Guest essay by Dr. Tim Ball
In order to make their hypothesis that human CO2 is causing global warming work, a small group at or associated with the Climatic Research Unit (CRU) used the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) to ignore or rewrite data, create false mechanisms, misuse science and the scientific method. One sign of malfeasance is if the claim is made from computer model output. A second sign is a design to overthrow an existing explanation without adequate proof it is inadequate. An almost guaranteed sign is a combination of both. They are aided and abetted by people acting for a variety of reasons but rarely with understanding of climatology. Usually they study one part of the complex, dynamic, open system that is global climate out of context.
Challenging Existing Monsoon Theory
Two recent articles by Willis Eschenbach here and here speak to the massive energy transfer from the surplus region of the atmosphere to the deficit region (See Figure 1(A). Even a small change in this energy transfer swamps a human caused CO2 warming signal. Monsoons are a major part of that transfer. They also cause scientific and therefore political grief for the IPCC and their associates. Typically, scientific gyrations to avoid identifying anything that challenges the hypothesis only serve to undermine it.
The traditional explanation of monsoons is provided later in this article and centres on differential heating of land and water. A 2008 article by Tapio Schneider and Simona Bordoni proposed
“an overhaul of a theory about the cause of the seasonal pattern of heavy winds and rainfall that essentially had held firm for more than 300 years.”
This was achieved as follows.
The duo used a computer-generated, water-covered, hypothetical earth (an “aquaplanet”) to simulate monsoon formation and found that differences in heat capacities between land and sea were not necessary.
They claimed that,
Monsoons arise instead because of an interaction between the tropical circulation and large-scale turbulent eddies generated in the atmosphere in middle latitudes.
This shows inadequate understanding of what is happening because it implies the monsoons are just large scale mid-latitude cyclones. It is like saying a hurricane is a mid-latitude cyclone.
The IPCC And Monsoons
Why are Schneider and Bordoni doing this? The likely answer is the monsoons are major mechanisms in global climate that alone can explain what is wrong with the IPCC climate models and why their predictions (projections) fail. They don’t know how to include them so they try to suggest the traditional explanation is invalid.
Chapter 8 of the IPCC 2007 Report identifies the issues and severe limitations associated with the computer models used to make their projections. It is a litany of why the models don’t work and in stark contradiction to the certainties claimed in the Summary for PolicyMakers (SPM) that guides all governments. The list is long and includes major mechanisms. Omission or inadequacy of understanding of any one would cause model simulation of the atmosphere to fail. Most troubling for them is all of them vary sufficiently annually to swamp any possible human input. Monsoons are just one example.
Many associate the name monsoon with the Indian subcontinent because they are most dramatic and critical to agriculture there. Monsoons, defined as the seasonal reversal of winds and accompanying distinct wet and dry seasons, occur in many other regions. They are a major mechanisms for transferring energy and moisture around the globe, but the IPCC tell us that,
In short, most AOGCMs (Atmosphere – Ocean General Circulation Models) do not simulate the spatial or intra-seasonal variation of monsoon precipitation accurately.
In Chapter 11 another comment underscores the limitations of the models.
Monsoon rainfall simulations and projections vary substantially from model to model, thus we have little confidence in model precipitation projections for northern Australia. More broadly, across the continent summer rainfall projections vary substantially from model to model, reducing confidence in their reliability.
Similar, failures occurred in a study of model predictions of monsoons in Africa. (Waiting For The Monsoon, Science, VOL 313, August 4 2006)
Climate scientists cannot say what has delayed the monsoon this year or whether the delay is part of a larger trend. Nor do they fully understand the mechanisms that govern rainfall over the Sahel. Most frustrating, perhaps, is that their prognostic tools— computer simulations of future climate— disagree on what lies ahead. “The issue of where Sahel climate is going is contentious,” says Alessandra Giannini, a climate scientist at Columbia University. Some models predict a wetter future; others, a drier one. “They cannot all be right.”
The IPCC statement is bizarre. They cannot know if their model simulates the pattern accurately because they don’t have the data to recreate the pattern. The Sahel study explains,
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.
Climate models only have validity if they are verified, but as Vincent Gray pointed out originally and more recently this has never been done with IPCC models. Verification involves the ability to replicate past climate conditions. Tweaking the model until it approximates those conditions is not verification. The conundrum is that without data you cannot create an accurate model or verify it; maybe a classic scientific Catch 22?
