Guest essay by Richard J. Petschauer, Senior Member IEEE
The physics of evaporation has complications related to what happens at the water / air interface such as wind speed and wave action. However if these factors remain constant, how evaporation changes with temperature and humidity can be estimated with well-known equations based on how water vapor pressure varies with temperature. For example, at a typical ocean temperature of 17 C, it should increase about 6.5% / C if the water vapor increases to maintain relative humidity, that the climate models indicate. If the surface air tracks the water within ± 2 C, the rate varies from 6.2% to 6.9% / C. Data over oceans by Wentz et, al (2007) report values of about 6% / C.
But the complex computer climate models show averages of only about 2.5% / C. There are no claims of reduced wind speeds or wave action or increased relative humidity to explain this. However many papers on the subject claim that the available energy is limiting evaporation in these models. But physics theory tells us that the latent energy for evaporation comes from the temperature of the water itself. The latent heat leaving the surface cools it and deposits heat in the atmosphere, part of which escapes to outer space. This combination causes negative feedback. The reduced net energy from increased CO2 still warms the surface, but this energy can’t be separated from what aids the final increased evaporation. A 6% / C increase applies to the water after the negative feedback is complete. Do the climate models ignore this cooling and feedback process?
A typical paper on this subject is one by O’Gorman and Schneider (2008) that defines this energy balance constraint that is supported by many other climate model references. Their equations (8) and (9) correctly show that an increase in latent heat transfer from evaporation must equal a reduction in the net surface radiation heat loss, assuming the loss from convection plus sensible heat and the net solar surface absorption all remain constant. However, this cannot provide a solution.
Let E = the latent heat loss from the surface due to evaporation, G the outward surface radiation and D the downwelling radiation from the atmosphere to the surface. Net surface radiation loss = G – D.
For a reduced radiation heat loss,
D E = D D – D G (1)
However, the developers of the climate models seem to be confusing independent and dependent variables. Evaporation is the driver or forcing agent controlled by the physics at the surface, and G and D must respond to a change in it. If the surface temperature rises, the additional latent heat lost at the surface will cause an offsetting decrease in the temperature and thus G. And the latent heat deposited in the atmosphere warms it and increases the downwelling radiation, D (and the outgoing radiation). We now have a feedback process at work. Equation (1) can only be used as a check after a correct solution is found to new values of E, D and G after the feedback process is complete. It appears there is a serious error in how climate models estimate evaporation as indicated in the rest of this paper.
We have developed a dynamic three level energy balance model (reference 1) with updates as described later that can be used for a number of forcings and feedbacks including the response to changes in evaporation and the cooling of the surface and the warming of the atmosphere.
The results are shown on the next page. No energy constraints of evaporations are seen.
As shown in Figure A1 in the appendix, we define S as the net incoming solar flux after albedo, A the absorption of the net solar flux by the atmosphere, G the surface radiation, W the surface radiation through the atmospheric window, H the convection from the surface, E the latent heat from surface evaporation (both H and E transfer heat to the atmosphere), U the atmosphere upward outgoing longwave radiation, and D the atmosphere downwelling longwave radiation to the surface. For this estimate the following values are fixed: S = 235; A = 67; H = 24. These and the baseline values shown in Table 1 are from Kiehl and Trenberth (1997) with average cloudy conditions of 60% coverage net considering overlaps.
From eqs (4 to 8) on the next page, Table 1 compares the baseline case with three having large forcings of 10 Wm-2 at the top of the atmosphere. One case has no evaporation changes, while two have rate changes of 6% and 10% / C. D T is calculated from the changes in G from the baseline.
The In minus Out fluxes are equal at all three levels for all the cases with each parameter used at least twice. No problem in finding the energy to support evaporation; the surface gave up some by cooling and the down radiation, D increased. Note that the increase in E is based on the final reduced temperature rise. In all cases D E = D D – D G, measured from the baseline.
Table 1 – With large TOA forcings no energy constraints on evaporation changes.
Increase in E follows that estimated from temperature change and the specified change %.
For example in case 3, E » Eo + r D T Eo = 78 + 0.06 x 1.57 x 78 = 85.34 » 85.40 shown.
