Lack of Data For All Phases of Water Guarantees Failed IPCC Projections

Guest essay by Dr. Tim Ball

Lack of temperature data is a problem, but measures of water and precipitation are much worse. Temperature changes, especially cooling, are important to a degree over the long term. Precipitation changes are much more important for short, medium and long periods. Droughts are much more devastating to flora, fauna and the human condition. Irrigation was one of the earliest technologies developed 9000 years ago to offset droughts in the Fertile Crescent, triggered by onset of Holocene warming.

McKitrick et al. and others identified the problems of determining global temperature. Instruments changed over time, but continuous records are limited to the accuracy of early measures ±0.5°C. There are the problems of the recording sites as Anthony Watt’s identified. Only 7.8 percent of the US record is accurate to less than 1°C. What does that say about the rest of the world?

Measuring precipitation accurately is the most challenging of all weather elements. It’s easy if precipitation falls straight down and is only liquid, but it doesn’t and isn’t. Measuring variable snowfall and water content is even more difficult. All precipitation amounts are much more variable than temperature. Some are not considered precipitation. Condensation is overlooked and unmeasured, yet very important.

One year in the late 1980s in Western Canada crop experts predicted a below average harvest because of low precipitation. Actual yield was average or higher in most regions. A combination of high daytime temperatures, close to 30°C, and low nighttime temperatures, close to 0°C, which was well below the Dew Point temperature, produced considerable condensation. Over a couple of weeks this provided sufficient moisture to “fill out” the crop. The moisture was more widespread and evenly spread than rainfall. Deposited at the surface at night meant reduced evaporative loss. More was available to replenish soil moisture in the root zone. All this occurs below the Stevenson screen where conditions are markedly different than at the surface. Read Geiger’s brilliant 1965 Climate Near the Ground to learn the difference.

For most areas the number of precipitation measuring stations is a fraction of the WMO recommended density. For example, two computer model predictions of monsoon rains for Africa showed completely opposite results. In Waiting for the Monsoon, (4 August 2006 VOL 313 Science) Columbia University climate scientist Alessandra Giannini says “The issue of where Sahel climate is going is contentious,” “Some models predict a wetter future; others, a drier one. “They cannot all be right.” They concluded,

One obvious problem is a lack of data. Africa’s network of 1152 weather watch stations, which provide real-time data and supply international climate archives, is just one-eighth the minimum density recommended by the World Meteorological Organization (WMO). Furthermore, the stations that do exist often fail to report.”

It’s not surprising because the IPCC note in Chapter 8 of the 2007 Report,

In short, most AOGCMs do not simulate the spatial or intra-seasonal variation of monsoon precipitation accurately.

Precipitation events are extremely variable spatially. Most rainfall comes as showers of varying intensity so amount differ within short distances. The models gloss over limited temperature data with parameterization, but they can’t do that with precipitation. The grid is too coarse for even the massive systems of thunderstorms and midsize cyclones.

The Water Cycle is a more critical mechanism than the Carbon Cycle and knowledge of its mechanisms challenged meteorology and climatology even before the IPCC bias. For example, there are four different measures of water content of air.

Absolute Humidity: Ratio of mass or weight of water vapor per unit volume of air – grams per cubic meter.

Specific Humidity: Ratio of the mass or weight of water vapor in the air to a unit of air including the water vapor – grams of water vapor per kilogram of wet air.

Mixing Ratio: Ratio of the mass of water vapor to the mass of dry air -grams per gram or grams per kilogram.

Relative Humidity: Ratio of amount of water vapor in the air as a percentage of what it could hold.

The last is best known, most used, but most useless. It’s a function of temperature, so, for example, the same 70 percent relative humidity results from different amounts of water in the air.

Water movement is one part of the Cycle, but transport of latent heat energy is another major function. A very large part of the evaporation, transport and release of water and energy from the surplus region to the deficit region (Figure) is through the Hadley Cell and tropical cyclones.

clip_image002

The IPCC say,

The spatial resolution of the coupled ocean-atmosphere models used in the IPCC assessment is generally not high enough to resolve tropical cyclones, and especially to simulate their intensity.

