An important new paper published today in Global and Planetary Change finds that changes in CO2 follow rather than lead global air surface temperature and that “CO2 released from use of fossil fuels have little influence on the observed changes in the amount of atmospheric CO2” The paper finds the “overall global temperature change sequence of events appears to be from 1) the ocean surface to 2) the land surface to 3) the lower troposphere,” in other words, the opposite of claims by global warming alarmists that CO2 in the atmosphere drives land and ocean temperatures. Instead, just as in the ice cores, CO2 levels are found to be a lagging effect ocean warming, not significantly related to man-made emissions, and not the driver of warming. Prior research has shown infrared radiation from greenhouse gases is incapable of warming the oceans, only shortwave radiation from the Sun is capable of penetrating and heating the oceans and thereby driving global surface temperatures.
The highlights of the paper are:
► The overall global temperature change sequence of events appears to be from 1) the ocean surface to 2) the land surface to 3) the lower troposphere.
► Changes in global atmospheric CO2 are lagging about 11–12 months behind changes in global sea surface temperature.
► Changes in global atmospheric CO2 are lagging 9.5-10 months behind changes in global air surface temperature.
► Changes in global atmospheric CO2 are lagging about 9 months behind changes in global lower troposphere temperature.
► Changes in ocean temperatures appear to explain a substantial part of the observed changes in atmospheric CO2 since January 1980.
► CO2 released from use of fossil fuels have little influence on the observed changes in the amount of atmospheric CO2, and changes in atmospheric CO2 are not tracking changes in human emissions.
The paper:
The phase relation between atmospheric carbon dioxide and global temperature
- a Department of Geosciences, University of Oslo, P.O. Box 1047 Blindern, N-0316 Oslo, Norway
- b Department of Geology, University Centre in Svalbard (UNIS), P.O. Box 156, N-9171 Longyearbyen, Svalbard, Norway
- c Telenor Norway, Finance, N-1331 Fornebu, Norway
- d Department of Physics and Technology, University of Tromsø, N-9037 Tromsø, Norway
Abstract
Using data series on atmospheric carbon dioxide and global temperatures we investigate the phase relation (leads/lags) between these for the period January 1980 to December 2011. Ice cores show atmospheric CO2 variations to lag behind atmospheric temperature changes on a century to millennium scale, but modern temperature is expected to lag changes in atmospheric CO2, as the atmospheric temperature increase since about 1975 generally is assumed to be caused by the modern increase in CO2. In our analysis we use eight well-known datasets; 1) globally averaged well-mixed marine boundary layer CO2 data, 2) HadCRUT3 surface air temperature data, 3) GISS surface air temperature data, 4) NCDC surface air temperature data, 5) HadSST2 sea surface data, 6) UAH lower troposphere temperature data series, 7) CDIAC data on release of anthropogene CO2, and 8) GWP data on volcanic eruptions. Annual cycles are present in all datasets except 7) and 8), and to remove the influence of these we analyze 12-month averaged data. We find a high degree of co-variation between all data series except 7) and 8), but with changes in CO2 always lagging changes in temperature. The maximum positive correlation between CO2 and temperature is found for CO2 lagging 11–12 months in relation to global sea surface temperature, 9.5-10 months to global surface air temperature, and about 9 months to global lower troposphere temperature. The correlation between changes in ocean temperatures and atmospheric CO2 is high, but do not explain all observed changes.
Chris R. says:
August 31, 2012 at 7:42 pm:
“To Greg House:
The issue is that there really are 2 “greenhouse effects” under discussion:
(1) The natural one I referred to which has been in in existence for most of forever. A majority
of posters here believe this greenhouse effect exists.”
====================================================
Well, as I said, my impression is different and I explained why. So, you have yours and I have mine, no problem.
I still do not quite understand why you have raised this issue twice today. You are not implying hopefully that the science is settled, are you?
Bart says:
August 31, 2012 at 2:52 pm
This comes down to a simple mass balance equation. If more CO2 is continuously coming up than going down, it will accumulate at the surface, and it will proportionately be taken up by the atmosphere. This is a simple statement of fact, actually a tautology. There is no way around it.
and
The CO2 dissolved in the surface waters during the LIA which were at a lower temperature but also the partial pressure of CO2 during the LIA was about 60% of today’s.
