From the EGU:
Heavy rainfall events can be more common in a warmer world (Credit: Annett Junginger, distributed via imaggeo.egu.eu)
Reducing the amount of sunlight reaching the planet’s surface by geoengineering may not undo climate change after all. Two German researchers used a simple energy balance analysis to explain how the Earth’s water cycle responds differently to heating by sunlight than it does to warming due to a stronger atmospheric greenhouse effect. Further, they show that this difference implies that reflecting sunlight to reduce temperatures may have unwanted effects on the Earth’s rainfall patterns. The results are now published in Earth System Dynamics, an open access journal of the European Geosciences Union (EGU).
Global warming alters the Earth’s water cycle since more water evaporates to the air as temperatures increase. Increased evaporation can dry out some regions while, at the same time, result in more rain falling in other areas due to the excess moisture in the atmosphere. The more water evaporates per degree of warming, the stronger the influence of increasing temperature on the water cycle. But the new study shows the water cycle does not react the same way to different types of warming.
Axel Kleidon and Maik Renner of the Max Planck Institute for Biogeochemistry in Jena, Germany, used a simple energy balance model to determine how sensitive the water cycle is to an increase in surface temperature due to a stronger greenhouse effect and to an increase in solar radiation. They predicted the response of the water cycle for the two cases and found that, in the former, evaporation increases by 2% per degree of warming while in the latter this number reaches 3%. This prediction confirmed results of much more complex climate models.
“These different responses to surface heating are easy to explain,” says Kleidon, who uses a pot on the kitchen stove as an analogy. “The temperature in the pot is increased by putting on a lid or by turning up the heat – but these two cases differ by how much energy flows through the pot,” he says. A stronger greenhouse effect puts a thicker ‘lid’ over the Earth’s surface but, if there is no additional sunlight (if we don’t turn up the heat on the stove), extra evaporation takes place solely due to the increase in temperature. Turning up the heat by increasing solar radiation, on the other hand, enhances the energy flow through the Earth’s surface because of the need to balance the greater energy input with stronger cooling fluxes from the surface. As a result, there is more evaporation and a stronger effect on the water cycle.
In the new Earth System Dynamics study the authors also show how these findings can have profound consequences for geoengineering. Many geoengineering approaches aim to reduce global warming by reducing the amount of sunlight reaching the Earth’s surface (or, in the pot analogy, reduce the heat from the stove). But when Kleidon and Renner applied their results to such a geoengineering scenario, they found out that simultaneous changes in the water cycle and the atmosphere cannot be compensated for at the same time. Therefore, reflecting sunlight by geoengineering is unlikely to restore the planet’s original climate.
“It’s like putting a lid on the pot and turning down the heat at the same time,” explains Kleidon. “While in the kitchen you can reduce your energy bill by doing so, in the Earth system this slows down the water cycle with wide-ranging potential consequences,” he says.
Kleidon and Renner’s insight comes from looking at the processes that heat and cool the Earth’s surface and how they change when the surface warms. Evaporation from the surface plays a key role, but the researchers also took into account how the evaporated water is transported into the atmosphere. They combined simple energy balance considerations with a physical assumption for the way water vapour is transported, and separated the contributions of surface heating from solar radiation and from increased greenhouse gases in the atmosphere to obtain the two sensitivities. One of the referees for the paper commented: “it is a stunning result that such a simple analysis yields the same results as the climate models.”
###
Please mention the name of the publication (Earth System Dynamics) if reporting on this story and, if reporting online, include a link to the paper (http://www.earth-syst-dynam.net/4/455/2013/esd-4-455-2013.html) or to the journal website (http://www.earth-system-dynamics.net).
More information
This release is based on materials provided by the Max Planck Institute for Biogeochemistry.
This research is presented in the paper ‘A simple explanation for the sensitivity of the hydrologic cycle to surface temperature and solar radiation and its implications for global climate change’ published in the EGU open access journal Earth System Dynamics on 05 December 2013.
