Note: two events at AGU13 this morning dovetail in with this essay. The first, a slide from Dr. Judith Lean which says: “There are no operational forecasts of global climate change”.
The second was a tweet by Dr. Gavin Schmidt, attending Lenny Smith’s lecture (which I couldn’t due to needing to file a radio news report from the AGU press room) that said:
Smith: usefulness of climate models for mitigation 'as good as it gets', usefulness for adaptation? Not so much #AGU13
— Gavin Schmidt (@ClimateOfGavin) December 10, 2013
With those events in mind, this essay from Dr. William Gray (of hurricane forecasting fame) is prescient.
Guest essay by Dr. William M. Gray
My 60-year experience in meteorology has led me to develop a profound disrespect for the philosophy and science behind numerical climate modeling. The simulations that have been directed at determining the influence of a doubling of CO2 on Earth’s temperature have been made with flawed and oversimplified internal physical assumptions. These modeling scenarios have shown a near uniformity in CO2 doubling causing a warming of 2-5oC (4-9oF). There is no physical way, however, that an atmospheric doubling of the very small amount of background CO2 gas would ever be able to bring about such large global temperature increases.
It is no surprise that the global temperature in recent decades has not been rising as the climate models have predicted. Reliable long-range climate modeling is not possible and may never be possible. It is in our nation’s best interest that this mode of prophecy be exposed for its inherent futility. Belief in these climate model predictions has had a profound deleterious influence on our country’s (and foreign) governmental policies on the environment and energy.
The still-strong—but false—belief that skillful long-range climate prediction is possible is thus a dangerous idea. The results of the climate models have helped foster the current political clamor for greatly reducing fossil fuel use even though electricity generation costs from wind and solar are typically three to five times higher than generation from fossil fuels. The excuse for this clamor for renewable energy is to a large extent the strongly expressed views of the five Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) reports, which are based on the large (and unrealistic) catastrophic global warming projections from climate models.
The pervasive influence of these IPCC reports (from 1990 to 2013) derives from the near-universal lack of climate knowledge among the general population. Overly biased and sensational media reports have been able to brainwash a high percentage of the public. A very similar lack of sophisticated climate knowledge exists among our top government officials, environmentalists, and most of the world’s prestigious scientists. Holding a high government position or having excelled in a non-climate scientific specialty does not automatically confer a superior understanding of climate.
Lack of climate understanding, however, has not prevented our government leaders and others from using the public’s fear of detrimental climate change as a political or social tool to further some of their other desired goals. Climate modeling output lends an air of authority that is not warranted by the unrealistic model input physics and the overly simplified and inadequate numerical techniques. (Model grids cannot resolve cumulus convective elements, for example.) It is impossible for climate models to predict the globe’s future climate for at least three basic reasons.
One, decadal and century-scale deep-ocean circulation changes (likely related to long time-scale ocean salinity variations), such as the global Meridional Overturning Circulation (MOC) and Atlantic Thermohaline Circulation (THC), are very difficult to measure and are not yet well-enough understood to be included realistically in the climate models. The last century-and-a-half global warming of ~0.6oC appears to be a result of the general slowdown of the oceans’ MOC over this period. The number of multidecadal up-and-down global mean temperature changes appears also to have been driven by the multidecadal MOC. Models do not yet incorporate this fundamental physical component.
Two, the very large climate modeling overestimates of global warming are primarily a result of the assumed positive water-vapor feedback processes (about 2oC extra global warming with a CO2 doubling in most models). Models assume any upper tropospheric warming also brings about upper tropospheric water-vapor increase as well, because they assume atmospheric relative humidity (RH) remains quasi-constant. But measurements and theoretical considerations of deep cumulonimbus (Cb) convective clouds indicate any increase of CO2 and its associated increase in global rainfall would lead to a reduction of upper tropospheric RH and a consequent enhancement (not curtailment) of Outgoing Longwave Radiation (OLR) to space.
The water-vapor feedback loop, in reality, is weakly negative, not strongly positive as nearly all the model CO2 doubling simulations indicate. The climate models are not able to resolve or correctly parameterize the fundamentally important climate forcing influences of the deep penetrating cumulonimbus (Cb) convection elements. This is a fundamental deficiency.