You forget that the CO2 mass flows are influenced by the current CO2 levels in the atmosphere: if these increase, the pressure difference between the pCO2 at the upwelling places and the atmosphere reduces, which proportionally reduces the CO2 flux from the oceans to the atmosphere. Near the poles, the opposite happens, increasing the downwelling CO2 flux.
Thus whatever the CO2 pressure in the past was, an increase of about halve the pressure difference with the past CO2 pressure would fully compensate for the change in historical uptake. That means that for the current 70+ ppmv (and accellerating) increase the past CO2 levels must either have been 140 ppmv higher or 9°C colder (for 16 ppmv/°C, according to Henry’s Law). Both are highly unlikely.
Human CO2 emissions are not influenced by the current CO2 levels in the atmosphere, they are simply additional.
Another constraint is that in reality, the temperature at the THC sink places doesn’t change that much over the centuries, only the sink places change to where the waters become heavier than the bulk of the ocean waters at these places. That is at the edge where ice is formed at minus a few °C: ice formation excludes salts, which concentrate in the remaining water, that becomes heavier and sinks to the bottom.
As the pCO2 at that time was 60% lower than today, the current upwelling waters are probably around 60% lower in CO2 content than what sinks today…
With other words: the CO2 flux difference between the current upwelling and downwelling waters should reduce the CO2 content of the atmosphere, which is what is observed…
Bart says:
August 31, 2012 at 2:52 pm
There is definitely a problem in that the observations are skewed toward those things people decided to observe, based on the hypothesis they were working on. It might violate a number of the dodgy observations you have available, but you have no idea how it comports with observations which were never made.
13C/12C ratio measurements are real observations, which show that non-organic carbon has a higher ratio (around zero per mil d13C) than organic carbon (either living or fossil). The (enormous) bulk of carbon in the oceans is near entirely made of inorganic carbonates, where biolife in the upper ocean layers even reduces the 12C content, thus increasing the 13C/12C ratio. Whatever you think of some other possible biased observations, the d13C measurements of the oceans are what they are and effectively exclude the oceans as the main source of the CO2 increase in the atmosphere.
It does not follow. You have no data whatsoever which can verify that. Like I said, you could as easily have said: “it implies natural minus a little + all of the human emissions are absorbed somewhere.” With just a minor change in wording, I have absorbed all of the human emissions, and the natural sources are larger than the natural sinks.
Again, you don’t get it. It doesn’t matter which molecules are absorbed. It does matter that the total natural sink flux is larger than the total natural source flux. The human emissions are one-way additional, there are hardly any human sinks. The natural sources are NOT larger than the natural sinks, however you rearrange the wording, as the “minus a little” is halve the human emissions anyway.
Kasuha says:
August 31, 2012 at 1:40 pm
Bart’s theory is based on a continuous permanent CO2 release for a sustained samll difference in temperature. That seems to hold for a small period, but completely fails if you extend that period to previous periods, including the 1900-1960 period, and at fortiory the LIA-current period and much longer periods like glacials/interglacials.
My main point is that the short term (seasonal to interannual) reaction of CO2 on temperature changes is 4-5 ppmv/°C while the very long term reaction (decades to multi-milennia) of CO2 on temperature is ~8 ppmv/°C. The intermediate reaction should be, according to Bart’s theory, more than 100 ppmv/°C. Which is very unlikely for a natural process: the long term processes then should remove the medium-term reaction back to quite modest CO2 level changes…
Further, Bart’s theory violates the mass balance, violates the d13C balance (seawater has higher d13C than the atmosphere, but we see a steady decline) and violates the seawater flux estimates.
Bart’s reaction is by rejecting all observations which oppose his theory, that is the ice core measurements, the seawater flux observations, the d13C measurements and the mass balance…
The alternative theory is that the CO2 levels are dT dependent and not T-anomaly dependent, thus have a limited influence over time for a limited temperature change for all periods over the past 800 kyear while the emissions are largely responsible for the recent increase in CO2 levels. That fits all known observations…
If one doesn’t ignore the high resolution ice core measurements of Law Dome (average resolution of only 8 years), then his theory is obvious wrong for the period 1900-1960:
http://www.ferdinand-engelbeen.be/klimaat/klim_img/co2_T_dT_em_1900_2005.jpg
and even worse for long periods below the “baseline” temperature like the LIA or the 100 kyr glacials…
DR says:
August 31, 2012 at 10:17 am
@John Finn,
What role does convection play? You have not mentioned that important form of heat transfer which dominates at the surface through the troposphere. Convection removes excess heat from the surface, not radiation.
