University of Toronto study finds atmosphere will adapt to hotter, wetter climate
(photo by Liam Kearney via Flickr)
A study led by atmospheric physicists at the University of Toronto finds that global warming will not lead to an overall increasingly stormy atmosphere, a topic debated by scientists for decades.
Instead, strong storms will become stronger while weak storms become weaker, and the cumulative result of the number of storms will remain unchanged.
“We know that with global warming we’ll get more evaporation of the oceans,” said Frédéric Laliberté, a research associate at U of T’s physics department and lead author of a study published this week in Science. “But circulation in the atmosphere is like a heat engine that requires fuel to do work, just like any combustion engine or a convection engine.”
The atmosphere’s work as a heat engine occurs when an air mass near the surface takes up water through evaporation as it is warmed by the sun and moves closer to the equator. The warmer the air mass is, the more water it takes up. As it reaches the equator, it begins to ascend through the atmosphere, eventually cooling as it radiates heat out into space. Cool air can hold less moisture than warm air, so as the air cools, condensation occurs, which releases heat. When enough heat is released, air begins to rise even further, pulling more air behind it producing a thunderstorm. The ultimate “output” of this atmospheric engine is the amount of heat and moisture that is redistributed between the equator and the North and South Poles.
“By viewing the atmospheric circulation as a heat engine, we were able to rely on the laws of thermodynamics to analyze how the circulation would change in a simulation of global warming,” said Laliberté. “We used these laws to quantify how the increase in water vapour that would result from global warming would influence the strength of the atmospheric circulation.”
The researchers borrowed techniques from oceanography and looked at observations and climate simulations. Their approach allowed them to test global warming scenarios and measure the output of atmospheric circulation under warming conditions.
“We came up with an improved technique to comprehensively describe how air masses change as they move from the equator to the poles and back, which let us put a number on the energy efficiency of the atmospheric heat engine and measure its output,” said Laliberté.
The scientists concluded that the increase in water vapour was making the process less efficient by evaporating water into air that is not already saturated with water vapour. They showed that this inefficiency limited the strengthening of atmospheric circulation, though not in a uniform manner. Air masses that are able to reach the top of the atmosphere are strengthened, while those that can not are weakened.
“Put more simply, powerful storms are strengthened at the expense of weaker storms,” said Laliberté. “We believe atmospheric circulation will adapt to this less efficient form of heat transfer, and we will see either fewer storms overall or at least a weakening of the most common, weaker storms.”
The findings are reported in the paper “Constrained work output of the moist atmospheric heat engine in a warming climate” published January 30 in Science. The work was supported by grants from the Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada.
Been looking for a suitable thread to post these. I think everyone here should be interested in Iceland.
Re-writing The Climate History of Iceland
Temperature Adjustments in Australia
We’re supposed to appreciate experts that condense and homogenize all that difficult data, and just tell us what we are supposed to know (only what they want us to know). I’m not sure if they realize that they are painting themselves into a corner when they alter historical records. It makes them look better now, sure. It’s fine to raise temperatures to fit their scheme, but when the models are proven wrong (as it is), it will amplify their error.
Hi there
I like your blog, lot of great stuff there, one of your articles inspired this:
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/NAII.gif
Well that’s really interesting. What does it mean? The Bond stack is supposed to correlate with 10Be, though I’ve never managed to find decent continuous 10Be data for the Holocene. But that kind of ties in with the magnetic field. So much for the Sun.
Both 10Be and C14 nucleation are strongly modulated by the Earth’s field. Pre-instrumental paleo-magnetic data are going back ‘millions’ of years but dating is not particularly accurate + or – 50 years/millennium (usually carbon dated, circular judgment!).
Declination/inclination compass readings go back to 1600, magnetometer data to 1840. Magnetometer obtained data show that the Earth’s field beside its own independent variability has a strong 22 year component, much stronger that the heliospheric magnetic field at the Earth’s orbit (implying common driving force ?!).
For the above reasons all estimates of the solar activity pre-1600 (sunspot count availability) can not be taken with any degree of certainty.