Three, the CO2 global warming question has so far been treated from a “radiation only” perspective. Disregarding water-vapor feedback changes, it has been assumed a doubling of CO2 will cause a blockage of Outgoing Long-wave Radiation (OLR) of 3.7 Wm-2. To compensate for this blockage without feedback, it has been assumed an enhanced global warming of about 1oC would be required for counterbalance. But global energy budget considerations indicate only about half (0.5oC, not 1oC) of the 3.7 Wm-2 OLR blockage of CO2 should be expected to be expended for temperature compensation. The other half of the compensation for the 3.7 Wm-2 OLR blockage will come from the extra energy that must be utilized for surface evaporation (~1.85 Wm-2) to sustain the needed increase of the global hydrologic cycle by about 2 percent.
Earth experiences a unique climate because of its 70 percent water surface and its continuously functioning hydrologic cycle. The stronger the globe’s hydrologic cycle, the greater the globe’s cooling potential. All the global energy used for surface evaporation and tropospheric condensation warming is lost to space through OLR flux.
Thus, with zero water-vapor feedback we should expect a doubling of CO2 to cause no more than about 0.5oC (not 1oC) of global warming and the rest of the compensation to come from enhanced surface evaporation, atmospheric condensation warming, and enhanced OLR to space. If there is a small negative water-vapor feedback of only -0.1 to -0.3oC (as I believe to be the case), then a doubling of CO2 should be expected to cause a global warming of no more than about 0.2-0.4oC. Such a small temperature change should be of little societal concern during the remainder of this century.
It is the height of foolishness for the United States or any foreign government to base any energy or environmental policy decisions on the results of long-range numerical climate model predictions, or of the recommendations emanating from the biased, politically driven reports of the IPCC.
###
William M. Gray, Ph.D. (gray@atmos.colostate.edu) is professor emeritus of atmospheric science at Colorado State University and head of the Tropical Meteorology Project at CSU’s Department of Atmospheric Sciences.
Konrad says:
December 19, 2013 at 4:27 pm
TB says:
December 19, 2013 at 2:34 pm
——————————————–
You say –
“At no time in my meteorological studies/training was radiative cooling mention/discussed in regard it being a vital part of the circulation of a Hadley Cell. That is not to say that it does not happen – just that air aloft will inevitably sink when converged at 30N/S in the Sub-tropical jet – and sink. What is you cannot comprehend about convergence of mass?”
“But it of course is only radiative energy loss that allows convergence of mass in air masses at altitude allowing subsidence. The following meteorology link –
http://www.st-andrews.ac.uk/~dib2/climate/tropics.html
– has a good explanation of the process, including-
“As this dry upper air drifts polewards, its potential temperature gradually falls due to longwave radiative losses to space (this is a diabatic process, involving exchanges of energy between the air mass and its environment). Decreasing potential temperature leads to an increase in density, upsetting the hydrostatic balance and initiating subsidence”
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Konrad – there appears to be a little controversy/confusion about this. I accept that your interpretation is verified by your link. Can you find a more mathematical treatment of this claim?
I disagree with it and I have not found a rigorous treatment of it say that.
This is the bit I particularly disagree with “, upsetting the hydrostatic balance and initiating subsidence”
This says :…
http://sparce.evac.ou.edu/q_and_a/air_circulation.htm
From dia; “air sinks where Coriolis-turned air bunches up”
From: http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/full/10.1175/1520-0442%282003%29016%3C3706%3ASPAETA%3E2.0.CO%3B2
“Of particular interest is the interaction between the quasi-stationary component and the transients in the subtropics. We have emphasized the importance of the reach of the energy transports by the transients well into the Tropics so that cooling results (of order 60 to over 100 W m−2 in winter) AND THIS IS COMPENSATED BY SUBSIDENCE IN THE DOWNWARD BRANCH OF THE HADLEY CIRCULATION. THE RESULTING RELATIVELY CLEAR SKIES PRODUCE RADIATIVE COOLING TO SPACE, WHICH DOES NOT CHANGE MUCH WITH SEASON AND SHOULD BE REGARDED AS A MODEST FEEDBACK, NOT A FUNDAMENTAL FORCING.”