Full citation: Kleidon, A. and Renner, M.: A simple explanation for the sensitivity of the hydrologic cycle to surface temperature and solar radiation and its implications for global climate change, Earth Syst. Dynam., 4, 455-465, doi:10.5194/esd-4-455-2013, 2013.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
This paper also notes climate models incorrectly assume a given solar forcing has the same effect as a given greenhouse forcing. The paper finds solar forcing has ~31% more effect on the hydrologic cycle than greenhouse forcing, and thus this is another way climate models diminish the role of the Sun in climate.
http://hockeyschtick.blogspot.com/2013/12/how-climate-models-dismiss-role-of-sun.html
So Gaia does know if it is evil CO2 or some other source of warming.
And evil CO2 has no complications from changes to the water cycle or anything else.
The climate system is a black box of unknown or unquantified processes – except for the effects of evil CO2.
Evil CO2 uses a different, simple process to warm the planet which has no conflict with other processes.
Or what’s good for the goose is good for the gander.
Didn’t the actual empirical evidence show that atmospheric moisture had declined during the recent warming spell? Or did I misread the satellite results?
Wow. Not all forcings behave the same way?
That ought to upset a few apple carts.
“Therefore, reflecting sunlight by geoengineering is unlikely to restore the planet’s original climate.”
Which original climate? The climate from 5 hundred years ago, the climate from 5 million years ago, or the climate from 4.5 billion years ago?
Restated: Man’s realistic chances of changing Earth’s climate in any meaningful way are practically nil.
Most of us are intuitively aware that ANY geoengineering attempt will be, at the least, ineffective, but more likely, catastrophic. We simply do not know enough about the climate and weather controlling mechanisms, although we often delude ourselves into thinking we do.
The arrogance of someone believing we can do a better job of climate control than a planet that has been doing it for billions of years is just breathtaking.
I say we should encourage them (but let them spend their own money, c’mon bill gates; it’s for the children…) so that when they go all EPIC FAIL, we can hang them out to dry. An object lesson to useful idiots …
One of the referees for the paper commented: “it is a stunning result that such a simple analysis yields the same results as the climate models.”
Somehow, that makes me less enthusiastic about the analysis.
Geoengineering was never about controlling Earth’s climate. That was just the cover story silly rabbit.
On small scales with very temporary affects can geoengineering be effective. The planet’s defense mechanism to keep itself in balance and the Sun’s influence will always confound the puny humans futile attempts at long term control. Besides, the money needed to make a dent is beyond the ability to pay for it.
The real purpose of geoengineering research is to weaponize the weather, create temporary disruptions to scare and kill some people, and to poison and pollute the air, soil, and water with geoengineering chemicals for the benefit of the few.
Monsanto could tell you how it benefits them, but you have to get beyond their silly rationalizations for doing so;
09.01.22-Aluminum Resistant Seeds
Summary: Monsanto has created new genetically engineered aluminum resistant seeds.
http://amazingdiscoveries.org/09.01.22-aluminum-resistant-seeds
This paper includes exactly zero measurements of temperatures, humidity, water vapor, or any other actual physical feature involved in the hydrologic cycle of Earth.
So, while they can say “The global hydrologic cycle is likely to increase in strength with global warming” — they have not even done a rough check to see if anything like that has actually happened anywhere. This is the first line of the abstract….maybe it has increased the “strength” of the hydrologic cycle….does anyone have any data? know of any data?
Maybe I’m just having a bad day……
Their hydrologic cycle has plent of clever equations, but no clouds.
For the last few months in the midwest we’ve had some consistent inconsistent weather. A few days of high humidity, followed by a few days of dry weather. It was simple to observe just how temps moved over a 24hr period. The last couple of days are typical. Tue and Wed, humidity was 95%, temps barely budged up or down from 49f. Today and for the next few days, humidity down to 50%, and temps rising and falling 20f. About 25f for a high today, and forecast lows in the single digits. The speed at which the temps can drop is breathtaking.
What does this have to do wiith the CO2? It seems to this simple minded WUWT fan, that it demonstrates the total lack of any insulation value of CO2. If temps can drop 2-4 degrees per hour whenever the humidity drops to about 50%, a reasonable question is “does CO2 have any effect at all?”