 

The IPCC underplay the role of CO2 in plant growth, but there’s less focus on water because it requires discussion of natural cycles and patterns. In addition, their definition limits them to human causes of climate change. As a result there is limited funding or support for such research. Fortunately, there is a commercial and humane demand. Irrigation is the single largest use of fresh water by humans, especially in the developing world: India has more land under irrigation than any other country.

Vladimir Koppen did early work on water balance. His “B” climate group identified arid climates and recognized the “effectiveness” of precipitation on plant types and growth. More recently Charles Thornthwaite who also produced a classification system pioneered water balance. W.C. Palmer produced a drought severity index in 1965, but it only relates to meteorological droughts. The fact there are three types, meteorological, hydrological and agricultural, underscores the importance of water balance on climate and life.

All this addresses water and limitations on data and understanding of mechanism at the surface. It is even worse in the atmosphere. We know from the IPCC inability to deal with clouds of the challenge. Water exists as a gas, liquid and solid at the same temperature and can exist in a single cloud at different levels. Here are comments about measuring just water vapor.

It is very hard to quantify water vapor in the atmosphere.  Its concentration changes continually with time, location and altitude.  To measure it at the same location every day, you would need a hygrometer, which in earlier days made use of the moisture-sensitivity of a hair, and by now of for instance condensators.  A vertical profile is obtained with a weather balloon.  To get a global overview, only satellite measurements are suitable.  From a satellite, the absorption of the reflecting sunlight due to water vapor molecules is measured.  The results are pictures of global water vapor distributions and their changes.  The measurement error, however, is still about 30 to 40%.

This was in 1996, but it was no better in 2002 as NASA noted,

Finally, water vapor plays a key role in the Earth’s hydrologic cycle. Therefore, a better understanding of its role will require long-term observations of both small and large scale water vapor features, a major goal of the National Aeronautics and Space and Administration’s (NASA’s) Mission to Planet Earth (MTPE) program.

The bottom line is we don’t know how much water vapour is in the troposphere and stratosphere. It is ignored in most assessments of atmospheric gases; they record only dry air at sea level. Why? It is the only gas with a wide variability from almost zero to 4 percent. It is by far the most important greenhouse gas, but that is something else the IPCC doesn’t want the public to know.

Here is what the IPCC say about water related issues in the computer models in Chapter 8 of the 2007 Physical Science Basis Report.

 

Unfortunately, the total surface heat and water fluxes are not well observed.

 

The evaluation of the hydrological component of climate models has mainly been conducted uncoupled from AOGCMs (Bowling et al., 2003; Nijssen et al., 2003; Boone et al., 2004). This is due in part to the difficulties of evaluating runoff simulations across a range of climate models due to variations in rainfall, snowmelt and net radiation.

 

For models to simulate accurately the seasonally varying pattern of precipitation, they must correctly simulate a number of processes (e.g., evapotranspiration, condensation, transport) that are difficult to evaluate at a global scale.

 

Since the TAR, there have been few assessments of the capacity of climate models to simulate observed soil moisture. Despite the tremendous effort to collect and homogenize soil moisture measurements at global scales (Robock et al., 2000), discrepancies between large-scale estimates of observed soil moisture remain.

 

Glaciers and ice caps, due to their relatively small scales and low likelihood of significant climate feedback at large scales, are not currently included interactively in any AOGCMs.

 

The MOC (meridional overturning circulation) is an important component of present-day climate and many models indicate that it will change in the future (Chapter 10). Unfortunately, many aspects of this circulation are not well observed.

Sun et al. (2006) investigated the intensity of daily precipitation simulated by 18 AOGCMs, including several used in this report. They found that most of the models produce light precipitation (<10 mm day–1) more often than observed, too few heavy precipitation events and too little precipitation in heavy events (>10 mm day–1). The errors tend to cancel, so that the seasonal mean precipitation is fairly realistic.

