Guest Opinion: Dr. Tim Ball
In The Real World
The early Greeks had a better, more basic understanding of weather and climate than the people involved in the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). Indeed, the word climate derives from the Greek word klima, meaning inclination, referring to the climate conditions created by the angle of the Sun. They paid great attention to the wind, realizing its role in creating local, regional and seasonal conditions. They even erected a tower to the wind in Athens (Figure 1) with sculptures representing each major compass direction.
Figure 1
The Greeks focused on the more important horizontal movement of air, technically called advection or more commonly, wind. In the modern era people like C. W. Thornthwaite understood the role of wind as he considered, surface and air temperatures, insolation and wind speed, major factors affecting the potential for evaporation and evapotranspiration. More recently, Hans Jelbring’s 1998 doctoral thesis, Wind Controlled Climate was one of the few to draw attention to the critical role of wind.
Wind, Water, and Energy Transfer
It is not possible to identify critical points in the complex system that is weather and climate, but that is what the IPCC was set up to do. It began with the limited definition of climate change and continued with the selection of variables and mechanisms used in their computer models. It is possible to identify areas they omit that are critical to understanding, or at least make understanding impossible without their inclusion. Two of them are the phase changes of water and the related energy absorptions and releases involved, and the transport of that energy by the wind.
The IPCC essentially consider only the vertical winds of convection, but by their admission do it inadequately. Convective cells are the major mechanism of vertical energy transfer from the surface to the atmosphere, especially in the tropics. Like so many individual portions of their models it is sufficient alone to explain why their predictions (projections) are consistently wrong. The region where the greatest transfer occurs is along the Inter Tropical Convergence Zone (ITCZ). A major part of the IPCC problem is that the convective cells created and visible as large cumulus clouds around the Equator (Figure 2) are too small to appear in the model grids. Modelers describe them as “sub-grid scale”.
A bigger failure of IPCC analysis of weather and climate involves advection, the horizontal movement of air commonly known as wind.
Phase changes of water and wind are most important right at the surface, but the IPCC only deal with conditions at the Stevenson Screen from 1.25 to 2 meters and above. Traditional climate research involved microclimate studies in the boundary layer, defined as the layer of air within a few meters of the surface. Oliver and Fairbridge in their 1987 Encyclopedia of Climatology define “Boundary layer climatology” as
“the study of the processes that link the surface of the Earth to the lower atmosphere as well as the general features that are established as a consequence.”
“The term boundary layer initially was borrowed from the field of fluid mechanics by micrometeorologists who used it in their investigations of the lower atmosphere.”
Some refer to this layer on the land as the Biosphere because it is where the majority of flora and fauna exist, but they only serve to complicate the dynamics in an already complex area. As Essex and McKitrick explain in Taken By Storm when discussing the relatively less complicated ocean/atmosphere surface,
“The interactions between the air and oceans form a whole universe of impossible complexities of its own.”
“The fluid dynamics and thermodynamics together place such impossible demands on us that we can neither measure nor calculate from either of these two classical theories alone or together.”
The basic physics is extremely problematic, but like everything else for the IPCC the lack of real data is an equally serious problem.
Amount of wind data is as limited in space and time as all other weather variables. Averages have little value as it relates to the work done. A low average may include a few severe gusts that do more work and create extensive damage very quickly. Besides, wind at the weather station doesn’t represent conditions even a short distance away because the station is deliberately exposed. In any other location the season of the year and local features all modify conditions. A body of water will create onshore and offshore breezes almost daily. Wind direction and speed varies with seasons.
The IPCC predictions (projections) are consistently wrong. When you read their Working Group I Physical Science Basis Report, it is easy to understand why. There is a multitude of limitations, omissions, and misrepresentations most of which on their own could explain the failed predictions. They cover this by creating the illusion of certainty in the Summary for Policymakers (SPM). There they fudge, cherry pick, omit, misrepresent and make unjustified speculations about data and evidence that doesn’t fit their agenda.
These actions are necessitated by the constant push to prove their hypothesis. As Richard Lindzen said years ago, the consensus was reached before the research had even begun. From the beginning, evidence has constantly emerged, and almost all of it contradicts the assumptions made and reinforces a null hypothesis, which the IPCC never entertained. Instead, they create explanations that are later proved incorrect. Their claim of a positive feedback from water vapor in the climate sensitivity of CO2 problem is a good example.