Ignoring the drop in D T, from the value of 2.70 the increase in E to 85.40 is only 3.5% / C.
|
TOA forcing & evap change |
D T – C |
G |
W |
E |
U |
D |
| 1) 0 & 0 (Baseline) |
0 |
390 |
40 |
78 |
195 |
324 |
| 2) 10 Wm-2 & 0 % / C |
2.70 |
404.85 |
41.52 |
78 |
193.48 |
338.85 |
| 3) 10 Wm-2 & 6% / C |
1.57 |
398.57 |
40.88 |
85.40 |
194.12 |
339.97 |
| 4) 10 Wm-2 & 10% / C |
1.23 |
396.69 |
40.69 |
87.63 |
194.31 |
340.32 |
In – Out: Case 1
TOA = S – W + U = 235 – 40 – 195 = 0
Atmosphere = A + G – W + H + E – U – D = 67 + 390 – 40 + 24 + 78 – 195 – 324 = 0
Surface = S – A + D – G – H – E = 235 – 67 + 324 – 390 – 24 – 78 = 0
In – Out: Case 2
TOA = S – W + U = 235 – 41.52 – 193.48 = 0
Atm = A + G – W + H + E – U – = 67 + 404.85 – 41.52 + 24 + 78 – 193.48 – 338.85 = 0
Surface = S – A + D – G – H – E = 235 – 67 + 338.85 – 404.85 – 24 – 78 = 0
In – Out: Case 3
TOA = S – W + U = 235 – 40.88 – 194.12 = 0
Atm = A + G – W + H + E – U – D = 67 + 398.57 – 40.88 + 24 + 85.4 – 194.12 – 339.97 = 0
Surface = S – A + D – G – H – E = 235 – 67 + 339.97 – 398.57 – 24 – 85.4 = 0
In – Out: Case 4
TOA = S – W + U = 235 – 40.69 – 194.31 = 0
Atm = A + G – W + H + E – U – D = 67 + 396.69 – 40.69 + 24 + 87.63 – 194.31 – 340.32 = 0
Surface = S – A + D – G – H – E = 235 – 67 + 340.32 – 396.69 – 24 – 87.63 = 0
Note the increase in E follows that estimated from the temperature change and the specified change %. For example in case 4, E » Eo+ r D T Eo = 78 + 0.10 x 1.23 x 78 = 87.59 » 87.63.
No energy constraint is seen and all energy balances at the three levels are maintained.
The details of the calculations for the above table follow. The basic equations for energy balance at all three levels are from our paper, reference (1). For balance at the top of the atmosphere,
S = k (A + H + E) + k Ga + G (1 – a) (2)
Refer to Figure A1 in the appendix. S is the net incoming solar after albedo, k is the fraction of the total heat absorbed by the atmosphere that is radiated upward (here 0.3757), and a is the fraction of the surface longwave radiation absorbed by the atmosphere including clouds (here 0.8974).
Solving for G,
G = [S – k (A + H + E)] / (1 – a + ak) (3)
If we start with balance at the surface and again solve for G, we get the same result that also forces balance at the atmosphere.
To determine the feedback factor for E, add to it the increase caused by a 1 C surface temperature change and convert the change in G to a temperature change. For a 6% increase of 78, E becomes 82.68, the new value of G is 386.0014 Wm-2, down from 390, and provides a temperature change of –0.741 C which equals the feedback factor, the temperature change before additional feedback. With no other feedbacks, the feedback multiplier is M = 1 / (1 – F); here we get M = 0.5744. The temperature change of –0.741 would produce another change of -0.741 x –0.741 or +0.549, followed by (–0.741)3 or –0.406 then (–0.741)4 or +0.301, etc which sum converges to a final temperature drop –0.4256 C which also equals M x F or -0.741 x 0.5744.
As an alternate to using a feedback factor and a way to check it, the above equation for G can be modified to allow E, the evaporation rate, to vary with the change of surface temperature implied from the change in G, the surface radiation. Then the solution for the new surface radiation is,
G » [S – k (A + H) – k (E0 – r E G0 Tr)] / (1 – a + ak + k r E0Tr) (4)
Where r = the fractional rate of change / C of surface evaporation, E0 the initial evaporation, G0 the initial surface radiation, and Tr the temperature change rate factor at G0 which is T0 / (4 G0) with T0 the initial surface temperature. At 288 K or 15 C, Tr = 0.1846 C / W m-2. Here we get M = 0.581.
(Equation 3 is more accurate. The two values of M are very close for smaller forcings)
The final value of evaporation latent heat,
Ef = E0 + r TrE0 (G – G0) (5)
The temperature change uses the inverse of the Stefan-Boltzmann equation for G and G0.