 

The last comment is remarkable and laughable if it was not so pathetic. They are saying the extremes are wrong, but because the average of them is close to the average it makes it correct. Beyond illogical, it assumes the average is correct, which is not possible because of totally inadequate data.

There is no justification for the IPCC claim of 95-percept certainty that human CO2 is the cause of warming and latterly climate change.

Get notified when a new post is published.
Subscribe today!
0 0 votes
Article Rating
46 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Dr Burns
October 22, 2013 5:41 pm

” … to the accuracy of early measures ±0.5°C.” This is inaccurate. The recording accuracy until recently was ±0.5°C. The overall accuracy was much worse.

Brian H
October 22, 2013 6:35 pm

logiclogiclogic says:
October 22, 2013 at 2:34 pm

Jeez, dude. I figger there are 2, possibly 3, statements in your 6 paragraphs which are distinct. The rest is repetitive efforts to find a clear wording for your 2 or 3 points. Mind-numbing. Prolix. Wordy.
An exercise: strike out any sentence, at random. See if the same point is made elsewhere. Continue until you always get the answer “No”. I predict less than 10% of the word count will remain.

Brian H
October 22, 2013 6:43 pm

Dr. Ball;
Your observations re dew point are very interesting, and suggest to me that a very interesting analysis might be possible using it as a “dependent variable”. The lever that plants would use to control it would be presumably latent heat of condensation/evaporation.

October 22, 2013 7:36 pm

A huge factor is the massive(trillions of tons) amounts of aquifer and deep underground reservoir water that has been pumped to the surface and used to irrigate crops and supply the main water supply for a significant portion of the worlds population.
Enough water comes out and makes its way to the oceans so that some estimate its contribution to sea level increase as being greater than glacier melt.
It’s almost impossible to measure accurately the amount that comes out and very impossible to be able to dial in an amount that represents what the irrigated farm vs the unirrigated farm contributes to immediate evaporation and evaporatranspiration or the amount left behind in the soils, some that may stay awhile and or seep deeper into ground water table. Some of that water will become runoff and increase stream flows.
Much of it is clearly making its way into the oceans according to the most recent estimates of sea level rise from this source. An amount, probably small but impossible to know will also be coming from increased precipitation over the oceans from previously evaporated aquifer water.

October 22, 2013 7:57 pm

1. A year or so ago there was discussion in RealCimate about the fact that many (but not all) climate models do not maintain a true water balance; of the water that evaporates from the oceans some dissappears into a numerical black hole. As condensation/evaporation of water is also a major energy exchange this has implication for all the model results.
2. “Furthermore, the stations that do exist often fail to report.”
This is very true. From my own experience of working with met data from more than 40 tropical countries there are three main problems:
– many stations that used to operate have closed down,
– of those stations which do operate, data is of doubtful accuracy or irregularly (some times just a few days a month) reported,
– some countries have periods when internal strife or civil wars led to extended periods when no data were recorded.

October 22, 2013 8:29 pm

For those interested in rainfall measurement in the southwest:
http://rainlog.org/usprn/html/main/maps.jsp
Dr Ball, thanks! Hydrological considerations are the 800 pound gorilla in the (climate) room, so to speak.

Editor
October 22, 2013 8:50 pm

Dr. Tim, thanks as always for an interesting post. You are quite correct about how little is actually known about all the tricks that water plays.
I was glad to see you plug “The Climate Near The Ground”. I’ve referred to it as “my bible” for a while, and it is indeed the definitive text on the subject.
Keep up the good work,
w.

Lady Life Grows
October 22, 2013 9:58 pm

I took an agricultural college class in Irrigation, learning how precipitation is measured, and different systems for irrigating crops including ditches, sprinklers and the Israeli-invented Drip Irrigation, which puts the water into perforated hoses that leak water directly to the plants. Drip irrigation is the most efficient–but you don’t see it.
Sprinklers are the most wasteful method of irrigation, and that is what you see the most of. I think agricultural sprinklers should be outlawed. They cause the USA to violate water treaties with Mexico, and they harm our aquifers, which eventually will mean famine. It’s not all that hard to fix these violations. The technology is there.