Regions of Surplus and Deficit Energy
The role of monsoons in regional and global climate is to move surplus energy to a deficit region. Conditions over the Indian Ocean prior to onset of the Indian Monsoon are ideal for maximum evaporation; water and air temperatures are high and wind blowing toward the land transfer enormous volumes of moisture and latent heat. This is added to the transfer of energy from the global area of surplus to the deficit area. On a global scale the difference is illustrated in (Figure 1 (A) (B)). The cross over point in the two-dimensional diagram becomes a line on the map of zero energy balance (ZEB) that in each hemisphere separates the surplus energy of
the tropical region from the deficit of the polar region.
Figure 1 (A) (B) Source: Smithson, Briggs and Ball
The average latitude of the ZEB in Figure 1(A) is 38°N and 40°S. The hemispheric difference is caused by the different land/water ratio. Figure 1 (B) shows the seasonal shift of the ZEB for the Northern Hemisphere with average latitudes of 65° in summer and 35° in winter. The ZEB is coincident with major climate boundaries such as the snow line, the Polar Front, the Jet Stream, and the northern and southern limits of the Boreal Forest.
Monsoon as Continental Sea and Land Breezes: The Traditional Explanation.
Schneider and Bordoni base their argument for a need for new explanation on the rapidity with which the Monsoon develops and reverses. They imply the major and traditional explanation of differential heating of land and water driving the monsoon wind reversal is implausible. The rate of seasonal change is remarkable and easily exploited as a fear factor among the public who don’t understand or never see the numbers involved in any natural phenomenon. For example, Few know that every summer approximately 10 million square kilometres of Arctic sea ice melt in approximately 145 days – a rate of approximately 69,000 square kilometres every day, an area larger than West Virginia.
This is the same mechanism of differential heating that creates the 24 hour cycle of wind reversals near water known as Sea and Land breezes. Land heats and cools more easily and rapidly than water. During the day the land heats more than nearby water creating Low pressure. Air pressure over the cooler water is a relative High pressure, so wind blows from the water to the land – a Sea breeze. At night the reverse occurs as the land cools more rapidly, the pressure pattern reverses and the wind reverses creating a Land breeze.
The Asian monsoon is a form of Sea/Land breeze on an annual and continental scale that combines with imbalance of global energy to create a massive horizontal
movement of energy and moisture (Figure 2)
Figure 2: General schematic of monsoonal wind directions.
Source; The author.
During the winter central Asia cools creating high pressure relative to the warmth and low pressure over the Indian Ocean. Dry air blows out of central Asia and is heated significantly adiabatically as it descends from the Tibetan Plateau. It blows across the Indian subcontinent and surrounding areas as a very hot, dry desiccating wind (Blue arrows). This makes the summer monsoon so important because soil moisture is reduced to the wilting point and is usually insufficient for seed germination.
In the summer central Asia warms rapidly and low pressure forms relative to the high pressure over the Indian Ocean. Warm wet winds blow toward Asia that create heavy rain through daily buildup of convective clouds or even heavier rain when orographically lifted by first the Ghat Mountains then more dramatically by the Himalaya Mountains (Red arrows). Data for Cherrapunji (approximately located near the “Low” in Figure 2) illustrates the impact. Precipitation records for 1971-1990 show July the wettest month with 3,272 mm and January the driest with 11 mm.
Inadequate Data Guarantees Inadequate Understanding
A factor in the monsoon is the relationship of the ZEB with the Polar Front and the Jet stream. It is another climate mechanisms about which little is known. As recently as 2001 Wang noted;
“It was pointed out some decades ago that the jet stream migration was a prominent phenomenon associated with the seasonal change of the general circulation. It was also noted that there have (sic) two stages of the jet stream migration within the system of the Asian monsoon. However, the relationship of jet stream migration and the onset of the Asian summer monsoon are not that clear.”
Normally it moves north of the Himalayas by the end of May. If it is delayed, such as apparently can occur with an El Nino, the monsoon flow of air to the interior of Asia is delayed. People climbing Mt Everest know the season is determined by when the Jet stream moves north and climbing becomes possible.