The final value of W, Wf = G (1 – a) (6)
The final value of U, Uf = S – Wf (7)
The final value of D, Df = G + A + H + Ef – S (8)
The parameter a is the fraction of the surface longwave radiation absorbed by the atmosphere. Here it is 0.8974 or 1 – W0 / G0, whereW0 = 40, the amount through the atmospheric window and G0 = 390. The value k is the fraction of the total heat radiated from the atmosphere that is upward outgoing radiation. So k = U / (U + D). For our baseline k = 195 / (195 + 324) = 0.3757. To impose a forcing R at the TOA, k = (195 – R) / (195 – R + 324). Unless a or k is the value being perturbed, the equations above require the baseline values for a and k. For other values of a and k, partial derivatives are needed as described in the appendix.
It appears the climate models are grossly underestimating the negative feedback from latent heat transfer. For case 3 in the table above, the feedback multiplier of 1.57 / 2.70 = 0.581 implies a feedback factor for a change in evaporation of 6% / C of –0.720 C / C. This corresponds to the IPCC value for water vapor of 1.8 Wm-2 / C divided by their value of l of 3.2 to give a feedback factor of +0.562 C / C.
If we use the IPCC value of only 2.5% / C for evaporation changes, our feedback factor of –0.720 drops to –0.308. This compares fairly closely to the IPCC lapse rate feedback factor of –0.262 C / C, based on their value of –0.84 Wm-2 / C.
If one just wanted the feedback factor, equation (2) is more accurate. As described above, for a 6 % evaporation change rate, it gives a feedback factor of –0.741
The IPCC has a positive cloud feedback of 0.69 Wm-2 / C with a very large range. But it is not based on reduced clouds with warming, but as a residual of the amount of warming the models can not explain by the other feedbacks (Soden and Held (2006), p 3357, paragraph 2). So this is not a true estimate of cloud feedback. Eliminating it and replacing the lapse rate feedback with our evaporation feedback cuts the IPCC feedback multiplier from 2.48 down to 0.910.
The three level energy balance model used here is dynamic since it handles balance simultaneously at all three levels: the planet, the atmosphere and the surface. With atmospheric CO2 content increasing very slowly, only about 0.54% per year, there is more than enough time for the normal weather systems to move and distribute the small additional heat across the globe as it always has done in the past. So a simple improved global energy balance should be adequate. Another benefit of the three level model is that it can also handle changes in downwelling radiations. For both increased CO2 and water vapor, besides decreasing outgoing radiation, they will also increase downwelling radiation since these emission levels will move down to warmer temperatures. Present models that must refer everything to the outgoing radiation at the top of the atmosphere have a problem with this.
The use of spectral radiance tools for the atmosphere in both outward and downwelling directions under clear and cloudy conditions can handle the effects of CO2 and the significant water vapor feedback, including its negative feedback component of absorbing incoming solar radiation. These tools, available to all, can greatly improve accuracy and replace the present complicated unreliable computer models which, besides overestimating climate sensitivity, have large ranges of uncertainty of about ± 50%.
Richard J. Petschauer
Email: rjpetsch@aol.com
References
1) http://climateclash.com/improved-simple-climate-sensitivity-model/
2) Kiehl, J. T., and K. E. Trenberth (1997): Earth’s Annual Global Mean Energy Budget. Bull. Amer. Meteorol. Soc., 78: 197-208
3) Wentz, F. J., L. Ricciardulli, K. Hilburn and C. Mears (2007): How much more rain will global warming bring? Science, Vol 317, 13 July 2007, 233-235
4) Soden, B.J., and Held, I.M. (2006): An assessment of climate feedbacks in coupled ocean-atmosphere models. J. Clim.19: 3354–3360.
5) O’Gorman, P. A., and Schneider, T (2008): The Hydrological Cycle over a Wide Range of Climates Simulated with an Idealized GCM. Amer. Meteorol. Soc., 1 August 2008, 3815-2831
=============================================================
Appendix
From Figure A1, the present balanced conditions before any perturbation changes are (all in W m-2):
S = 342 – 77 – 30 = 235; A = 67; H = 24; E = 78; G = 390; W = 40; a = (390 – W) / 390 » 0.8974
where W is the amount through the atmospheric window, and k = 195 / (195 + 324) » 0.3757.
From Figure A1 it can be seen that for balance of heat flux in and out at the TOA,
S = k (A + H + E) + kGa + G (1 – a) (A1)
Solving for G,
G = [S – k (A + H + E)] / (1 – a + ak) (A2)
With the above base value in equation (A1), G = G0 = 390 Wm-2 corresponding to a surface at 14.9853 C. To perturb any value, change it and calculate a new G and from that a temperature change.