I suppose (if the ice index is correct) that the graph is reflection of the geomagnetic not heliomagnetic events, but there is a considerable ‘time shift’ between two. Coincidence of some minor ‘wiggles’ between two curves would suggest existence of a direct or indirect link between two.
My favoured theory has been variations in UV to IR spectrum from Sun. But this chart would bring us back to cosmic rays – yes? You have a 500y time shift in there – kind of spoils the story 🙁 The magnetic field should be in anti-phase with Bond since with Bond cold is up and should correlate with weak magnetic field if anything.
– Magnetic field y axis values are logarithmic (base e) and scale is inverted, now updated.
– Yes, (‘present’ for the GMF =1950) time shift makes it incompatible, and yet the ‘wiggle match’ would suggest some kind of relationship.
There is one possible explanation for this anomaly:
If Greenland icebergs flow is dated by the sediments (from glaciers land scraped rubble few centuries earlier, before sliding into the ocean) and deposited on the sea floor, it just may be possible. Perhaps more can be gleaned from Fig.1.
http://www.essc.psu.edu/essc_web/seminars/spring2006/Mar1/Bond%20et%20al%202001.pdf
I don’t fully understand the Bond et al dating method @ur momisugly Fig.1. However, samples are taken every 70 years, so I looked at the GMF 70 year delta. There is a good correlation for first 2000 years, and then it all breaks down.
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/NAIId.gif
There is a dating problem in one or both sets of data, I would assume that the surface paleo-magnetic data more reliable than sea floor cores affected by sea currents flows.
Hi Vukcevic, This is really interesting and I’m interested in it, but a bit overwhelmed with other stuff right now. What is the paleo magnetic field data based on? You’re right that there are likely dating issues. I’d need to check back on Bond to see what they use – forams etc. Do you have a link to the magnetic field data, where it is described? Can we pick this discussion up again in a couple of weeks?
http://www.euanmearns.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/12/bond_updated.png
Yes, no problem, in two days time I am going away for couple of weeks anyway.
Data link: http://www.gfz-potsdam.de/fileadmin/gfz/sec23/data/Models/CALSxK/cals7k2.zip
Lot of details here:
http://www.english-heritage.org.uk/publications/archaeomagnetic-dating-guidelines/archaeomagnetic-dating-guidelines.pdf
“Constrained work output of the …. moist …. atmospheric heat engine in a warming climate”
It’s the water!!!!
Development in Earth Science Volume 2, 2014 http://www.seipub.org/des 31
The Greenhouse Effect and the Infrared Radiative Structure of the Earth’s Atmosphere
Ferenc Mark Miskolczi
Geodetic and Geophysical Institute, Hungarian Academy of Sciences, Csatkai Endre u. 6-8, 9400 Sopron, Hungary
fmiskolczi@cox.net
“The stability and natural fluctuations of the global average surface temperature of the heterogeneous system are ultimately determined by the phase changes of water. Many authors have proposed a greenhouse effect due to anthropogenic carbon dioxide emissions. The present analysis shows that such an effect is impossible.”
REFUTATION OF THE “GREENHOUSE EFFECT” THEORY ON A THERMODYNAMIC AND HYDROSTATIC BASIS.
Alberto Miatello
http://www.writerbeat.com/articles/3713-CO2-Feedback-Loop
It seems they have used a local phenomenon (evaporation, convection, thunder storm) and extended it as a global process. Why is the Earth not ringed by T’storms around the equator?
It essentially is.
Why is it that “climate change” only makes everything worse? Given that climate has changed so much for so long, you’d think by now that the globe would be one roiling catastrophe.
Politically and economically, it is exactly that.
If strong storms become stronger and weak storms weaker… what happens to medium storms?? How does any of this affect equatorial/polar temp gradient delta T/ delta P driver. GK
How convenient! They say there will be more “powerful storms,” more “weaker storms,” and the possibility of “fewer storms overall.” They have their bases covered. The next time a powerful storm comes along, they can say, “see, we told you so.” If there are fewer storms overall, they can say, “we predicted it.” And whether storms become stronger or weaker, it doesn’t matter. Either way they can say, “it matches our forecast.” How do you falsify that?