Things the Schneider/Bordoni article illustrate beyond the determination to validate the IPCC hypothesis are; inadequacy of the data; very limited understanding of the major mechanisms of weather and climate; and the continued political nature of climate science. The latter involves manufacturing the science to prove the IPCC/CRU hypothesis that human CO2 is virtually the sole cause of warming and climate change.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Steven Mosher says:
January 2, 2014 at 8:13 pm
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
A multiple paragraph response. Who are you, and what did you do with poor Mr Mosher?
In this case, I have to agree with you on technical merit.
However, the story line has been that the climate is changing and the majority of the change has been human induced. CO2 is indeed a sloppy way to refer to human activity, but I for one took that as Dr Ball’s meaning. It is similar to discussions of radiated energy where people who I know for a fact know better talk about heat when they mean energy flux. But my recollection of the AR5 SPM was that it fingered human activity as the major driver of climate change, and certainly that has been the meme for a very long time in this debate. One of my earliest forays into the debate was to point out that if you divided the instrumental record in half, the warming in the second half was about the same as the first half. I was told how stupid I was by the moderator of whatever warmist blog I was on, and that the latter half could not be explained by natural variability. Now the very people who made that claim are arguing that the “pause” is due to the natural variability they once argued wasn’t big enough to cause the very change they now claim it is in fact big enough to hide.
C02 1.68 Watts
CH4 .97
CFCs .3
N20 .17
CO .23
Black Carbon .6
You missed one:
The climate itself: +/- 100 W
Strange how it’s only on Earth that CH4 is this powerful forcing.
Poor Titan awash in billowing clouds of ch4 and yet the moon surface is at ambient temperature.
When ever a substance is given special properties on Earth that don’t apply to other cases, moons, planets, what have you, it reminds me of the Ozone hole, and how every other planet with an appreciable atmosphere has it’s own polar analog of the ozone hole.
It gives me pause.
Seventeen years and counting.
Remember that story about how researches doubled their estimate of how much ch4 is released from Arctic permafrost, so like overnight there was twice as much ch4 in the air, and yet strangely the temperature didn’t jump.
Neuculis of Borg. Resiswance is futile.
“But you can’t have that debate if you continually lie about the science”
One can’t have a debate with someone who acts like a belligerent know-it-all talking down to his inferiors who looks for any excuse to avoid discussing the substantive point and instead focus on picking apart some statement that has earned his umbrage for no adequately explained reason.
But I had to laugh at the idea that there are people who think CO2 would be *easier to regulate* than black carbon. Uh, little clue here buddy, which of these two things is *already* well regulated in most of the advanced economies of the world?
I believe the word you are looking for is more *lucrative.*
In Norse mythology the worm or dragon Niohoggr perpetually gnaws at the root of the tree of life Yggdrasil.
In like manner the CAGW collective are doing their best to gnaw at the tree of scientific knowledge.
The Quality of peer review at Nature is really amazing these days, now they apparently don’t even bother to read the title of the paper:
“Solar forcing of the Indian summer monsoon variability during the Ållerød period”
The name is Allerød, not Ållerød, as anyone with even the slightest knowledge of Quaternary Geology knows.
It’s no mystery why GCM can’t really handle monsoons (or precipitation in general for that matter). In modelling precipitation orographic effects and rain-shadows are all important. Now, these aren’t impossible to model from a mathematical point of view, it is really only a matter of aerodynamic adiabatic (mostly) flow over an uneven surface. As a matter of fact most of the needed development work has already been done by the aerospace industry.
The big hurdle is that the modelling must be done at kilometer-or-smaller scale and in three dimensions, the 50 or 100 km cells used in GCM are as utterly useless for this as they are for thunderstorms and convection cells.
To do this realistically probably requires at least a million times more computer power than current GCM:s use, so it is hardly likely to be possible in the near future either. Until then it’s parameterizations all the way down.
Steven Mosher says:
January 2, 2014 at 8:13 pm
“But you can’t have that debate if you continually lie about the science and say that the science claims that C02 is the only cause. The science doesnt make that argument. It argues there are many causes.”
————————————–
Well, well, well, aren’t you the Mann for all Seasons!
Steven Mosher says:
December 27, 2013 at 5:11 pm
“Finally the human cause of climate change was identified in 1850 and the first prediction that more co2 would raise temps was made in the 1890s.”
tty says: January 3, 2014 at 2:10 am
“The big hurdle is that the modelling must be done at kilometer-or-smaller scale and in three dimensions, the 50 or 100 km cells used in GCM are as utterly useless for this as they are for thunderstorms and convection cells.”