To impose a forcing R at the TOA, k = (195 – R) / (195 – R + 324). Unless a or k is the value being perturbed, the equations above require the baseline values for a and k. For other values of these, partial derivatives as shown below
At the lower part of the atmosphere,
∂G/∂ E = ∂G/∂ H = ∂G/∂A = –∂G/∂D = – k / (1 – a + ak) (A3)
At the top of the atmosphere for longwave radiation only,
∂G/∂ U= (k – 1) / (1 – a + ak) (A4)
For change in net solar, S, shortwave incoming radiation, the forcing is substantially larger than for longwave radiation:
From changes in the solar strength,
∂G/∂ S= (1 – kA / S) / (1 – a + ak ) (A5)
From changes in albedo,
∂G/∂ S » 1 / (1 – a + ak) (A6)
For changes in evaporation with the present value of k or a different one, equation (A3) is used to get a feedback factor. The present value of k assumes the division of changes in radiation leaving the atmosphere are in the same ratio as the present total values. This ends up with a smaller temperature change at the upward outgoing emission level than that of the downwelling level. Changing the ratio of U / D to (U / D) 0.75 results in equal temperature changes and increases k from 0.3757 to 0.4059. From forcing at the TOA from CO2 at a typical emission level of about 10 km, one would think that the upward emission level temperature would increase more than the lower level. This suggests a value of k greater than 0.4059 of about 0.42 to 0.43.
The value a is simply a function of the fraction of emission through the atmospheric window and the estimated net fractional cloud cover, Cc. For changes to be compatible with this baseline with 60% cloud cover for different cloud coverage,
a = 1 – 100 / 390 (1 – Cc) (A7)
This implies a clear sky atmospheric window of 100/390 or 25.6%. Based on spectral radiance runs with Hitran 2008, a closer value of 22.8% results. Then,
a = 1 – 0.228 (1 – Cc) (A8)
For 60% cloud coverage, a = 0.9086, up from 0.8974.
Changing k to 0.4059 and a to 0.9086, increases the evaporation feedback factor from = –0.741 to –0.765.
@William Howard Astley
No, I think my comment holds. Sure, if the temperature increases by 1 degree and the evaporation increases by 6%. What does that do to the energy budget given that you must evaporate 30,600,000,000,000 tonnes of water and raise it to 3km high What does that cost in energy? Given the additional energy for a doubling of CO2 is IIRC 3.7W per square meter, there is insufficient energy to sustain even a 1 degree rise. The situation is non-physical, as there is insufficient additional energy to sustain the temperature rise given the evaporation rate. To evaporate that much water you need more energy than the change in energy that was supposed to be driving it – You are energy saturated – ergo, doubling CO2 cannot raise temperature 1 degree.
Add to that the parts of that extra retained energy that goes into the atmospheric window, melting ice, heating oceans, plant growth , wind, waves and numerous other unclaimed losses, the liklihood of a non zero sensitivity diminishes quickly, and may even be negative, for example, in plant growth, the CO2 acts both as a reactant and a catalyst – the small increase in CO2 partial pressure leads to larger increases in the consumption of shortwave energy, and increases in transpiration extracting more energy than the CO2 puts in This is likely to have a nett near surface cooling effect
What will you be pouring over it? Is it sticky? Nosy minds want to know.
);p
“It’s just basic (fudged) physics!”
JohnWho says:
April 15, 2014 at 6:06 am
“He says, as he posts from a phone booth.”
——————————————————
Well I did say “dependant on room size” 😉
The judges would also have accepted “broom closet”.
But broom closet or ball room makes little difference when up against lukewarmers. They are playing at a disadvantage. Desperately running around looking for a “sciencey” sounding solution that allows “warming but far less than we thought”. Lukewarmers cannot even contemplate the idea that they are as wrong as the believers and that radiative gases don’t warm at all.
The problem is indeed evaporation. The oceans are primarily cooled by evaporation. Without this they would become a giant evaporation constrained solar storage pond with temperatures topping 80C. An atmosphere without radiative gases cannot provide this cooling as it has no effective way of cooling itself.
Climastrologists have calculated the temperature of the oceans to be -18C in the absence of DWLWIR and atmospheric cooling and claimed that our atmosphere must be warming our oceans. Empirical experiment shows that figure to be out by 98C. The atmosphere is therefore cooling our oceans. And the only effective cooling mechanism for the atmosphere is radiative gases.
AGW is a physical impossibility, but that’s not the answer lukewarmers want.
Given the following:
— “… the {water evaporation} rate varies from 6.2% to 6.9% / C. … the complex computer climate models show averages of only about 2.5% / C.” (Petschauer above)
— “The CMIP3 models all underestimate precipitation by a factor of 2.” (Rud Istvan 5:50am)
— “… today’s climate modelers propose that the “flea” wags “the dog.” The flea, of course, is carbon dioxide, and the dog, is the water cycle. … In effect, the theory assumes that the carbon cycle is controlling the more powerful water cycle.”