Just asking.
Kleidon and Renner’s insight ……
Was it this water vapor satellite view ?,
http://www.weather.unisys.com/satellite/sat_wv_hem_loop-12.gif
(click it, it’s safe and fast).
that they propose to affect ?
Here’s a good presentation you may not have seen.
Dr. Don Easterbrook Exposes Global Warming Hoax
Senate Energy, Environment & Telecommunications Cmte.
Tuesday March 26th 2013, 1:30PM
Public: SHB 1314, SHB 1498, EHB 1826; Work Session: Climate change.
http://www.tvw.org/index.php?option=com_tvwplayer&eventID=2013030153#start=600
I still like steerable orbital mirrors for subtly altering the weather (well, once we have a method of actually predicting what the results, at any rate).
Sigh. They keep mentioning evaporation but nothing about increased humidity creating clouds that would block sunlight, and thunderstorms that speed the transport of heat. Do they expect clouds and thunderstorms form only at night?
They predicted the response of the water cycle for the two cases and found that, in the former, evaporation increases by 2% per degree of warming while in the latter this number reaches 3%. This prediction confirmed results of much more complex climate models.
Model results confirm models. Yeah, right. Sure. Whatever makes them happy in La-La-Land.
Define what the “original climate” should be. Also, define what the optimal climate should be. Is it a world without droughts, floods, heatwaves, cold waves, tropical cyclones, extratropical cyclones, tornadoes, hail, freezing rain, sleet, or any other bad weather event? “Original climate” sounds like Paradise to me; where is Adam and Eve in this new “original climate”?
Geoengineering is one of the stupidest ideas I’ve ever heard anyway. The solution to solve what mankind has done to affect the climate is to affect the climate. Yeah, nothing can possibly go wrong with that idea. (rolls eyes in sarcasm) Do they realize that the episode of Futurama about using a giant mirror to solve global warming was not meant to be serious? (Al Gore appeared in that episode, did he realize it?)
On the one hand, the human race has been accused to changing the Earth climate from unintended consequences of using its collective intellect.
This paper on the other hand maintains the human race cannot change the forecasted climate even with a concerted, purposful, directed geoengineering effort.
How would bioengineers measure the efficacy of their effort ? Stability of temperatures ? Stability of hurricanes ? “Normal” weather extremes ? Enquiring minds want to know.
I just keep wondering why these people keep trying to deal with a future Earth that will never be what they assume , i.e. an atmosphere chock full of CO2. Electric cars and nuclear energy will
see to that.
The thought that some fool persuades the world that his or her geo-engineering idea is worth doing fills me with a mixture of dread and contempt. Can you imagine the number of things that could and would go wrong, even in the unlikely event that the so-called problem was real. Aaargh!
Owen in GA says:
December 5, 2013 at 2:52 pm
Didn’t the actual empirical evidence show that atmospheric moisture had declined
Covered here last March.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/03/06/nasa-satellite-data-shows-a-decline-in-water-vapor/
jorgekafkazar says:
December 5, 2013 at 3:30 pm
“it is a stunning result that such a simple analysis yields the same results as the climate models.”
My thought exactly while reading. Was that one of the 2 models that even came close to the matching the ‘flatline’ or one of the other spaghetti lines in the IPCC graph?
From the post:
“ A stronger greenhouse effect puts a thicker ‘lid’ over the Earth’s surface but, . . .”
[Axel Kleidon, 2013]
How does this stupendously stupid analogy hang on?
And then this:
“Therefore, reflecting sunlight by geoengineering is unlikely to restore the planet’s original climate.”
original?
Would that be the climate during the last glacial advance, the medieval warm period, the Roman Warm Period, the LIA, or 1936?
Seems these are smart folks so I attribute the problems with this paper to be what some folks call “lazy writing.”
http://ezinearticles.com/?Lazy-Writing&id=7959549
What a good idea. Geoengineer for a cooler planet as we very possibly approach a mini-ice age.
Population-reduction solved.