I’m glad it’s not just me that thinks this!
Best regards, Ray Dart.
Another good post, many thanks Dr. Bell.
Steven Mosher says: (January 2, 2014 at 8:13 pm)
C02 1.68 Watts
CH4 .97
CFCs .3
N20 .17
CO .23
Black Carbon .6
Yep, all those – but where’s H2O[vapor]? – with MULTIPLE times the positive and/or negative forcing as those listed
Steven Mosher says:
January 2, 2014 at 8:13 pm
“Here are the substances that cause positive forcing and the mean number of watts they have added since 1750.”
C02 1.68 Watts
CH4 .97
CFCs .3
N20 .17
CO .23
Black Carbon .6
————————————
H2O vapor (humidity) is claimed by everyone to be a GHG with the same/similar physical properties of absorption/radiation of IR energy as does CO2, CH4, etc., ….. so just why is it INTENTIONALLY omitted from all such lists of … “substances that cause positive forcing”.
If one (1) GHG functions as a “positive forcing” ….. then all GHGs act as a “positive forcing”.
You can’t have your cake and eat it too.
It is “science silliness” to claim any such things dating back to the year 1750 …. but it is the ultimate “junk science” chicanery to utterly ignore the effect of atmospheric H2O vapor (humidity) on near-surface air temperatures for the sole purpose of justifying “average temperature increasing” claims resulting from increases in atmospheric CO2.
Increases in near-surface air temperatures due to the effect of GHGs are not cumulative from one year to the next, ….. let alone from 1750 to present.
Steven Mosher says:
“C02 gets all the attention in the press it gets all the attention in the propaganda, ”
Well “DUH”, that is because James Hansen et el and all the other proponents of AGW have been putting CO2 “front n’ center” in/of all discussions about AGW since1981. To wit: “A 1981 Science publication by Hansen and a team of scientists at Goddard concluded that carbon dioxide in the atmosphere would lead to warming sooner than previously predicted.”
Steven Mosher says:
“…. but that doesnt mean you get to misrepresent the actual science which puts C02 at 1.68Watts and black carbon at .6 Watts. As far as the climate is concerned Watts are watts, whether they come from C02 or Black carbon,”
Right, …. watts are watts, whether they come from H2O vapor (humidity), C02 or Black carbon.
And right, one misrepresent the actual science when they intentionally exclude the H2O vapor (humidity) and the far, far greater amount of watts it contributes than all the other GHGs combined.
Junk science is junk science.
Thanks Dr. Ball. A good article.
We seem to have picked up a fascination for the man-made bizarre while forgetting to increase our understanding of what we already know is naturally happening. If we don’t stop digging this scientific hole that discovers one impending catastrophe after another, we’ll just self-destruct.
Does water vapor belong on Mosher’s list or not? Yes it is responsible for the bulk of the “greenhouse effect” and its exclusion seems odd; but, I’m going to defend Mosher’s statement, which I read simply as a list of primary forcing factors with well established values. Water vapor differs fundamentally from those on the list in that the forcing it provides is not only varaible, but is a function of temperature, or if you will, it provides the possibility of strong feedback–including feedback from changes in CO2. Maybe CO2 behaves somewhat like water vapor in this manner, but I think it seems reasonable to handle water vapor as fundamentally different than those substances on Mosher’s list; and, as having such a complex effect no one could reasonably place it on the list. Mosher simply wanted to point out that data demonstrates CO2 is not the entire story. What Mosher says regarding the data is true; unfortunately there are people who firmly believe that CO2 is the entire story and those people are a pain.
The statement about CO2 being known since 1850 as the principle driver of climate may have been so at one time, but is hard to square with what we know now. Ice cores strongly suggest temperature change preceeds CO2 change–i.e. the causality is wrong. In fact, people who strongly think CO2 is the entire story will admit to the meaning of the ice core data, but will insist that this time is different.
2 Climate 101s:
A. Sun-Climate 101: Solar-Terrestrial Primer
B. Climate Insights 101
Via law-constrained observation, what’s missing from B is geometrically proven in A.
This proof applies to constant, fixed multidecadal solar activity amplitude.