{Steve Goreham, here: http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/10/07/climate-change-is-dominated-by-the-water-cycle-not-carbon-dioxide/}
— “Water vapor constitutes Earth’s most significant greenhouse gas, accounting for about 95% of Earth’s greenhouse effect (5).”
{Fred Singer, here: http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/greenhouse_data.html
{emphases mine}
Conclusion: The IPCC is doing its level best to make CO2
(and — LOL — even more preposterously, the ~4% which is human CO2 (when natural sources and sinks net CO2 does not overwhelm it so that it is 0%, that is))
and NOT water a significant driver of the weather in the climate zones of the earth. IOW — the IPCC is ly-ing or abysmally incompetent.
Which is it, IPCC “scientists?” Ev1l or stupid?
**************************************
{Note: THE FOLLOWING IS A BONA FIDE QUESTION about the above article — please, if you have the time to explain to a non-tech like I, I would really like to read your explanation. If it is a poorly worded question, please re-word and answer the more useful one. Thanks!}
Question:
Given the above quotes and also this fact: there is no evidence that CO2 causes temperature increases in an open system like the earth,
can Petschauer accurately and with a meaningful level of confidence assert this: “… latent energy for evaporation comes from the temperature of the water itself. … reduced net energy from increased CO2 still warms the surface, … .”
{bolding is to emphasize what I am asking about, here, affect on earth’s climate zones of CO2}
In a highly controlled laboratory experiment, okay. But, on WHAT PROOF, i.e., what MECHANISM, does he base this grand assertion about CO2 and the oceans of the earth?
THANKS FOR ANSWERING (until I get back here to say that)!
Janice
A little allegory…
The IPCC and Water
Bwah, ha, ha, ha, haaaaaaaaa!
They are SO dead, lol. Now, it’s just the walking dead we are dealing with. Zombies can still fool people, though, so, sigh, HANG IN THERE YOU WONDERFUL WUWT SCIENTISTS FOR TRUTH!
Ev1l will always be with us; however, it need not be in control.
And, in the long run, it is not:
TRUTH WINS. EVERY TIME.
The following satellite observational data and analysis from Roy Spencer’s blog site supports the assertion that the increase in evaporation for a 1C rise in ocean surface temperature is at least 6% rather than the IPCC’s assumed 2%
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2014/04/ssmi-global-ocean-product-update-increasing-clouds-with-a-chance-of-cooling/
“SSM/I Global Ocean Product Update: Increasing clouds with a chance of cooling
The water vapor variations lag the SST variations by an average of one month. A regression relationship reveals an average 10.2% increase in vapor per deg. C increase in SST. This is larger than the theoretically-expected value of 6.5% to 7% increase, a discrepancy which can be interpreted in different ways (more evaporative cooling of the ocean stabilizing the climate, or more water vapor feedback destabilizing the climate — take your pick).
The results find there is a slight increase in wind speed when the water is warmer rather than a decrease in wind speed, assumed by the IPCC which explains why the evaporation is greater than the theoretical 6%.”
William: It appears the IPCC is ignoring data that obviously indicates that their General Circulation Models (GCMs) are incorrect, at the actual warming due to a doubling of atmospheric CO2 will be less than 1C rather than 3C.
William Astley:
Thanks for the link to Dr. Spencer’s timely post.
I’m trying to determine whether the relationship was properly calculated between vapor content, which is what Dr. Spencer was referring to, and evaporation rate, which is what Mr. Petschauer’s E value refers to. It seems that vapor content would be the integral of the difference between (appropriately converted values of) evaporation and precipitation rates. I haven’t tried to figure that out.
Are you implying (or otherwise have an opinion about) whether the author or anyone has?
From Trenberth
“The results suggest an evaporative, total enthalpy, precipitation ocean cooling of:
0.16, 0.185, 0.58 PW over a year. Over the tropical ocean 20°N to 20°S the LH is equivalent to 1.5 W m-2 , or 1.1 °C/year over a 10 m layer. Globally this is 0.36 and 1.13 W m-2 vs CO2 radiative forcing 1.5 W m-2.
It matters! And it is not included in climate models.”
The question is how much of this not “accounted for” cooling is actually lost from the atmosphere via upper air radiation to space. Or is it all considered to be retained in the troposphere. If the latter, then I would assume that the overall effect (to a 1st approximation) would be small. On the other hand it may make a big difference to the model performance.