Of course radiation ultimately cools the planet by releasing it to space, but I fail to see how it is any more important than convection when discussing the movement of heat from the surface to above the troposphere. It seems convection spoils the party of the greenhouse effect.
I’m not suggesting convection is irrelevant or shouldn’t be considered. It should and as far as I know – it is. However, it is the radiation energy balance (incoming v outgoing) which ultimately determines whether the system (i.e. the earth) as a whole warms or cools.
I’m basically trying to get people on WUWT to acknowledge the basic principle that if outgoing LW energy is reduced while incoming solar energy remains constant then the earth ( including it’s atmosphere ) will warm. I’m not speculating as to how much it will warm (I think probably not that much) or trying to analyse how each process within the atmosphere might change. I accept that convection removes heat from the surface – but then what??
You stated that “Of course radiation ultimately cools the planet by releasing it to space”
– Right – so if the rate of cooling is reduced the planet will warm. Simple!
davidmhoffer says:
August 31, 2012 at 8:34 am
John Finn;
means energy will be emitted from a higher (i.e COLDER) level. We know from S-B Law that this will result in a reduction in energy emission.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
No. At any given level at which photons that otherwise would have passed straight through are instead intercepted and absorbed, the temperature at that level is elevated. When it cools, it therefor cools from a higher temperature than it otherwise would have been at.
Yes, David, but that is still at a LOWER temperature than the layer they were initially emitted from had they passed through directly to space.
“but that is still at a LOWER temperature than the layer they were initially emitted from had they passed through directly to space.”
I have a query on that:
If the atmosphere expands then all the temperature heights rise too.
The radiating level might be higher but at the same temperature wouldn’t it ?
“I’m basically trying to get people on WUWT to acknowledge the basic principle that if outgoing LW energy is reduced while incoming solar energy remains constant then the earth ( including it’s atmosphere ) will warm”
But if the atmosphere expands then outgoing LW is greater so the Earth doesn’t need to warm.
You just get a faster loss of LW offsetting the warming that would otherwise have occurred.
GHGs might slow down energy loss to space but then the atmosphere expands to increase LW out to offset the effect of the initial slowdown.
John Finn;
Yes, David, but that is still at a LOWER temperature than the layer they were initially emitted from had they passed through directly to space.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
You are conflating two different issues.
davidmhoffer and Bart:
I am replying here to your respective posts at August 31, 2012 at 6:18 pm and August 31, 2012 at 6:46 pm. I intend no slight to either of you by this: my purpose in providing this single post is to collate answers to issues you each raise pertaining to a single (OK, with an addendum) comment which I made.
David:
Thankyou for writing
Yes! Please do that. I always tell people,
“Please do not accept what I say. Check it for yourself. If you do that then you will have reason to accept it or you will be able to tell me why I should not accept it.”
And it pleases me that soon after I said it to Monckton of Brenchley he started to say it, too.
Concerning collisional de-excitation, you ask;
I answer, “How long is a piece of string?”
The answer depends on temperature, pressure and gas composition. This is not an evasion because S-B obtained their equation by study of interstellar gas where collisions are extremely rare so there was debate some decades ago about whether S-B is applicable to the relatively very dense atmosphere of Earth. I am not aware that the issue has ever been quantitatively resolved. In the early 1990s Jack Barrett calculated that collisional de-excitation completely dominates de-excitation of CO2 in the lowest 100 m of the atmosphere but he soon retracted that.
A good discussion of the matter is on Climate Audit at
http://climateaudit.org/2008/01/21/radiative-forcing-1/
Tom Volk says there
You also ask me:
I answer, yes, I said that.
Bart:
You rightly point out some simplifications in what I wrote (there are others, too) but I was explaining how collisional excitation effects exist and occur. It was not my intention to provide a detailed treatise. If I oversimplified then I apologise. I reply to your specific points.
You quote my saying;
“…the N2 and O2 molecules cannot be radiatively excited…”
And reply;
I answer, yes, I agree. But in context I don’t think I oversimplified because the effect is too small for it to be significant to my explanation.