IPCC Water Problems
Failure to deal with water in all its phases is a serious limitation in every aspect of weather and climate studies, and the IPCC make it worse. Here is another example that involves water. The rate of evaporation and evapotranspiration has been declining in most parts of the world. This is in apparent contradiction to the IPCC theory that with global warming evaporation will increase. Here is how they try to explain it away in AR5.
AR4 concluded that decreasing trends were found in records of pan evaporation over recent decades over the USA, India, Australia, New Zealand, China and Thailand and speculated on the causes including decreased surface solar radiation, sunshine duration, increased specific humidity and increased clouds. However, AR4 also reported that direct measurements of evapotranspiration over global land areas are scarce, and concluded that reanalysis evaporation fields are not reliable because they are not well constrained by precipitation and radiation.
In summary, there is medium confidence that pan evaporation continued to decline in most regions studied since AR4 related to changes in wind speed, solar radiation and humidity. On a global scale, evapotranspiration over land increased (medium confidence) from the early 1980s up to the late 1990s. After 1998, a lack of moisture availability in SH land areas, particularly decreasing soil moisture, has acted as a constraint to further increase of global evapotranspiration.
The leading excuse is “decreased surface solar radiation” or “dimming” as some call it. It is the primary choice because even if they are wrong it is desirable to have a human cause. The claim that decreasing soil moisture is a problem is offset by their admission that,
Since the TAR, there have been few assessments of the capacity of climate models to simulate observed soil moisture. Despite the tremendous effort to collect and homogenize soil moisture measurements at global scales (Robock et al., 2000), discrepancies between large-scale estimates of observed soil moisture remain.
The most likely explanation is changing wind speed, but that is only listed in the summary. Three factors determine the rate of evaporation: temperature of the water, air temperature, and wind velocity. Simple basic research confirms that wind velocity is the most important. Without adequate wind data, chances of determining the flux accurately are very low.
AR4 Physical Science Report says,
Unfortunately, the total surface heat and water fluxes are not well observed. Normally, they are inferred from observations of other fields, such as surface temperature and winds. Consequently, the uncertainty in the observational estimate is large – of the order of tens of watts per square metre for the heat flux, even in the zonal mean.
The AR5 Report says,
Surface fluxes play a large part in determining the fidelity of ocean simulations. As noted in the AR4, large uncertainties in surface heat and fresh water flux observations (usually obtained indirectly) do not allow useful evaluation of models.
The phrase “usually obtained indirectly” indicates a measure calculated from other variables and usually far removed from actual measures. Often they are estimates from another computer model, input into other models as if it is real data. In the case of a flux, it is a combination of variables that determine the rate of movement of gas or liquid across the interface between the water or land surface and the atmosphere. The accuracy of data and knowledge of mechanisms at this interface are critical in weather and climate studies.
Monsoons are one place where the failure of the data and models to deal with flux and wind are most evident. The Indian Monsoon is one of the largest global transfers of heat and energy. AR4 said,
In short, most AOGCMs do not simulate the spatial or intra-seasonal variation of monsoon precipitation accurately.
AR5 specifies the importance of the monsoons to forecast accuracy.
High-fidelity simulation of the mean monsoon and its variability is of great importance for simulating future climate impacts.
However, they also conclude in as obtuse a language as they can muster that the models don’t work. They claim better results than for AR4, but they still fail to simulate monsoons.
These results provide robust evidence that CMIP5 models simulate more realistic monsoon climatology and variability than their CMIP3 predecessors, but they still suffer from biases in the representation of the monsoon domain and intensity leading to medium model quality at the global scale and declining quality at the regional scale.
The early Greeks didn’t know about fluxes, or phase changes, but they knew about the importance of the sun and the wind in determining weather and climate. Based on their failed predictions the IPCC hasn’t made any advances on what they knew and understood. Aristotle’s student Theophrastus produced the first book On Weather Signs listing empirical observations used to forecast weather. Many are still used today. IPCC computer model forecasts have failed in less than 30 years.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Thank you Dr Ball. I always learn something of interest from your posts. Perhaps in this instance that the ancient Greeks were wiser than we can ever be. The cause?……who knows…….but one must suspect the computer is partially to blame.