Konrad
Radiative gases dont warm.
They lower the rate of energy loss to space.
The silver lining on a thermos does not warm the coffee
By reflecting radiation. It slows the energy loss.
Radiative gases are nothing much more than leaky reflective surfaces. They retard the return of energy to space. When we add ghgs we raise the erl. The higher erl
Means the earth radiates from a higher colder altitude.
That means a slower loss of energy to space.
Over 100 years ago we predicted an increase in co2 would result in a warmer planet. So far that prediction is correct.
Thanks Richard, nice information based on real science with verification. For the doubters out there check out Wentz et al, as in “Data over oceans by Wentz et, al (2007) report values of about 6% / C.” Typical that inconvenient data doesn’t ever make it into the CAGW meme.
v/r,
David Riser
bobl: Since the total forcing is only 3.7 Watts per square meter, and the imbalance only 0.6W per square meter, there is clearly insufficient energy in CO2 related reflected IR to sustain the 6% increase in the hydrological cycle, even at 5.5W per square meter, if there was a 6 % increase in evaporation then the cooling effect would completely cancel the warming, so it seems to me that a driving energy of considerably more than 5.5W per square meter would be required to sustain such an increased evaporation AND warm the atmosphere at the same time.
Not disputing you, but the author, Richard J. Petschauer, did not actually claim that doubling the CO2 concentration would increase the global mean temp by 1 C and raise the rate of evaporation by 6%. What he did was mimic some of the equilibrium type assumptions commonly used (mean temp as equilibrium, uniform surface and TOA, maintaining the same relative humidity, etc) and show how much difference is made in the standard computations by changing the relationship of vaporization change to temp change from that used by IPCC to a more realistic value.
I don’t believe that any of the equilibrium models are accurate enough to use for planning, and the GCMs are to date clearly too inaccurate to support planning. But if you take equilibrium calculation seriously, then this post shows that the inaccurate function for vaporization used in the GCMs is probably an important contributor to their inaccuracy. That’s how I read it.
I have posed the question: If doubling CO2 increases downwelling LWIR by 3.7 W/m^2, how much of the energy transfer goes to warming the water and near-surface air, and how much goes to vaporizing the water (in the non-dry parts of the Earth surface)? His calculations and your calculations suggest that most has to go to vaporizing the water, and little to temperature increase.
Mr.! Steven! Mo-sher!
HOW CAN YOU SAY THAT WITH A STRAIGHT FACE?
I can’t read it without smiling …….. (you can’t be serious)
Hey….. I think……. I saw you, yes….. oh, now…. don’t smile, Mr. Mo-sher, dooon’t smiiiille….. .
#(:))
Seriously….
“… an increase in co2 would result in a warmer planet. So far that prediction is correct… .” (you this evening)
Down –> goes –> the –> gauntlet
(or, in my case, the cerise kid glove)….
Prove it!
So far, all the AGWers have is: post hoc, ergo propter hoc.
Still hoping you will come back from the dark side,
Janice
And, for NOW, AGWers don’t even have post hoc ergo propter hoc to wave around, lol.
CO2 UP. WARMING STOPPED.
Richard J. Petschauer
Thanks for the modeling. For some data to test against, may I refer to you WJR Alexander, Development of a multi-year climate prediction model, Water SA= 2007 http://www.wrc.org.za Dept. Civil, Biosystems Engineering, Univ. Pretoria. Pretoria 0002, So. Africa. Alexander compiled all hydrological records in Southern Africa, available on CD by request. He found that rainfall and hydrological flows BUT NOT surface evaporation were driven by the ~ 21 year Hale solar cycle.
Steven Mosher says:
April 15, 2014 at 4:52 pm
————————————
“Radiative gases don’t warm.”
I’m well aware the the claim is “slow the cooling rate”. Semantics won’t save you.
“They lower the rate of energy loss to space.”
Without radiative gases our atmosphere would have no radiative cooling ability at all. So for the atmosphere they increase the energy loss to space. An atmosphere without radiative gases would have its temperature driven by surface Tmax, but would have no effective cooling mechanism. Empirical experiment proves conduction back to the surface ineffective.
“When we add ghgs we raise the erl. The higher erl means the earth radiates from a higher colder altitude.”
There is no such thing as ERL or EEH. These are a mathematical fiction used only by climastrologists. The simplest empirical experiment disproves the very concept of an average ERL. Go outside on different days in different weather conditions and scan the sky with an IR thermometer. The atmosphere is radiating in ever changing patterns from ever changing altitudes.