Further…
“The seamless nature of the atmospheric poleward heat transports relates directly to how the Hadley circulation is driven and is linked with the mid-latitude storms. It is a picture consistent with views of the general circulation in Lorenz (1967) but nonetheless at odds with some current perceptions about the Hadley circulation (discussed in the introduction). The latter emphasize the importance of radiative cooling in the subtropics as a driver of the Hadley cell (albeit often deliberately to explore the possible atmospheric states without eddies), Whereas Both The Latent Heating In The Upward Branch And The Radiative Cooling In The Downward Branch ARE REALLY PROCESSES THAT RESULT IN LARGE PART FROM THE CIRCULATION.”
Yes, it will, it is a mass diabatic process is relative to it’s surroundings – ie the air below will also cool. It remains in (more or less) balance.
http://www.atmos.illinois.edu/~snesbitt/ATMS505/stuff/07_Isentropic%20Analysis.pdf
From above:
“The troposphere, except in shallow, narrow, rare locations, is stable to dry processes. For the purpose of synoptic analysis, these areas can be ignored and potential temperature used as a vertical coordinate.”
From: http://derecho.math.uwm.edu/classes/SynII/QGOmega.pdf
“The contribution to vertical motion exclusively due to the Laplacian of diabatic heating can be expressed by:
Omega *Is Prop* R/PCp Del^2 (dQ/dt)
Omega = Vert motion. Q is the supply of heat per unit-time and mass. Cp the specific heat of dry air. R the gas constant for dry air. Del is the isobaric Del (grad) operator. dQ/dt is the diabatic heating rate.
Diabatic warming refers to the situation where dQ/dt > 0, while diabatic cooling refers to the situation where dQ/dt >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
“In small scale experiments in shallow containers it is possible to generate convective circulation by only heating and cooling a fluid at disparate locations at its base. However the process involves the fluid dynamics of entrainment. This process breaks down as the container get taller, and layering starts to occur. While the troposphere at only 10 to 15 Km depth may appear shallow, the significant pressure gradient across this height gives it a far greater virtual depth with regards to Raleigh-Bernard circulation.”
This does not model the Earth’s equatioral/subtropical atmosphere – there are large surface thermal differentials compounded by LH release on rising arm and also large thermal wind differentials (geopotential height gradient) aloft – But my concern is with Coriolis (the above neglects also) – I maintain that this is the major driver in the aloft part of the Hadley circulation as Poleward air converges.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
“The early two shell radiative models that are the foundation of not just AGW but the radiative greenhouse hypothesis, assume a tropospheric lapse rate in a non-radiative atmosphere. Worse, they set the atmospheric temperature using surface Tav, where as empirical experiment shows that if convective circulation has broken down, the bulk of the atmosphere would be isothermal with its temperature driven by surface Tmax. It should be noted that there would be no greater reduction of surface Tmax under a non radiative atmosphere, although Tmin over land in a very thin night inversion layer would be far lower. This means that for a non-radiative atmosphere the bulk of the atmosphere would be static with an isothermal temperature far hotter than present.”
No – empirical experiment cannot mimic the Earth in this regard. A natural lapse rate will develop regardless of atmospheric radiative responses. Due differential latitudinal heating > frictional turbulence > convection > overturning > geopotential height gradient > Coriolis > adiabatic cooling/heating – creating a heat pump and warming the lower layers/cooling aloft. Radiation is NOT needed. Models know this.
If Earth had a non-radiative atmosphere it would be frigid – due immediate energy loss at terrestrial frequencies via a massive IR window.
“This means that for a non-radiative atmosphere the bulk of the atmosphere would be static with an isothermal temperature far hotter than present.”
I’m, sorry – I’m just gob-smacked at that.
Why do you not accept that the BB temp of Earth (alright it’s a grey-body) is 255K?
And there WOULD be a LR.
You do also appreciate that there would be no thermodynamic equilibrium in this hypothetical World?
Therefore there must be movement. (There would be radiational equilibrium – Solar absorbed Vs Ir emitted).
You are aware of the gain/loss of internal energy via compression/rarefaction?
Therefore there would be the inherent formation of a LR.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
“This leads to the next problem. N2 and O2 are not truly “non-radiative” gases, they are poorly radiative gases. In a largely static atmosphere, as observed in the thermosphere, they are subject to radiative super heating. How hot could our atmosphere get without radiative gases? I’m not sure we would want to find out.”