Computer?
The ancient Greeks were said to have made the first computer some 3000 Years ago
http://www.gizmag.com/hublot-antikythera-mechanism-first-computer-watch/20517/
Tonyb
In the last few years I noticed my lawn was not drying up as quickly as it did 20 to 30 years ago. I thought I was nuts and kept thinking about why my observations must be wrong. Was I watering more? Was the grass longer? etc .There might be a chance I am actually sane.
If you fertilize your lawn, or if you let the fall leaves lie there and decay (or make them into mulch with a mulching lawn mower), you are changing the soil content and consistency; addition of decayed plant matter often leads to better water absorption and distribution. Leaving the grass clippings on the lawn when you mow will produce the same effect, though more slowly. You may be transforming your own lawn! (Actually, you can hardly avoid doing so.) Additionally, earthworms, grubs, voles, moles, and other ground creatures change the soil both by aerating it and by defecating in it, thus adding and redistributing organic content. Your lawn or other land is not exactly what it was when you got there.
Yes, you are right. That certainly might be at work in the largest part of the lawn. What i should have said was that a certain portion of my lawn which has always been thin of grass and not covered by leaves etc. which is the area I have most noticed it. That area would quickly dry out and be parched by June but it has stayed fairly moist all summer. I have thought of how much rain we have gotten but that hasnt been greater. I am sure the rest of the lawn has been affected by many of the factors you have listed, but this one area is still a mystery to me.
There is also about 15% more co2 than in 1985. More CO2 requires less water.
https://ag.arizona.edu/pubs/garden/mg/botany/physiology.html
Yes more CO2 more desert greening. Even of your micro desert dusty patches in lawn…
You cannot leave leaves on grass, before they decay they will kill the grass, that is how trees keep grass down. You either have to mulch them with a mower or rack them up into a pile and let them decay and them spread that decayed matter back on the grass in a light application. Anyone who mows grass and than bags the clipping and throw them away is a fool. If you use a mulching mower and mow often enough so the clipping fall back into the grass not on top you will have a health lawn using far less water and fertilizer and herbicides. The only time you should bag you clipping is when you have a thatch problem, at that point you need to de-thatch. Last do not mow you grass short, at a minimum the grass stem should be at least two inches long. If you follow these simple steps you should have a wonderful “bare foot lawn”. Now with that said right now I do not have and grass at my residence, since I live in a desert and here in the desert growing grass is a waste of water.
Your local water table might have risen causing surface moisture to drain away slower.
Did you hear more spring peepers this year? Close by?
The natural state of land is with plant litter falling and composting. Earthworms surface to eat the litter, spreading the digested litter, (worm mulch), through the soil.
Man’s fetish for lush green urban and suburban lawns is not a natural state. Consider those lawns obsessively tended gardens of grass plants with their de-thatching over fertilized weed and insect killed treatments.
Mulching lawnmowers go a long way towards more natural lawns; avoiding weed and insect killing preparations foster food conditions that keep songbirds healthy and local, locally flickers, goldfinches, bluebirds, catbirds and mocking birds are common. Not so, in a not too distant suburb where grackles are the overwhelming common bird.
Apologies to the British and European folks; I would include robins, but our robins are very poor singers though they do love worms, grubs and insects and bring color early in the spring.
Our local populations of hawks and owls discourages grackles though they do make for noisy crow gatherings.
” Man’s fetish for lush green urban and suburban lawns is not a natural state ‘
yep, you’re right. Barren earth around the house was the norm. Before the advent of lawnmowers. No grass meant the house wasn’t going to burn down from a low burning forest fire. No grass meant no snakes or other venom would be lurking about. Downside was erosion and mud and when the wind blew, dirt. I like the nice green grass. If you doubt the therapeutic benefits of green, live out west where it’s shades of brown and then you’ll understand why people pay the price for water to have a nice green yard.
