire, bumper harvests, mild weather conditions which allowed the Vikings to get to Iceland, Greenland and very likely (97%) North America.
What is there not to like about it.
Not to mention what happened to civilization both before and after the MWP when it was colder.
Instead of using computer models to predict weather why don’t these guys look at the past and learn from it. What happened then is very likely to happen again, ah of course, that would stop the funding.
Ah but Archaeology is an “old science” and people who do it aren’t qualified to understand the “new science” of climate change which uses computers. Computers are modern and really high tech and much better than trowels.
(Do I really need to put a “sarc” tag on this?)
In my experience there is no study that is so big or so true or so well supported by data that the climate banshees cannot find or contrive a report that supports their own position against the study.
There is no Pythia who cannot be shouted down by a chorus of Hectors.
Well Pythia on you too, and the Trojan Horse you rode in on! 🙂
Hint – this is a study ONLY based on model simulations. A lot like astrology vaguely enough to claim weak is weak and more intense is more intense than weak . How can you go wrong here?
Thanks, for that, now weak becomes weakerstier and intense is now intensestier
tadchem
This is precisely why guys like Galileo, Newton, Einstein, Feynman were so sticky about the scientific method: (translated form the original Latin…) “In order to have a big-boy theory, IT MUST MAKE FALSIFIABLE PREDICTIONS”.
That way the scientist has to define the metric and the predicted behavior. What we have now is computer-generated ad hoc crap – nobody knows what causes what and, oh by the way, is any of this material.
This is slightly unusual for settled science, but it’s the very heart of snake oil salesmanship.
“We know that with global warming we’ll get more evaporation of the oceans,”
Um.
Abstract
Stratospheric water vapor concentrations decreased by about 10% after the year 2000. Here we show that this acted to slow the rate of increase in global surface temperature over 2000–2009 by about 25% compared to that which would have occurred due only to carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases. More limited data suggest that stratospheric water vapor probably increased between 1980 and 2000, which would have enhanced the decadal rate of surface warming during the 1990s by about 30% as compared to estimates neglecting this change. These findings show that stratospheric water vapor is an important driver of decadal global surface climate change.
https://www.sciencemag.org/content/327/5970/1219.abstract
“Strong storms will become stronger, weak storms weaker and the overall number of storms will remain the same”. Excuse me, but if a weak storm gets weaker, won’t that declassify it so that it no longer counts as a storm? So according to the logic, fewer storms but stronger ones.
How’s that going in real life right now? Hurricane season giving anyone a problem in the U.S.A. recently?
Strong storms will become stronger and weak storms will become weaker. How does a weak storm become weaker? In the same proportion for a net of zero? What the hell are they talking about? Where’s the point of reference for any of this stuff? So ten years from now in a rain storm you tell your kid “back in the day, this storm would have been weaker”. Or “See this weak storm son? Ten years ago it have been a little less weak.”
Morons!!
OT but i really hope this story has “legs”
http://stopthesethings.com/2015/01/23/steven-coopers-cape-bridgewater-wind-farm-study-the-beginning-of-the-end-for-the-wind-industry/
Every body that thinks the sun drives evaporation has it wrong. Evaporation on earth happens the same way evaporation happens in a pot of water on the stove. Ocean salinity allows current to flow and create evaporation just like this. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wwGx7qqQe-Y
Don’t know why there’s no sun up in the sky …
I saw this paper on Hockey Schtick and mentioned it in a comment here some time ago.
The Editors summary
“Global warming is expected to intensify the hydrological cycle, but it might also make the atmosphere less energetic. Laliberté et al. modeled the atmosphere as a classical heat engine in order to evaluate how much energy it contains and how much work it can do (see the Perspective by Pauluis). They then used a global climate model to project how that might change as climate warms. Although the hydrological cycle may increase in intensity, it does so at the expense of its ability to do work, such as powering large-scale atmospheric circulation or fueling more very intense storms. ”
I’m too cheap to read the paper but I suspect that if clouds form lower in the atmosphere because of greater humidity, that storms will be weaker. Storms are stronger where the cloud tops are higher and if on average the upper troposphere is warmer than before, they could increase in height for large storms. With an average temp gradient of 6°C/km, a 1°C warmer world means about a 2% more powerful cat. 4-5 storms (170m higher cloud).
I’ll take the less frequent smaller storms.
“I suspect that if clouds form lower in the atmosphere because of greater humidity, that storms will be weaker.”
Clouds form where the relative humidity (RH) exceeds 100 percent. If you heat air and do not add more water, the dew point will exist at a higher, not lower, elevation. If you add more water commensurate with the heating, cloud height won’t change.
It is the latent heat of water vapor (the heat that went into evaporating it in the first place) that is the fuel for the atmospheric engine. The engine won’t run unless there’s an exhaust pipe somewhere to dump the heat. That requires a cold spot in close proximity capable of drawing the heat away from the process of condensation. If you don’t dump the heat somewhere it will simply stay in the atmosphere, raise the temperature and stop the process of condensation.
To put things in perspective, the vapor capacity of air is not going to be increased much by a fractional degree of temperature change and once the vapor has rained or snowed out of the atmosphere there’s nothing left to condense. What that means is more than a few miles from the sea or large lake you won’t have a noticeable increase in precipitation; but close to large bodies of water you might be able to notice a barely perceptible increase in precipitation with global warming.