The “problem” is easily explained by realising that the Thermosphere is heated via collision with energy from energetic Solar particles. Particles that do not make it through the Tropopause.
The Thermosphee is NOT heated via radiational exchange.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thermosphere
Correction to above…
….. while diabatic cooling refers to the situation where dQ/dt < 0
Konrad 3:16pm: “Call to authority argument….”
Perfectly ok if those consulted really are generally accepted text book science experts like citations in papers; it isn’t paranoia if they really are out to get you. Konrad – Science builds on the basics established by the expertise of the thermo grandmasters.
“..you need to model non-radiative transports within the ocean and atmosphere volumes and the height of energy input and exit. Why?”
The height of added external energy is important because a fluid heated from below will convect and one that is heated from above will not. Radiation exiting CV would be affected differently depending on whether I add same external energy across CV way above or way below tropopause so the surface Tmean would be affected differently. That Konrad fails to see this means he misses the basic thermo.
The spontaneous movement of energy already in the CV has no effect on total internal energy since it does not affect energy in or energy out of CV unless forced from outside (refrigerator with an electric plug); Konrad’s argument about internal CV energy movement (convection) fails the basics.
“Not after the inanity of Pierrehumbert, an “expert in the field” has been put on display.”
Please point out formula number or Fig. in the paper you linked that holds exact science “inanity”. In eqn. form not in assertion which is Konrad’s expected but useless method of debate.
Konrad – All of your experiments prove the 1st and 2nd law eqn. 7.16. So all of your experiments prove eqn. 7.16 is useful despite your assertions it is not.
TB says:
December 21, 2013 at 10:38 am
—————————————————-
“Konrad – there appears to be a little controversy/confusion about this. I accept that your interpretation is verified by your link. Can you find a more mathematical treatment of this claim?
I disagree with it and I have not found a rigorous treatment of it say that.”
I have claimed –
Continued vertical circulation in the Hadley, Ferrel and Polar tropospheric convection cells depends on radiative energy loss from altitude. Without radiative cooling at altitude these circulation systems would stall.
You have claimed –
this circulation would continue because – “there are large surface thermal differentials compounded by LH release on rising arm and also large thermal wind differentials (geopotential height gradient) aloft – But my concern is with Coriolis (the above neglects also) – I maintain that this is the major driver in the aloft part of the Hadley circulation as Poleward air converges.”
But claiming Coriolis forces as a major driver is clearly incorrect. Coriolis forces can only affect fluids already in motion within a rotating system such as a planets atmosphere. Coriolis forces do not drive tropospheric convective circulation. In the case of our planet, Coriolis forces only serve to break tropospheric convective circulation into three cells and deflect their ascending, translating and descending limbs.
I have claimed –
The observed tropospheric lapse rate is a product of continued vertical circulation across the pressure gradient of the atmosphere, and that this circulation ultimately depends on radiative cooling of air masses that have risen from the surface.
You have claimed –
“A natural lapse rate will develop regardless of atmospheric radiative responses. Due differential latitudinal heating > frictional turbulence > convection > overturning > geopotential height gradient > Coriolis > adiabatic cooling/heating – creating a heat pump and warming the lower layers/cooling aloft. Radiation is NOT needed. Models know this.”
I would suggest that you have left out wizards, unicorns and climate “scientists” frantically waving their hands trying to drive megatonnes of gas in a giant flow from surface to 15Km altitude and back.
I would further suggest that radiative cooling at altitude is the only real mechanism powerful enough to keep this circulation, and its resultant lapse rate going. How powerful? You asked for “a more mathematical treatment of this claim?” The amount of energy being radiated to space as IR from the atmosphere at altitude is more than TWICE the net flux of IR into the atmosphere from the surface and directly intercepted solar radiation combined. That’s all the maths you need.
You claim –
“If Earth had a non-radiative atmosphere it would be frigid – due immediate energy loss at terrestrial frequencies via a massive IR window.”
Such an atmosphere would not be frigid, as it would be still heated by surface conduction, and release of latent heat. It would however no longer have an effective cooling mechanism. While the land surface under such an atmosphere would have a far lower Tmin, empirical experiment demonstrates that for a gas atmosphere in a gravity field, the surface is far better at conductively heating the atmosphere than it is at conductively cooling it.