“Over 100 years ago we predicted an increase in co2 would result in a warmer planet. So far that prediction is correct”
Correlation is not causation. The warming since the little ice age started well before any significant human CO2 emissions.
The bottom line is this –
The sun heats our oceans.
The atmosphere cools our oceans.
Radiative gases cool our atmosphere.
AGW is a physical impossibility.
Steven, the climastrologists have made a fist-biting error in the very foundation of their claims. They used “blackbody” calculations to claim the oceans in the absence of DWLWIR or atmospheric cooling would have a Tmean of -18C. This is totally and utterly wrong. Our deep transparent oceans are not a “blackbody”, they are a “selective coating” over 71% of the lithosphere. Empirical experiment proves that the oceans in the absence of DWLWIR and atmospheric cooling would be at 80C or beyond. That’s a 98C error for 71% of the Earth’s surface! You can’t laugh that one off.
You may object to my use of crude language, but there is no other way to put it. 97% of climate “scientists” are assclowns!
Regarding some of Joe Born’s questions
Joe Born says:
April 15, 2014 at 1:36 am
“But the complex computer climate models show averages of only about 2.5% / C. There are no claims of reduced wind speeds or wave action or increased relative humidity to explain this.”
I would have thought it would be decreased, rather than increased, relative humidity that would result from lower partial-pressure increase.
What I mean is that increased humidity beyond that to maintain relative humidity would explain a reduced evaporation rate, but none of this has been claimed by the models or data. In fact a paper I just discovered (cited by the IPCC, Dai, et al 2006) data (not models) indicates RH drops a little with temperature which means evaporation will increase more than I estimated.
Joe Born says:
April 15, 2014 at 1:27 am
Is conductive loss so low that Equation (1) can ignore it?
“And the latent heat deposited in the atmosphere warms it and increases the downwelling radiation.” Is that correct? I had thought increased heat would increase radiation only after it became sensible.
Yes, only when latent heat turns into sensible heat can it warm anything. But that happens when the rising air cools and forms clouds. In the summer one can watch the large high clouds growing at the top from the heat rising from below as more water is condensed. This causes more heat to be radiated to space which the cools the planet. And those high cloud tops are above most of the water vapor where CO2 covers only about 20% of the radiation band so it can’t stop much.
Joe also pointed out that the equations in the apendix, A3 to A6, did not convert correctly from my Word document the Greek letters for partial derivatives. I will correct these with a non “Greek” version and post them here.
Richard Petschauer
You get 6%/C if relative humidity remains constant. But it will decrease because evaporation cools the water. So water temperature drops as well as its vapor pressure. But air remains warm and its absolute humidity at saturation point increases with temperature. You get initial increase in evaporation then decrease. You average the two. 6%/C if only increase and no decrease.
These are versions ot the Appendix equations (A3) to (A6) without bthe Greek partial derivative symbols.
At the lower part of the atmosphere,
A 1 W/m2 increase in E, A or H or a 1 W/m2 decrease in D will cause
a decrease in G (in W/m2) of – k / (1 – a + ak) (A3)
At the top of the atmosphere for longwave radiation only, a 1 W/m2 decrease in outgoing radiation will increase G (in W/m2) by (k – 1) / (1 – a + ak) (A4)
For change in net solar, S, shortwave incoming radiation, the forcing is substantially larger than for longwave radiation, contrary to present models that treat them as equal:
From changes in the solar strength, a 1 W/m2 increase in net incoming solar radiation
will increase G (in W/m2) by (1 – kA / S) / (1 – a + ak ) (A5)
From changes in albedo, a 1 W/m2 decrease will increase G (in W/m2) will increase G (in W/m2) by1 / (1 – a + ak) (A6)
I think the point of the 6-7% is actually the measured evap increase/C. The point being the models being set at 2%/C guarantees they don’t follow reality. We know the models don’t follow reality and this is merely a reason why. Trying to say that measured reality is impossible is pretty much what the CAGW folks do daily. Obviously in local conditions water temp does in fact increase over time and then decrease, this drives the water cycle. The static annual average of global temps used to measure GW mean nothing when it comes to actual local conditions. The truly astonishing thing is how little the very meaningless annual average varies.
v/r,
David Riser
From changes in albedo, a 1 W/m^2 decrease will increase G (in W/m2) will increase G (in W/m^2) by1 / (1 – a + ak)(A6)
Janice Moore says:
April 15, 2014 at 3:30 pm
———————————-
Janice,
yes, it is the water that’s going to get them in the end 😉
It seems they forgot that there is a big puddle of it 4-5 km deep covering 71% of the planet’s surface.