ATheoK April 14, 2015 at 6:43 am
Not so! The familiar and beloved American robin, Turdus migratorius is an excellent singer:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thrush_(bird)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_robin
American Robin dictionary of songs and sounds:
http://www.learner.org/jnorth/tm/robin/Dictionary.html
The Turdinae thrushes are widespread, consisiting of about 65 species, but the American robin is not closely related to the European robin Erithacus rubecula, but is from the same genus as the European blackbird T. merula, featured in a song of the same name from the Beatles’ White Album and sung by you know whom.
To be fair, in the drier, western part of its range, the Robin does not always have the benefit of block after block of green lawns growing in damp soils, with plenty of maples and oaks for nesting, and my observation is that these robins are more shy and secretive than their eastern counterparts, and do not sing as often.
Other than that, good remarks!
Thank you most sincerely Dr. Tim Ball. It’s always a pleasure to read your work ……. always.
Thank you Dr. Ball, very interesting. Another arrow to fire at the alarmists.
As warming is predicted to happen most at the Poles – and thus the temperature gradient of the planet is predicted to decrease – doesn’t this explain the reduced evaporation?
Lower temperature gradient -> less pressure differentials -> less wind -> less evaporation -> less clouds -> less precipitation…
Which would be the exact opposite of what the IPCC predicted
But it makes sense at first glance.
Have there been any studies regarding average wind velocity over the last 50 years?
Would surface changes make such a study close to useless anyway?
The rate of evaporation and evapotranspiration has been declining in most parts of the world. This is in apparent contradiction to the IPCC theory that with global warming evaporation will increase.
It is believed that increasing levels of CO₂ in the atmosphere have lead to a reduction in the size of stomata in plant leaves. This will reduce the amount of water transpired by the plant, though this may be offset to an extent by the extra vegetation that can grow in the enriched atmosphere.
That was new idea to me, thanks for sharing.
Annual plants probably very quickly adapt to this kind of change, because smaller evapotranspiration gives a clear competitive edge in water scarce conditions, which many species meet over and over again. There is naturally some natural variation on stomata size and number (and thanks, now I know the word stoma in English plus I can enjoy the faqing fact that I can inflect it in a latinist compatible manner). So the evolutive pressure quickly changes average plant when carbon dioxide is more abundant.
Not to mention the paved surfaces and structures within 30m. #B^)
Finding and testing an incorrect approach is an advance.
Now I know that people are wrong when they say “surface temperatures are where we live”. I’m only 65″ tall, (well I was- I’m old and shrinking; except around the girth). But that means at 2m and above they are not where I live. 🙂
It’s only an advance if you recognize that it is an incorrect approach and abandon it.
If instead you decide that you can continue doing it the wrong way, but mathematically “adjust” your results to “fix them up”, then you are actually regressing, not progressing.
Not sure what point is being made. 3D models like those followed by the IPCC must include advection, otherwise they aren’t 3D. Their inability to simulate certain things well isn’t for a lack of advective terms in the equations.
#B^)
Keep up the good work. Don’t let the bums take your precious UAH away from you and yours.
I’ve already seen Latitude once, and I don’t want to see a repeat of its saddest scene.
I am complete amateur in the climate matters, normally concentrate on the N. Atlantic’s events. Atmospheric pressure is presumably one of the major factors in the advection. There is a very odd , at first sight ‘irrational’ long term relationship between the SST and the surface atmospheric pressure. Until this ‘oddity’ is understood, whatever equations are used for the N. Atlantic, they may or could not work. It is likely that the equations may be more successful for long term simulations if the atmospheric pressure variability is simply left left out.
If the IPCC is the one claiming the models are 3D, maybe the IPCC doesn’t realize the models need to include advection? Or maybe the advective terms in the equations are just random values plucked out of another model and treated as constants because there’s no actual data?
Since the model linear equations collectively “parametrize” most of the unknowns that cannot be determined with any first-principle, including the influence of ocean surface advection, the modellers simply perform short trial runs to tune those equation parameters to get what they think looks like reasonable outputs, before starting a several months long GCM run on the expensive Supercomputer.
Thus the models are not really “models”, they are simulations of what modellers think they should get. They are more akin to Hollywood CGI simulations where a Director needs a certain look, feel, and action output. The modellers give the output they think their funding providers want to see to keep getting the funding.