The Iceman Cometh
October 22, 2013 10:47 pm

One of the fun things about rainfall is that it is not normally distributed. A log-normal distribution is quite a reasonable model, if you want something without too many parameters to work with.
Immediately Stats 101 tells you that the arithmetic average is a poor measure, because the mean is way above the mode. Yet the weather people use the arithmetic average – so you will always tend to get less rain than the reported average! Then along comes a so-called “extreme event” – it isn’t extreme, it just comes from the upper end of a very skew distribution.
I have been reviewing some attempts to determine trends in rainfall, and every one of them has made the same mistake. If you go to the raw data, and work from the actual distribution, then the apparent trends disappear.
Another thought spurred by Tim’s post arose from “The IPCC say,
The spatial resolution of the coupled ocean-atmosphere models used in the IPCC assessment is generally not high enough to resolve tropical cyclones, and especially to simulate their intensity.”
It is not difficult to work out the energy involved in a tropical cyclone. A mass of air is accelerated from a certain distance out towards the eye of the storm, then rises vertically. The dimensions can readily be approximated. In a small cyclone, if you get up to horizontal wind speeds of only 100km/h in the eye, the energy dissipated approaches PJ levels – instantaneously, as much energy as mankind generates. A decent-sized hurricane, like Sandy before approaching land, is Really Big – yet the IPCC models miss it. So by the simplest of measures we know that the models are wrong. Do we really have to argue about how wrong?

milodonharlani
October 22, 2013 10:48 pm

Lady Life Grows says:
October 22, 2013 at 9:58 pm
After you outlaw sprinkling, please come & show us in the 19 American states which rely on sprinkling irrigation how the drip irrigation which you learned from a class in college & watching Israelis grow boutique crops can help us better to feed the world on hundreds of millions of acres of wheat, corn, potatoes, beans & what have you. We’ve only been doing this for 150 years & could benefit from your superior experience & intelligence. Thanks.

October 23, 2013 6:23 am

Volcanoes excluded, there is no place on earth that is too hot for humans so long as there is fresh water. In contrast, no matter how cold Al Gore and the IPCC try and make the world, without water humans cannot survive.

October 23, 2013 6:46 am

The Iceman Cometh says:
October 22, 2013 at 10:47 pm
Immediately Stats 101 tells you that the arithmetic average is a poor measure, because the mean is way above the mode. Yet the weather people use the arithmetic average
============
In climatology the correct statistics are those that give the answer you want. Cherry picking the methodology is much harder to spot than cherry picking the data. It should come as no surprise that the majority of scientific papers that pass peer review are later found to be unrepeatable.

Craig Loehle
October 23, 2013 7:41 am

But, they keep saying, the models are based on physics! yeah, except for the parts that aren’t. You can’t model what you don’t understand. The idea that radiative transfer is all we need to know to model the earth’s climate (and impacts) is so stupid it boggles the mind.

Ann Hilliard
October 23, 2013 9:47 am

LadyLifeGrows:
Sprinkler irrigation has two important benefits which drip irrigation lacks. First, the falling force of the water droplets allows them to penetrate more deeply into the soil, driving dissolved saline deeper than drip irrigation water, and reducing salt buildup. Second, the evaporation from sprinklers cools the plants and air, allowing farmers to plant winter crops earlier in desert climates.