Louis,
You don’t. You falsify the quantified results of their model against observation. Here’s a preprint version of the paper: http://doos.misu.su.se/pub/Laliberte_etal_2015.pdf
Figure 3 is the one to key in on because it shows the relationships between the modeled and observed parameters. Figure 4, which contains time series plots, is not the one to go after.
Climate science aside, this sounds like a sure-fire prediction in terms of public relations, something like “total heat won’t change, but high temperatures will be higher and low temperatures will be lower.” Then every time a high or low temperature record is broken (every day) they will say “See! I told you so!” and the press will flog it to the masses.
Woah, I just read Louis’ post after I posted. Sorry ’bout that.
the increase in water vapour was making the process less efficient by evaporating water into air that is not already saturated with water vapour
“But circulation in the atmosphere is like a heat engine that requires fuel to do work, just like any combustion engine or a convection engine.”
I love it when scientists reference things they know nothing about. Have scientists now become society’s medicine men? Or the old wise men of a tribe? How little we’ve grown up when we put faith in these pronouncements. What is a convection engine? Does Laliberte know what he’s talking about here?
When I saw this paper earlier, I was immediately struck by the inappropriateness of the term “adapt” in this context. The atmosphere does not “adapt” to anything – it merely continues to be perturbed as it is in the constant dynamic state it is in. Yes, the atmosphere is largely homestatic (and only in human terms, which is why we’re having all of these discussions in the first place), but it has no obligate reason to be so. The atmosphere isn’t Gaia.
After a quick search I’ve found the latest GCMs
I wonder if climate models make storms stronger & weaker in a no-emissions projection as well? That would be interesting!
Now I’m also interested in what the spread of climate model projections would look like under no-emissions projections, for global average temperature as well. I’m sure it’s been done (as their non-scientific way to bound natural variability) but don’t know where to look.
Sorry but I think you missed something important in the headline,
“Instead strong storms will become stronger and weak storms will become weaker,and the cumulative result of the number of storms will remain unchanged. ”
So then how about hot weather will become hotter cold weather will become colder and the cumulative effect will be the temperature remains unchanged.
Since weak storms primarily become weaker, it will be difficult to have weak storms develop into strong storms. Conversely if strong storms primarily get stronger the possibility of weak storms is greatly reduced.
The grand conclusion we can of course draw from all of this is that for the foreseeable future we will have very few storms or at worst as my previous comment suggests, many medium storms.
“while weak storms become weaker” This is good news, I hate those weak storms. Maybe they will become so weak we won’t know they’re there, like global warming.
So how the hell do you become a storm, if being weak just shuts you down ??
Just so, George!
ALL storms start as very weak perturbations in the atmosphere that either find sufficient reinforcement to grow larger or simply dissipate without sufficient succor. By the authors irrational analogy of ‘weak storms get weaker’, NO storm could ever grow to be a ‘strong’ storm’.
Mac
ahh the picture is perfectly clear now….
more will be less and less will be more unless more becomes more-er and less becomes lesser though it could remain the same more or less!
Cheers,
Joe
P.S- where do I go to claim my grant monies?
They just assume global warming. They never figure on cooling. Real scientists would figure on both. But, I guess they know which side their bread is buttered on.
Ah the warmist answer to the fact that “there have been no changes in storm severity for decades.”
Yes. Weaker than a weak storm . A scientist actually said this? Oh boy.
Will they will just graduate anyone that can pay the tuition now?
No, those are the words of a journalist (Sean Bettam), rephrasing what the scientist said (whose model assumes the climate is warming). You can read the paper for yourself in the link I provided: http://wattsupwiththat.com/2015/02/27/global-warming-research-strong-storms-to-become-stronger-weak-storms-to-become-weaker/#comment-1870794
I think they confused their widening prediction error bars with trends in the high and low end for trends in storm types. As long as they get their pub, that’s all that matters in the numbers game.
The purpose is to feed bias in perception as a rhetorical technique to persuade somebody of something without bothering to complicate the debate with REAL data.
Once upon a time I was willing to accept claims of ‘fact’ provisionally – to treat them as true until I had a chance to verify or refute them independently.