Thanks to the author for another writing of interest. I agree with the “severe limitations” of not understanding nor explaining water in all of its phases and its many wonders. It seems to me that these models and ‘climate moments’ (my term?) are not very fluid, In other words, the flow of energy appears to be determined by ‘local’ conditions, local to many different locales.
and to the comments/conversation a question….
If I heat a substance in the open air, can the substance heat me with the energy I used to heat it ?
and does/can the substance direct its heat ?
my reasoning follows: Because if not (refering to that list of positive forcing substances from a comment) I don’t know if those watts or fraction of watts are being received by the surface. If not the surface then where do those watts do their work?and if their work is done somewhere in the atmosphere, doesn’t that set up another location where that energy is doing its work on its way to…? as in ,said substance at some level off of the surface now getting heated ,heats up other substances in its local environment ?Please excuse my lack of understanding if i’m not getting it, I am here to learn about the subjects posted. I am only a rider of the information superhighway who happened to be in the WUWT area and noticed some new posts were up as i went by.
an aside: i have resolved ,in the New Year ,to not interrupt and/or disrupt the comment stream and to read/study more and to improve my writing/commenting style.
Thanks for the interesting articles and comments.
Kevin Kilty says:
January 3, 2014 at 8:39 am
The statement about CO2 being known since 1850 as the principle driver of climate may have been so at one time, but is hard to square with what we know now. Ice cores strongly suggest temperature change preceeds CO2 change–i.e. the causality is wrong. In fact, people who strongly think CO2 is the entire story will admit to the meaning of the ice core data, but will insist that this time is different.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
CO2 is both a driver and a feed-back – because of the carbon cycle.
It goes like this.
The causality is correct (for times of ice-core data) as CO2 would naturally follow temp,s as it is NOT the primary driver. Solar input/albedo in the NH is. Which brings us to the Earth’s orbit around the Sun ie Milankovitch cycles.
The Earth slowly enters less favourable orbital parameters re NH warmth (~centuries/thousands yrs). There becomes less summer melt – leading to a build up of ice sheets at high latitudes. Air and sea temps fall due increased albedo. A sea temps fall the oceans become net sinks for CO2. CO2 content in the atm falls – less GHE – more cooling – less WV content – more cooling,in a vicious circle until finally SW absorbed balances LWIR emitted (note – millions of years ago this may well have balanced at a much higher ppm of CO2 due much higher albedo). In turn the Earth moves around to a more favourable orbit and increased Sun at high latitude in the NH slowly melts ice sheets in ~ hundeds/thousands years. Decreased albedo – more absorbed SW and increased temps to emit more LWIR. Oceans warm, less CO2 absorbed, and more released from land – WV increase – feed-back to greater warming > inter-glacial where Albedo vs SW absorbed with LWIR emitted become stable along with GHG’s+WV.
What is not a normal planetary process is increasing CO2 accumulation (unless chronic enhanced vulcanism). In this instance, uniquely, GHG’s will begin to drive temps.
So we have Yet Another Non-Realistic Model that has some behavior, that is then reputed to apply to a completely different case. The fantasy Water World is supposed to tell us what happens on a world with continents, blocked ocean paths, mountains, iced over poles, etc. etc.
Just nutty.
BTW, I have no beef with the CONCEPT of models as useful. For over 7 years I ran a Cray Supercomputer site that had as its major purpose running codes to do plastic flow modeling. Most of the cases for Apple computers during those years were modeled on our computer and the dies cut “right first time”. But I also know the limitations. That was ONE fluid, at KNOWN temperatures and with KNOWN exact physical properties in a very constrained environment. It took 10 hours per run… Even then about 10% of the molds needed some “fixing up” – weld lines or scorch spots or voids or… Modeling a single cloud is orders of magnitude harder and has less good results. I know as we donated time to a Ph.D. student at Stanford who was doing cloud modeling… The notion that ANY model can come close to the actual earth dynamics with several fluids of poorly characterized properties with lousy temperature sampling and very unclear processes and mechanisms is just Crazy Talk. Having a completely different imaginary world of all water tells you even less…
So OK, they have a new toy to play with and think it means something…
FWIW, IMHO, until they include the lunar tidal cycles ( monthly, 9 year, 18 year, 54 year, and so on up to the 1200-1800 year ones) and have an atmosphere and oceans moving in step with that influence, they have no clue what will really happen. Until they include a Drake Passage and variations in water flow through it and up the spine of South America and have a Circumpolar Wave of several years duration their results are at best a hint, not an answer. And until they have a variable star with energy sliding from the UV to the IR over the cycle, and thus depositing variably into the Stratosphere vs lower troposphere and surface of the ocean to cause evaporation vs deep in the ocean to warm the depths, they have a very un-physical phantasy.