Samuel C Cogar
October 23, 2013 11:29 am

Great essay by Dr. Tim Ball.
I’ve been waiting a long time for someone with “acceptable” credentials to write commentary such as that was.
Here following is commentary I authored several years ago and “posted” on discussion Forums only to be told by the silly proponents of CAGW that I didn’t know what I was talking about because I was not a Degreed Climate Scientist currently working in that field and that I had never ever published any peer-reviewed papers on the subject of Climate Change. To wit:
————
Clouds, fog and mists are all forms of water vapor which have collected into larger “droplets” of water and are visible to the naked eye, …. and are the same as humidity which can not be seen with the naked eye. And that is because of the density of the larger “droplets” of water and the fact that any source of light that strikes them will be absorbed more readily and/or reflected away from them more easily.
But now the effects of clouds, fogs and mists relative to incoming solar energy and re-emitted IR energy from the earth’s surface ….. are quite different (extremely more pronounced) than the effects of humidity. Again, this is because of their density (mass).
Clouds, fogs and mists act as a unidirectional buffer to both the incoming solar energy and the re-radiated energy from the earth’s surface. And the best way to explain this is by examples.
Night time cloud cover or fog will prevent near surface air temperatures from cooling off as fast because they per say buffer the re-radiated energy.
Day time cloud cover or morning fog will prevent near surface air temperatures from warming up as fast because they per say buffer the incoming solar energy.
And this conundrum is what confuses the ell out of climate scientists who are trying to calculate “average surface air temperatures” ….. and which wrecks havoc with their Climate Modeling Programs ….. because it is such an important but indeterminate variable. ……. And thus, because they can not accurately calculate their affect, …… they completely ignore and omit said from any of their calculations …… and attempt to CTA by blaming everything on atmospheric CO2.
——————-
In closing, ….. I do not believe it is possible for anyone to measure the warming effect of the lesser quantity of gas (CO2 +-390 ppm) in a mixture of two different gases when the quantity of the greater volume of gas (H2O vapor) is constantly changing (5,000 to 40,000 ppm) from hour-to-hour and day-to-day. Especially when said greater volume of gas (H2O vapor) 4% has a potentially 200+ greater “warming” potential for said mixture than does the lesser volume of said gas (CO2) in said mixture.
Thermal energy in the atmosphere propogates via by both radiation and conduction.

mbur
October 23, 2013 2:28 pm

@ferd berple excludes volcanoes and i think they might be included.Heat from any source
can stimulate cloud(water) dynamics.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pyrocumulonimbus
Thanks again for the interesting articles and comments.

mbur
October 23, 2013 2:33 pm

PS-and i know we can’t live in a volcano , but, IMO,they contribute to the overall physics of our planet.

Brian H
October 23, 2013 10:59 pm

Samuel C Cogar says:
October 23, 2013 at 11:29 am

Yes, the closest they seem to get to these issues is cloud albedo. Vastly more is involved! Can you imagine a cartoon diagram encompassing sea fogs?
BTW: per se
wreaked havoc

Samuel C Cogar
October 24, 2013 6:07 am

Brian H says:
October 23, 2013 at 10:59 pm
BTW: per se
wreaked havoc
—————
HA, I’ve been writing “per say” for so long ……
If I used “per se” I would have to re-write the sentence because my use of “per say” is in reference to the verb “buffer”, …… as in “buffering action”, …. not in reference to the clouds or fog.
Brian, my being an old computer designing dinosaur I don’t have a problem with “coining” new words with a specific definition …. or …. “coining” a new definition for an already existing word.
Iffen you all “nit picked” all the computer terminology now in use like you do my use of “per say”, …… lord a mercy, ….. the personal computer industry would never have gotten off the ground.
And ps, you are right about that cartoon. Sea fogs, lake fogs, river fogs, valley fogs, etc., are probably far more abundant in many locales than cloud cover, especially during the fall and winter months.
I live bout 2 miles down stream from a large flood-control dam and some mornings I don’t see the Sunshine until way past 9 AM. And that lake fog prevents it from “frosting” here.

Samuel C Cogar
October 24, 2013 6:16 am

And Brian, it is the fog that gave the …. Great Smoky Mountains …. their name.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Smoky_Mountains

Brian H
October 26, 2013 11:02 pm

“Per say” is polyglot nonsense, borne of a kind of mal-othographic malapropism. Truly ugly, IMO.