When you look at what the maths would actually mean, the Church of Radiative Climatology is actually claiming that our atmosphere is acting to warm the oceans. I think those big fluffy white things in the sky rather indicate that our atmosphere is cooling the oceans. I would have thought some of the climastrologists might have noticed, but apparently not…
There is an excellent reason why at least one IPCC model (CAM5) has a problem with evaporation: it treats a latent heat of water evaporation as a constant, independent of temperature (in reality, it is 3% lower at 30 C than at 0 C) – http://judithcurry.com/2013/06/28/open-thread-weekend-23/#comment-338257. Modelers take it philosophically: why should a latent heat, of all things, be treated correctly?
For comparison, with an average Earth surface temperature about 290 K, a 3% error is 8.7 degrees K (or C), or 15.6 degrees F.
Dear Konrad,
Thank you, so much, for honoring me with a response. A person can easily start to feel like they just don’t know the secret WUWT password for recognition or something. I have wondered from time to time, “Why?” Even compliments or “Hi! How are you?’s” roll away, and fall through a crack in the floor, never to be seen again. I am often attacked, but seldom answered thoughtfully. And rarely spoken to kindly (waaa, I miss Mario — many of us do, no doubt; he’s just busy with work and car racing). Mostly, I’m ignored (I mean IGNORED — people post BELOW something I’ve said and harshly criticize me for what I just corrected or NEVER EVEN SAID — they write with complete disregard for what I wrote about AT LENGTH an hour or more above them; I think, “You obviously never even read my post… .”).
Meh, that’s just pretty typical for ALL of us commenters, I think. Nothing personal. What IS a personality issue is what it is about me that makes me even think much about this issue — even more, what it is that made me write about it, here, LOL.
Well, even if no one reads all that, it helped me to sing the “blogger blues” for a few bars. Better now!
Keep up all your fine argument on behalf of truth using evidence.
Gratefully,
Janice
There still seems to be some confusion about where the energy comes from to support the evaporation. I am basicly treating the evaporation as negative feeback, regardless of what changes the surface temperature and even if it is an increase or decrease in temperature. And the process feedbacks on itself. So for an initial change of 1C that will cause a 6% increase in evaporation cooling, this will reduce the evaporation along with the initial temperature rise.
From page 3:
“To determine the feedback factor for E, add to it the increase caused by a 1 C surface temperature change and convert the change in G to a temperature change. For a 6% increase of 78, E becomes 82.68, the new value of G is 386.0014 Wm-2, down from 390, and provides a temperature change of –0.741 C which equals the feedback factor, the temperature change before additional feedback. With no other feedbacks, the feedback multiplier is M = 1 / (1 – F); here we get M = 0.5744. The temperature change of –0.741 would produce another change of -0.741 x –0.741 or +0.549, followed by (–0.741)^3 or –0.406 then (–0.741)^4 or +0.301, etc which sum converges to a final temperature drop –0.4256 C which also equals M x F or -0.741 x 0.5744”.
Which validates the feedback equations that are based on how infinite series converge.
So the initial temperature change of +1C ends up at 1C – 0.4256 or 0.5744C and the evaporation would now be 6% x 0.5744 or about 3.44% higher (actualy 1.06 ^ 0.5744 or 3.40% higher).
The latent heat contained in the water is based on its temperature driven by the vapor pressure which is just a measure of the energy of the individual water molecues that allows them to escape the bonds of surface tension. You can’t have warming without it also increasing. There is a distribution of this energy so the more energtic ones can escape, reducing the average energy remaining which causes the cooling. At the same time water vapor molecues near the water surface are attracted to it and become liquid and this rate depends on the density of the water vapor molecules near the surface. The climate modelers can write their programs, but the water molecules don’t have to buy it. If a college physics major told his professor that the water was warming, but there was not energy to energy to support the estimated evaporation increase, he might be told he should consider changing his major. Maybe that’s where these climate model programers came from. The climate modelers justify their low estimates of evaporation increases based on their flawed energy balanced models. That what I show in the section with the Table. All the energy is balanced at all three levels up to a 10% / C evaporation increase. The warming started from a large 10 watt per square meter at the top of the atmosphere drop in outgoing radiation that present models say would increase surface temperature about 3C before any other feedbacks, I intenionally selected a large value with up to 10% evaporation changes to counter the “lack of energy” or a nonlinearity argument.
Well! I’ll just take care of myself! And write this post from me to me, heh, heh.
Dear Janice,
How are you? …
Take care, dear,
Janice
lolololololololo
“Gonna Sit Right Down and Write Myself a Letter” — Ella Fitzgerald