Now, because of all the politicians and used-car salesmen who are pitching ‘climate change,’ I have grown to abandon the ‘provisional acceptance’ in favor of holding such claims as suspect, considering the source and the interests and agenda of the source before I even begin to bother with verifications. Some of these guys lie so often you stop believing in their ‘wolves’.
Here’s the link to the actual press release [quoted in the main post above], from UToronto, written by Sean Bettam
http://news.utoronto.ca/global-warming-research-strong-storms-become-stronger-weak-storms-become-weaker
Here are the words I found most interesting, especially the part about “Air masses … are strengthened … “. Is that what the paper really said?
And here is the link to actual paper in Science (not the commentary on it by Pauluis in the same issue)
“Constrained work output of the moist atmospheric heat engine in a warming climate”,
F. Laliberté, J. Zika, L. Mudryk, P. J. Kushner, J. Kjellsson, K. Döös,
http://issuu.com/rainbowglasses/docs/science_-_january_30__2015
(Flip to page 540 to read the article) [Caveat. I always surf these ‘public’ sites with FireFox using AdBlock and Ghostery to the hilt, and so had no problems or distractions reading the article. YMMV].
The general goal of their research was learn the effect of tropical humidity on the general circulation of the Earth’s atmosphere and the long-term impact on the climate. Yes, by using models not actual observations (well maybe some observational data used for ‘reanalysis’). And the analysis is on a very large scale using 100km grid squares and mean annual estimates.
I defend the use of models here because it is a relatively efficient way to generate and test hypotheses (provided the results are not interpreted out of context and used to promote political agenda). Their chosen research area is very complex and difficult to analyze, so the first step in research often must be to step back and look at a simplified version of reality (which is what all models do BTW). Then test against real observations and experiments etc.
The authors have come up with a novel and simple thermodynamic diagram to model energy conservation (1st Law) using the material derivatives of moist entropy and moist enthalpy as a main component of their model. Looks very clever, but I don’t understand it in detail. (Of course not all clever models are necessarily correct). The models project into the future up to 2068.
So their conclusions (assuming the climate is warming as part of the model) are:
http://i62.tinypic.com/qox0eg.jpg
I think that is the same as saying ‘the strong storms get stronger and the weak, weaker’ etc.
I just skimmed the article, so might have missed some other stuff. If you want to dig deeper, to understand the paper and its novel thermodynamic diagramming technique, you’ll probably need the supplemental materials posted by the authors:
http://www.sciencemag.org/content/suppl/2015/01/28/347.6221.540.DC1/Laliberte-SM.pdf
Johanus,
On page 5 of the supplemental, bullet point 2 helped me unlock it: Adding water vapor to unsaturated air therefore results in the production of irreversible entropy (Section 4, 10).
I don’t think so, and here I disagree with the press release more than I disagree with you. The conclusion of the paper is that warming the system increasingly favors irreversible entropy production in the form of water evaporation leaving less free energy available to do work. One result is a reduction in the frequency of storms. The other result is a potential for stronger storms when they do happen — once saturation is reached, the irreversible constraint on entropy production goes away, and we have, on average, air parcels with more latent heat to release.
That is, if Laliberté, et al. are correct.
I don’t have a problem with this paper. More energy into a system will beg expression. The heat transfer has to take place, has to move the bulk of the heat into space via convection. This is also what I’m thinking prior to the papers release. We don’t actually have a green house overhead, so that means energy is not actually trapped. Everyone on this thread knows these things. So the question becomes, how does the slight increase in temp due to the slight increases in C02 play out as the heat escapes the earth
owenvsthegenius,
Me either, but then there’s a lot about the entire system I don’t understand so any fatal flaws it might have would likely go missed.
Which makes the conclusions of the paper somewhat counter-intuitive: the authors argue that higher temperatures result in overall less work being done.
We’d be in real trouble if the primary mechanism of solar energy dissipation were mass loss into space. Convection and evaporation are the primary mechanisms near the surface. Final transfer out of the system into space is dominated by radiative heat loss.
Not everyone on these threads thinks so, but it is a common belief despite the fact that our host does not share that view.
I’m asking myself how temperatures can increase slightly by slightly increasing CO2 (or any IR active molecule in the atmosphere, like, say, water vapor) if “energy is not actually trapped”.