“Thus the models are not really “models”, they are simulations of what modellers (sic) think they should get.”
Mr. O’Bryan,
Everything I have been able to gather on this subject of models has led me to this same conclusion.
Thank you for the excellent summation.
The models are 3D in that they have individual cells that cover the surface of the planet, plus additional cells that cover the atmosphere from ground to space.
That does not mean that they try to simulate wind speeds within the individual cells. Most likely, if wind speed is included at all, it’s parameterized. That is, they assume that under particular conditions, wind speeds will be such and such, and then enter the assumed value into the equations.
Dr. Spencer, I think the point was this, “Consequently, the uncertainty in the observational estimate is large – of the order of tens of watts per square meter for the heat flux, even in the zonal mean.
When I think of the energy in the entire water cycle, I see immense energy NOT expressed as heat. The amount of energy it takes to evaporate the entire atmospheres water vapor content, lift it high in the atmosphere, move it across the earth at disparate rates through wind, both vertical and horizontal, move the ocean currents through wind and T differentials, etcetera, I see that it is easy to lose a couple of watts per square meter in these processes alone.
Yes, we have immense number crunching computers that can spit out reams of paper, This IMV, only gives an illusion of answers. Dr. Koonin, in a recent thread was articulating the difficulty in finding the anthropogenic forcing of a couple of watts in a system where inputs are over a thousand watts, and the GHG affect several hundred watts, and the oceans are a selective short wave surface greatly affecting earth’s energy budget, but hiding that affect from the atmosphere for time periods of many centuries, and many other processes, like clouds, cloud location, jet stream movements, etc are also poorly understood. It is, IMV human hubris, to think we have adequate knowledge of and understanding of this system we call earth’s climate.
What we do know is the basic scientific principles apply. The harms of additional CO2 are NOT manifesting as predicted, and the KNOWN benefits of CO2 (now this we do have a good handle) are indeed continuing to manifest, and will continue to increase at a linear rate until at least 1200 PPM, while the warming effects of additional CO2 are KNOWN to decrease logarithmically.
No! moisture contents on the land surface of the earth controls climate.green house gas idea is ridiculous, greatest cheating in the history of science. gases are helping the earth to cool down by convection method of heat transmission – the cooling system of nature that goes on all the time and man has no control over it. CO2 is not pollutant, pollution like smoke, dust particles are health hazards and they block sun light causing cooling effect not warm. which one is man made in the GHG and GHE ideas? CC is due to the urbanization, deforestation and desert formations blocking or reducing evaporation vital for rain cycle – besides many roles of rain and water, it is the most effective cooling system.
Except that ground water extraction on all habitable continents has lowered ground water. Near surface moisture when evaporated will form clouds and the amount of clouds is determined by the amount of moisture, sun and the prevailing air temp. Here in the UK and after some rain the amount of clouds can end up covering the sky and blocking direct heat from the sun. After some days of this the amount of cloud reduces as the surface moisture is evaporated away. Doesn’t experience tells us that moisture at the surface has a cooling effect just like sweating and lack of moisture will mean hotter surface temps? Consider the Aral sea where local temperatures have come down where restoration of this lake has taken place. Both the destruction of this lake and its restoration are man made.
That’s right. So he solution is to keep land surface always moist. For this, we need to develop water supply networks so that every inch of land surface is kept always moist. ONLY excess Water, after saturation of the land part should go to the sea.
That’s right. So the solution is to keep land surface always moist. For this, we need to develop water supply networks so that every inch of land surface is kept always moist. ONLY excess Water, after saturation of the land part of the earth should go to the sea.
Maybe, maybe not.
What people overlook is that river outputs to the oceans have been steadily decreasing.
Causes are many including ground water extraction along with drainage area and river extractions. Water treatment plants expose water to the air during treatment. Landscape watering also spreads drainage extracted water across the surface.
Water that is extracted yet never drains into the oceans increases evaporation and humidity levels.
Cooling as it is evaporated, yes. But water vapor is the major greenhouse gas.
As an example of local changes to humidity, Las Vegas thirty years ago: When the temperature went over 100°F (37.7°C) it was a burning heat, but sweat evaporated quickly; nowadays, with the increased local humidity, temperatures over 100°F are suffocating.