Oh, and they need to have a Polar Night Jet that moves between one pole and the other each year… along with variable sized and velocity polar vortex formation.
Leave any of that out, you are not talking about this world…
Looking at comments, I see the Radiation Is All folks are making the same old tired pitch.
Sorry, but the very existence of the troposphere and topopause means that infrared trapping is irrelevant. By Definition: the troposphere is convective due to the lack of radiative cooling. The tropopause is where radiative effects can start to matter. Oh, and the tropopause is NOT at a constant nor stable height. It’s a highly dynamic thing that moves all over the place based on how much heat needs to be dumped from the troposphere.
At the top of the troposphere the tropopause is NOT a nice static lid on all that heat. It’s a Hurricane Cat 2 force wind layer moving sideways toward the poles. During the winter at a pole, even more so. (That’s when the Polar Night Jet forms and howls…) So WHY a monsoon? Well, all those GW of heat move massive amounts of air and water, as the bulk of the air flow shifts from a N. Night Jet to a S. Night Jet and back, the other air flows have to shift too. At the right time, the excess heat and water heads to the deficit area in a hurry and the monsoon starts. The whole atmosphere is wobbling back and forth with the lunar tidal forcing, the solar cycling (and all the stuff S. Wilde lays out). Once the trigger levels are reached, the monsoon goes. Once the heat and water have moved, it stops.
CO2 and IR driven “forcing” are irrelevant. It’s a troposphere process and that’s a convective space.
(Oddly enough, CO2 and IR does play a role; but that role is in the Stratosphere and as a net heat radiative gas out to space… I’ve posted the link to the paper here many times before.)
In short: The very existence of a troposphere makes the whole CO2 driven radiative IR model daft. All that tropospheric CO2 can only close an already closed radiative window in the troposphere and contribute to the convection that is already dominant. BTW, in deep winter with a strong polar vortex, the tropopause can reach ground level near the poles (especially the South Pole). In that context, then, it can enhance the radiative heat dump to space. But warming? In any mid-latitudes especially? Not a chance.
Ignore the gasses and IR / radiative story telling. Look at the convection, mass flow, tides and ocean cold water mixing, along with solar UV shifts and how the atmosphere moves around if you would hope to know what really happens.
Arguing over CO2 and “down welling” IR is just arguing about how many Angels fit on pinheads.
Kevin Kilty says:
January 3, 2014 at 8:39 am
“Does water vapor belong on Mosher’s list or not? ”
————————–
It is not Mosher’s list. He was simply quoting a list of GHGs that is touted by most every proponent of CAGW in their defense of their global warming agenda/beliefs.
“Yes it is responsible for the bulk of the “greenhouse effect” and its exclusion seems odd; but, I’m going to defend Mosher’s statement, which I read simply as a list of primary forcing factors with well established values.”
————————–
If H2O vapor (humidity) is excluded then it IS NOT a list of primary forcing factors.
It is utterly asinine for anyone to include the “forcing effect” of 398 ppm of CO2 … and exclude the “forcing effect” of 15,000 ppm to 40,000 ppm of H2O vapor (humidity).
And there is no such thing as “well established values” for any of the GHGs. Said “values” are little more than “best guesses” that are based on highly questionable proxy data.
I do not believe it is possible for anyone to measure the “forcing effect” (warming) of the lesser quantity of gas (CO2) in a mixture of two different gases when the quantity of the greater volume of gas (H20 vapor) is constantly changing from hour to hour, day to day and month to month. Especially when said greater volume of gas (H20 vapor) has a potentially 239.2 greater “forcing effect” (warming) on said mixture than does the lesser volume of said gas (CO2) in said mixture.
“Water vapor differs fundamentally from those on the list in that the forcing it provides is not only varaible, but is a function of temperature,”
————————–
UH, … uh, … the “forcing effect” (warming) of all GHGs is a function of their temperature (absorbed IR energy).
“ …. or if you will, it provides the possibility of strong feedback–including feedback from changes in CO2”.