There is a correlation with cloud height and storm strength and its going to be more complex than what I wrote, namely how cold the air mass is that humid air interacts with. It was not well written but the point was more about how I’d rather have fewer cat 2-3 storms than 2% weaker cat 4-5 storms.
Nope:
Don’t be fooled, it’s models all the way down, baby.
The main source of energy for windstorms other than tropical cyclones is horizontal temperature gradient. Since global warming warms the Arctic more than other parts of the world, horizontal temperature gradient in the extratropical northern hemisphere will decrease from global warming. This will reduce the wind intensity of Nor’Easters (including Sandy-like storms), severe thunderstorms, most tornadoes F2/EF2 and stronger, and other northern hemisphere extratropical windstorms in general.
“Because the Earth is a small charged body moving in a large cell of plasma, explanations of all physical phenomena in, on, and near the Earth must take the electrical behavior of plasma into account”
https://www.thunderbolts.info/tpod/2004/arch/040917electric-weather.htm
“We believe atmospheric circulation will adapt to this less efficient form of heat transfer
Life “adapts.”
Inanimate objects “respond” and “react”
“We know that with global warming we’ll get more evaporation of the oceans,” said Frederic Laliberte, a research associate at U of T’s physics department and lead author of a study published this week in Science. “But circulation in the atmosphere is like a heat engine that requires fuel to do work, just like any combustion engine or a convection engine.”
I am beginning to worry about the quality of teaching at the famous U of T. If the whole planet is warmer, then the condensing of water vapour will cease at a higher temperature and higher absolute humidity than it would on a colder planet. This is basic physics. Frederic Laliberte is speaking as if the temperature rise will ‘be there’ for the evaporation then it ‘wont be there’ when the rain falls. The forces of nature acting on the atmosphere will still be between two points: high and low pressure with the Delta T being the driver. If BOTH rise in a warmer world, then there is no net change in energy.
And he has the gall to cite a ‘any combustion engine’! If the pressure inside the engine increases exactly as much as the pressure into which the cylinder is venting, there is no net change in power. Duh. Come on Frederic, the atmospheric movements are driven by a heat engine and if you don’t increase the Delta T you cannot increase the extractable energy.
The only condition that would result in the scenario painted is if the world is hotter when it is evaporating and cooler when it is condensing. If you can arrange that, patent it!! For therein lies a free source of energy and perpetual motion.
“if you don’t increase the Delta T you cannot increase the extractable energy.”
I’ve been having basically the same conversation at ATTP. An implicit assumption, but only by AGW advocates, seems to exist that the cold sink stays cold even as the Earth warms. Yet the same advocates argue that the cold sink warms faster than the warm parts reducing this differential.
List of blizzards (Nothing new!)
http://www.factmonster.com/ipka/A0886098.html
Michael 2. Right on.
With winters warming and summers staying the same, where is the Delta T that is driving these ‘extra strong’ storms?
For a group that is supposed to be teaching us unwashed plebeians science, they sure have some ‘creative thermodynamics’ underlying their claims.
Hotter world means more evaporation. Really? From the oceans or the land?
Hotter world means more rainfall. Really? Like it used to rain in the Gobi and Sahara?
Hotter world means stronger storms from the additional heat. Really? Meaning the cold side will remain cold and the hot side will get hotter? What happened to GLOBAL warming?
It hasn’t warmed in Waterloo CA or Auckland NZ in 100 years. Will it rain more here because it is not warming? That at least could make thermodynamic sense. The rest, not so much.
Crispin in Waterloo,
And yet today, more droughts in India: http://news.yahoo.com/world-not-woken-water-crisis-caused-climate-change-130410305.html
Thought you might enjoy.
Who (not W.H.O.) knows?
Given that the whole claimed back radiation energy scheme can be completely offset by a 1% increase in annual precipitation, is anyone measuring the global precipitation increase (or decrease)? I think we have another loser in the modeling department.
A very interesting post.
As far as I can tell this should have been a very much more considered issue as far as climate change and climatology concerned.
In my opinion and in my view this happens to be a very concerning matter.
The paper in question addresses an issue by a fair angle so to speak, and tries to evaluate the impact of the climate change in the increase or the variation of the strength of storms.
The only problem that I see is the approach only from the Global Warming fair angle.
As far as the GW angle considered the estimation could be right in general.
The only problem with that as far as I can tell is that it is based in some kind of energy distribution, configuration, circulation or and energy balance, so to speak.
When energy in atmosphere considered in this particular case, the problem arises when that GW energy can not account for the “missing heat” which if seen closely means that a lot of energy remains unaccounted for when these guys try to estimate the impact of it in the strength variation of the storms.
So if such unaccounted energy would be playing a part in the storms strength variation, the estimate or the evaluation tried as per this paper it could be in a high error, meaning that it could be in many other different ways possible, even with a much higher problem for humanity, than estimated as in this case solely through the GW .angle.
cheers.
1. Global warming theory claims, that arctic will warm faster then tropics.
2. From 1. follows that average horizontal temperature gradient towards poles decrease.
3.The average horizontal temperature gradient towards poles plays major role in polar jet stream Higher temperature gradient cause stronger polar jet.
4. Stronger polar jet causes more intense mid latitude cyclones
5. From all above follows – higher global temperature weakens mid latitude cyclones.
Of course this is simplified model and trivial logic, To contest the claim it is necessary to each of claims 1-5 🙂
But this can be challenging, because claims are generic and simple, and it is necessary to fight against atmospheric physic basics. 🙂