And you quote my saying;
“The energy of the ‘inert’ N2 and O2 molecules is entirely kinetic…”
And reply;
I answer, yes, I agree that, too. Perhaps I did oversimplify here but – on balance – I don’t think I did because that important detail would have reduced the clarity of my explanation.
I hope these answers are more helpful than I think they are.
Richard
Stephen Wilde says: August 31, 2012 at 8:59 pm
Steven,
I am very sorry but you seem to not understand the thermodynamics. The boiling point of water is the temperature where the partial vapor pressure of the water equals the atmospheric pressure. The partial vapor pressure is strongly temperature dependent (at 0 C it is about 5 torr; at 20 C it is about 18 torr; at 100 C it is 1 atmosphere). Lower atmospheric pressure results in a lower boiling point temperature, not lower energy to evaporate a given mass. There is a partial pressure even if there is no boiling. It takes about 540 cal per gram to evaporate water TO ITS PARTIAL PRESSURE at all temperatures and atmospheric pressures. Boiling is a special case and not needed for partial pressures to exist.
“richardscourtney says:
September 1, 2012 at 4:41 am
The answer depends on temperature, pressure and gas composition. This is not an evasion because S-B obtained their equation by study of interstellar gas where collisions are extremely rare so there was debate some decades ago about whether S-B is applicable to the relatively very dense atmosphere of Earth. I am not aware that the issue has ever been quantitatively resolved.”
—————————————————————————————————–
It seems that NASA needed to tweak the S-B formula to land on the moon.
http://objectivistindividualist.blogspot.com/2010/06/moon-effect-called-greenhouse-effect-on.html
“Let us return to the much simpler case of the moon. It has no atmosphere, no vegetation, and no oceans to muck things up. There is a paper by Martin Hertzberg, Hans Schreuder, and Alan Siddons called A Greenhouse Effect on the Moon?, which Dr. Hertzberg was kind enough to draw my attention to in early June and I have had in mind discussing its very important results ever since. The paper notes that NASA scientists needed to calculate the expected temperatures on the moon’s surface prior to a landing. Taking into account the changing radiation on a point on the surface and assuming no heat was absorbed into the surface, the first result is:”
So for once I can be proud to be a Norwegian.
Hello Richard,
I would be interested in your thoughts on this small piece of evidence:
Preamble:
In 2008 I wrote that dCO2/dt varies ~contemporaneously with temperature and CO2 lags temperature by ~9 months. I referred to Jan Veizer’s papers and think Jan was generally on the right track.
http://icecap.us/index.php/go/joes-blog/carbon_dioxide_in_not_the_primary_cause_of_global_warming_the_future_can_no/
I also observed in 2008 that there was no similar detailed relationship between variations in fossil fuel combustion and atmospheric CO2 levels – the “wiggles” did not correlate.
Here is the interesting bit:
I was recently fascinated by the observation that the urban CO2 data from Salt Lake City exhibited NO human signature – only the natural daily cycle was apparent.
http://co2.utah.edu/index.php?site=2&id=0&img=30
This suggests that humanmade CO2 emissions are being ~immediately sequestered close to their source.
It seems to me there is evidence that the biosphere is CO2-starved or at least CO2-limited. Since we cannot (except perhaps in winter) see the human signature of urban CO2 emissions AT THE URBAN SOURCE OF THESE EMISSIONS, are these humanmade CO2 emissions being captured close to their source and causing increased biomass in the process? Is there any other explanation? And not all that increased biomass decays in the Spring.
I don’t like the mass balance argument. I think atmospheric CO2 concentration is part of a huge dynamic system with biological and physical components on land and in the ocean, and this huge natural system dwarfs the humanmade CO2 component and is generally unaffected by it. That is what the data says to me.
Ferdinand Engelbeen says:
September 1, 2012 at 1:09 am
“bottom.
As the pCO2 at that time was 60% lower than today, the current upwelling waters are probably around 60% lower in CO2 content than what sinks today…”
You are making the same mistake Phil did. If the pCO2 of the atmosphere was 60% lower, the current upwelling waters are likely as much as 60% higher than what sinks today.
FerdiEgb says:
September 1, 2012 at 1:28 am
“It does matter that the total natural sink flux is larger than the total natural source flux. “
Again, you don’t get it. You have no data whatsover to tell you that.
“The human emissions are one-way additional, there are hardly any human sinks. “
A sink is a sink. It does not discriminate between anthropogenic and non-anthropogenic.