I state –
“This means that for a non-radiative atmosphere the bulk of the atmosphere would be static with an isothermal temperature far hotter than present.”
You respond –
“I’m, sorry – I’m just gob-smacked at that.”
Yep, thirty years of contiuous AGW propaganda can do that 😉
“Why do you not accept that the BB temp of Earth (alright it’s a grey-body) is 255K?”
Because you were applying SB calculations to moving fluid bodies in a gravity field.
And this –
“The “problem” is easily explained by realising that the Thermosphere is heated via collision with energy from energetic Solar particles. Particles that do not make it through the Tropopause.
The Thermosphee is NOT heated via radiational exchange.”
No, what I was pointing out is that if full tropospheric convective circulation breaks down, stagnated N2 and O2 would be subject to radiative heating. Very high frequency UV does play a role in heating the thermosphere. However other wavelengths are absorbed and radiated (poorly) by N2 and O2. These include solar UV, SW, and IR which would all penetrate the full depth of an atmosphere devoid of radiative gases.
Astute present and future readers may be wondering why I did not make a direct response to TBs’s cited papers in my previous response. This is because the response needs to be dealt with separately.
I have previously mentioned on this thread, that post 1990 there was a frantic attempt to save global warming by changing radiative only models to radiative-convective models, introducing claims of “strongly positive water vapour feedback” and erasing the medieval warm period record that disproved these claims.
The radiative-convective models are of course, utter tripe, or as it is otherwise known, “climate science”. These were a band-aid or patch up job to save global warming. There was no real attempt to advance science here, rather an attempt to erase inconvenient established meteorology.
In response to Tricks ill considered demands for papers that were an example of this, I cited a 1995 Pierrehumbert paper, in which he tried to patch up global warming by claiming that at low concentrations, radiative gases could act to cool the atmosphere, driving convective circulation across the pressure gradient of the atmosphere through radiative losses to space, generating the observed lapse rate, but, strangly after a certain concentration they would case warming. Had any climate “scientist” ever claimed something this absurd about the science that was supposed to be “settled” well before this?
But TB went further in trying to claim radiative gases were not critical to tropospheric convective circulation. He cited “Seamless poleward atmospheric energy transports and implications for Hadley circulation 2003”
Most WUWT readers will instantly recognise one of the two authors, a certain “Kevin E. Trenberth”.
That would be the Kevin infamous for the Trenberth/Khiel energy budget cartoon. The one that shows downwelling LWIR having the same effect over ocean as it does over land.
That would be the same Kevin from the Climategate emails- “ we can’t account for the lack of warming of the oceans and it’s a travesty we can’t”
That would be the same Kevin still searching for his missing heat in the oceans.
That would be the same Kevin that stood up in front of a meeting of the AMS to demand “that the hull hypothesis be reversed in the case of global warming”.
THAT Kevin Trenberth.
(BTW Trick, how do you like my call to no credibility argument?)
So what was the 2003 Trenberth patch up paper trying to claim? Only that LWIR emissions from the atmosphere to space were a feed back from atmospheric circulation rather than a driver of it! They were trying to trash the science of meteorology just to save the hides of a few worthless pseudo scientists, activists, journalists and politicians. The authors were trying to reverse cause and effect. This truly speaks to their motivations.
I would urge other readers to take note of what was being attempted in the Trenberth paper. Now have a quick search of the web and see how many diagrams of tropospheric convective circulation actually include indication of LWIR emission from the circulation. Maybe check this against pre-Internet texts. Note how few recent diagrams actually show LWIR emissions. But note more importantly that post 1990 you can find some very strange diagrams that only show IR being emitted from the descending limb of tropospheric convection cells. Then maybe ask yourself how far you would trust Kevin E. Trenberth.
Trick says:
December 21, 2013 at 6:30 pm
—————————————-
You call on the authority of the “thermo grandmasters.”.
Does this in any way involve orange robes and inaccessible mountain tops?
Were their teachings responsible for your claiming that I couldn’t drive convective circulation within a fluid column in a gravity field by removing energy from the fluid?
Do you ever consider consulting, if not a grandmaster, at least a student in their first year of fluid mechanics?