————————–
The “feedback” of absorbed IR energy from 398 ppm of CO2, even if it increased to 500 or 800 ppm, …. would still be insignificant, and immeasurable, ….. if intermixed with and/or compared to, the “feedback” of absorbed IR energy from 15,000 to 34,000 ppm of H2O vapor.
Thus it is utterly silly for the proponents of CAGW to be claiming that the atmospheric H2O vapor is the “forcing” backfeeder of thermal energy to the atmospheric CO2 ….. and that the atmospheric CO2 is then the “backfeeding” forcer of said thermal energy to the surface of the earth resulting in its increase in temperature.
Cheers
I don’t disagree with your points, especially to the point about water vapor being able to swamp completely the impact of CO2 at any reasonable value.But I don’t understand what is silly about the coupled feedback of CO2 and water vapor. Increasing temperature from elevated CO2, in turn, increases water vapor and that, in turn, increases temperature. This a feedback loop–more complex than the smaller direct influence of CO2, but a feedback loop just the same. My point is that for what Mosher was trying to illustrate his list without water vapor served his purpose. I do not know what value the global variation of column water vapor has, but it is surely far more variable than the equivalent measure for the items on Mosher’s list. This is why I said water vapor is fundamentally different than the others.
It just seemed that people jumped on Mosher for this list, which seemed pretty reasonable to me.
I see your point, but part of your response simply begs the question of what causes the temperature to vary in the first place. If the temperature coefficient of CO2 concentration is so large as you claim, and if CO2 is, as you say, the primary driver of climate, then how does the climate have any stability at all? Why, in that hypothetical case, is the climate not driven constantly to the “rails” and stay put? What you are proposing is all positive feedback. Moreover, if variations in insolation trigger a big response through temperature variations in CO2, then why wouldn’t water vapor play a much larger role here also? It has a far larger greenhouse effect after all, and colder air presents a much reduced column total of water vapor.
What I was referring to was the concentration of these substances as a function of temperature which is also a contributor to their greenhouse effect.
Practically every night during the summer we have a katabatic wind where I live. It begins as air cools through radiation over a broad region west of me that is 7500 feet or higher in elevation. In fact, most places in the West cool quickly at night because the air is dry. Radiation matters in variety of circumstances down in the troposphere.
Kevin Kilty says:
January 4, 2014 at 12:57 pm
TB says:
January 3, 2014 at 4:07 pm
I see your point, but part of your response simply begs the question of what causes the temperature to vary in the first place. If the temperature coefficient of CO2 concentration is so large as you claim, and if CO2 is, as you say, the primary driver of climate, then how does the climate have any stability at all? Why, in that hypothetical case, is the climate not driven constantly to the “rails” and stay put? What you are proposing is all positive feedback. Moreover, if variations in insolation trigger a big response through temperature variations in CO2, then why wouldn’t water vapor play a much larger role here also? It has a far larger greenhouse effect after all, and colder air presents a much reduced column total of water vapor.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Kevin:
No, I don’t’ say CO2 is the primary driver. It’s actually a feed-back. Ultimately there can ONLY be 2 things that drive climate (without anthro effects). Energy in – Solar (variation in irradiance – which we know at 0.1-0.2% is too small to blame over relevant history). And the orbital characteristics of Earth with regard to insolation received at high northern latitude (~65 deg N). As this is the most sensitive to absorbed SW being of large land-mass vs ocean.
The other side of the equation is LWIR emitted to space and this is where WV and GHG’s come in.
Temps in the NH alter via the insolation received at N latitudes. CO2 then follows to either rise with temp or fall with temperature. WV in the air (greatest GHG), also piggy-backs the temp in rising/falling in absolute concentration in the atm.– so we have an accelerated response to solar input. BUT remember WV will respond quickly to the temp signal (resident only ~10 days in atm) whilst CO2 has a cycle of hundreds of years. It is this inertia that is the primary +ve feed-back reinforcing the effect of lower/higher solar absorbed
The first response to less sunshine/lower temps will then be with WV, then the next will be increased albedo – the change as snow/ice accumulates in these N latitudes and reflects solar, reducing further the “IN” side of things.
So it’s complex string of cause/effect/feedback – starting with a change in energy in (usually).
This equation can/has been affected by vulcunism – both sides – in reflecting solar, but in the distant past via out-gassing of GHG’s and holding more LWIR back.
Hope that’s clearer.