FerdiEgb says:
September 1, 2012 at 2:45 am
“Further, Bart’s theory violates the mass balance, violates the d13C balance (seawater has higher d13C than the atmosphere, but we see a steady decline) and violates the seawater flux estimates.”
Doesn’t, doesn’t, and doesn’t.
“The alternative theory is that the CO2 levels are dT dependent and not T-anomaly dependent…”
CO2 levels are 180 degrees out of phase with the rate of change of temperature, so that doesn’t work. CO2 levels are 90 degrees out of phase, with phase lagging, from temperature, so that doesn’t work.
“If one doesn’t ignore the high resolution ice core measurements of Law Dome (average resolution of only 8 years), then his theory is obvious wrong for the period 1900-1960:”
A) the measurements are dubious
B) if we assume for the sake of argument they are accurate, regime change in the upwelling can easily explain the discrepancy.
richardscourtney says:
September 1, 2012 at 4:41 am
I have no disagreement with what you wrote in general. I was just trying to tie off some loose ends for you.
Allan MacRae says:
September 1, 2012 at 7:48 am
“…CO2 data from Salt Lake City exhibited NO human signature – only the natural daily cycle was apparent.”
Not sure I see it. My first thought was, is this a natural cycle, or is it workers going to work at 8:00 AM and returning home between 2:00 PM and 8:00 PM? And, the dips in-between could just be diffusion into the surrounding countryside.
So, I went to the weekly chart to see if things were different on weekdays and weekends. There’s actually more, in this weekly snapshot, on Saturday and Sunday than there is on Wednesday. Hmm… Does that tell us anything?
Do we actually have a way of comparing the “natural” cycle to what we are seeing? Data from rural surrounding areas, perhaps?
Allan MacRae:
You ask my opinion on your views in your post at September 1, 2012 at 7:48 am.
Firstly, I am certain that – as you suggest – local sequestration of CO2 is more than capable of sequestering ALL locally emitted CO2 both natural and anthropogenic. At issue is why it does not when its ability to do it is demonstrated by the dynamics of sequestration at all observed sites.
Indeed, I have published this (it was part of Rorsch A, Courtney RS & Thoenes D, ‘The Interaction of Climate Change and the Carbon Dioxide Cycle’ E&E v16no2 (2005). And I have repeatedly discussed it on WUWT. Indeed, I remind that you and I both posted to the thread at
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/04/19/what-you-mean-we-arent-controlling-the-climate/
where I linked to the thread at
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/08/05/the-emily-litella-moment-for-climate-science-and-co2/
where at August 5, 2011 at 6:41 am I wrote
And you say
The mass balance argument is circular logic which proves nothing (listen for the drum roll announcing the entrance of Ferdinand to the discussion).
And I share your opinion that the anthropogenic emission is a trivial addition to the system of the carbon cycle which is always adjusting towards an equilibrium that it never achieves. However, that is an opinion: it is not fact. The equilibrium state may be altered by many things and it is possible that the anthropogenic emission has altered (or is altering) the equilibrium state with the result that it has induced the observed recent rise in atmospheric CO2 concentration.
In summation, I share the opinions which you state in your post.
Richard
old construction worker:
Thankyou for the link you provided in your post addressed to me at September 1, 2012 at 7:38 am.
I did not know that. Thankyou.
Richard
Leonard Weinstein said:
“Lower atmospheric pressure results in a lower boiling point temperature, not lower energy to evaporate a given mass”
Consider the situation where atmospheric pressure is zero.
Any water will immediately convert to vapour with zero energy added and become extremely cold in the process probably going straight to ice crystals.
The higher the pressure the more energy one needs to add in order to provoke evaporation because it is pressure that sets the amount of energy required to break the bonds between water molecules.
At standard atmospheric pressure the amount of energy required to provoke evaporation is one fifth of the energy required by the phase change.
At two atmospheres the amount of energy required to provoke evaporation will be more than one fifth. I don’t know exactly how the numbers scale up but you must see the point.
So atmospheric pressure must affect the amount of energy required to evaporate a given mass.
Bart says: September 1, 2012 at 9:01 am
Allan: “…CO2 data from Salt Lake City exhibited NO human signature – only the natural daily cycle was apparent.”
Bart: Not sure I see it.
Hi Bart,
The CO2 peak typically occurred earlier in the day when I made this observation in June 2012 (days were longer then), but it is still clear that we are looking at a predominantly natural signal.
Why are CO2 levels rising steadily after sunset and dropping again at sunrise? This suggests a cycle dominated by photosynthesis and respiration of plants.
If this were a predominantly humanmade signal, I expect we would see an increase in CO2 starting at morning rush hour about 8am, a moderate decline during the day, and another peak at evening rush hour. We’ll see if the human signature is more visible in the winter when photosynthesis is less active.
It is interesting that the annual global CO2 sawtooth appears to be clearly visible in the yearly data.
______
Here is an excerpt of my previous post:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/06/02/what-can-we-learn-from-the-mauna-loa-co2-curve-2/#comment-1000472
Here is recently observed Rose Park data at Salt Lake City:
http://co2.utah.edu/index.php?site=2&id=0&img=30
Please examine the Daily CO2 and Weekly CO2 tabs for all measurement stations.
Peak CO2 readings (typically ~500ppm) occur during the night, from midnight to ~8am, and drop to ~400 ppm during the day.
1. In contrast, human energy consumption (and manmade CO2 emissions) occur mainly during the day, and peak around breakfast and supper times.
2. I suggest that the above atmospheric CO2 readings, taken in semi-arid Salt Lake City with a regional population of about 1 million, are predominantly natural in origin.
IF points 1 and 2 are true, then urban CO2 generation by humankind is insignificant compared to natural daily CO2 flux, in the same way that (I previously stated) annual humanmade CO2 emissions are insignificant compared to seasonal CO2 flux.
Bart says:
September 1, 2012 at 8:50 am
“If the pCO2 of the atmosphere was 60% lower, the current upwelling waters are likely as much as 60% higher than what sinks today.”
While this is a valid point that the pCO2 of the atmosphere and the concentration of CO2 in the surface layer of the oceans tend to vary inversely with temperature, the conversation should not be straight-jacketed into such a narrow paradigm.
This is a nonlinear feedback system with significant transport lag. Such systems tend to develop oscillatory behavior, generally with a period comparable to the length of the lag. Nonlinearities can then induce subharmonic oscillations and the formation of “beads” (distinct regions of high concentration separated by lower concentration gaps). So, while we can look back at the LIA and speculate on what back-of-the-envelope formulas for equilibrium suggest, the actual dynamics have been unfolding for eons, and the resulting dynamics can be very complex.
We see evidence of such behavior in the proxy CO2 record. It happens that we are at a point in history when the cycle should be tending toward higher CO2 levels. The proxy data, based on assumed calibration parameters, suggests even so that we should not be seeing the levels we are, but there are unverifiable assumptions built into that calibration. Moreover, the character of the oscillations can change over time as, e.g, two large beads coalesce becoming one extra-large one.
So, we really do not know what level of CO2 is in the pipeline, nor how it should manifest itself today. What we do know, however, is that since 1958, the rate of change of CO2 has been affinely related to temperature, and this relationship precludes significant human forcing. The only thing remaining is figuring out how that behavior comes about.
Hi Richard,
Re Roy Spencer’s two articles in January 2008 on wattsup
I sent Roy two emails on December 31, 2007 regarding the close correlation of dCO2/dt with temperature, that he was kind enough to acknowledge at
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2008/01/25/double-whammy-friday-roy-spencer-on-how-oceans-are-driving-co2/
“But first, some acknowledgements. Even though I have been playing with the CO2 and global temperature data for about a year, it was the persistent queries from a Canadian engineer, Allan MacRae, who made me recently revisit this issue in more detail.”
Best, Allan
Stephen Wilde says: September 1, 2012 at 9:42 am
Stephen,
No. It takes essentially the same amount of energy to evaporate water at all temperatures in the range of interest. If you start from ice, there is an additional amount for direct evaporation (sublimation) due to solid/liquid phase change. If you had a small amount of water and exposed it to a vacuum, the energy to evaporate (540 cal.gram) comes from the remaining water, and thus quickly lowers its temperature. It turns to ice. The vapor will be a gas, but some splatter from boiling makes droplets, which then freeze due to surface evaporation removing energy and cooling the core of the drops. This is the source of ice flakes and frozen residue from this exposure.
that was 540 cal per gram.
BTW, it should be obvious that removing this huge amount of energy to evaporate cools the water, and only input short wave solar energy will keep it from continuing to cool.