Local changes to atmospheric water vapor conditions are just another form of UHI ignored or belittled by the climastrologists.
Another factor to increased evaporation is the fact that warm humid air is less dense. This means increased convection. One problem with Las Vegas is that it is located in a bowl which tends to create temperature inversions. This tends to trap the local air making it harder for convection to get started.
Los Angeles is another example of this problem.
I think there is a mild Arrhenian CO2 thumb under the scale. The temp graphs since 1950 correlate reasonably well. From what I can gather, the models exaggerate ECS and balance it out by fiddling the aerosol inputs. That’s okay for a game design, but this is no game. All a game really requires is a “fun factor”. The requirements here are not the same.
At what level is the mild Arrhenian CO2 thumb? At low levels the impact of extra CO2 may be greater than at higher levels – it’s a log scale after all.
And both positive and negative feedbacks may well kick in at different levels.
So I’m afraid I can’t even detect a slight thumb push. There are just so many other fingers in the pie.
Yay, a science thread!
“the convective cells created and visible as large cumulus clouds around the Equator (Figure 2) are too small to appear in the model grids. Modelers describe them as “sub-grid scale”.”
This is hardly an issue unique to ‘the models’ nor new to mathematical modelling using mesh modelling based CFD/FEA methods.
I am not a climate scientist but an engineer who has had the need to use CFD software to model liquid flow around solid bodies. Selecting a grid size to give a reasonable model of a local phenomenon ( a water wave in my case or a convective cell) is a CFD 101 level problem and for anyone to purport that they have a viable model without sorting out that basic issue is either fraudulent or utterly incompetent (perhaps manifesting as immature narcissism).
It is not like this sort of local cell issue is new either as it was the issue that frustrated the reasonably accurate modelling of turbulence in fluid flow. The problem was the exponential increase in calculations required to get a convergent solution with a model mesh of sufficient discrimination to model the actual phenomenon. and not having enough number crunching power to do so in an acceptable timeline.
Perhaps “sub grid scale” could be used as a euphamism for the whole CAGW Team deficiency.
What a bloody joke it all is when you consider the self important arrogance of The CAGW Team et al and all its hanging on rent seekers.
And then there is the mad obsession with anthropogenic CO2 as exposed with clinical effectiveness by Professor Murray Salby.
Thanks WUWT for this post and the Salby post.
A few years back, one of the agencies got a more powerful computer. They re-ran their existing model changing nothing but the grid size. The result was not a more detailed version of the previous result, but a radically different result. Just more evidence that we are decades, at least, away from having computers that are powerful enough to even begin to run such models, even assuming we ever to get the math right.
It is important to not that we are also decades away from knowing what inputs we need to put into our super duper computers, or else we run the danger of only getting wrong answers more quickly.
When I first had cause to use CFD software that was exactly the problem I first encountered. I created a mesh which I thought might be a fair thing and ran it. The height of the surface disturbance seemed a bit high and fortunately I was using the geometry of a form I also had photographs of in service. It was clear that the surface disturbance was about twice the actual height and so I had my first insight to the mesh size problem. I figured it out and sorted it eventually getting results consistent with reality, providing me a rubric which formed the basis of an extremely successful modelling of the next generation solution.
Fortunately I was working with water as the fluid, so the internal mechanisms of the fluid flow were dramatically simpler than what the climate modellers are attempting, leaving aside the mesh size issue.
What is it with these people? WTF is wrong with these turkeys running these models and the idiots who accept them as some sort of holy writ? If 97% of ‘climate scientis’ are agreed tha CAGW is real then clearly 97% of climate scientists are gormless fools. They remind me of the mouse who ‘rapes’ an elephant and in its frenzied egotims, believing its ‘victim’ is grunting with orgasmic pleasure when actually a branch falls on its head.
The arrogance. The sheer, egotistical, puffed up arrogance of these pathetic little twatts!
LOL. Whoops we left out the winds when we said there were less cyclones. So we hid the missing heat that wasn’t really there like the cat with no hat.
This gets more and more absurd, yet the squeals of rage over deniers is louder than ever.
Yes to hope to understand climate change then you need to try to understand the changes in weather that make it happen. When l look at climate change in the past, l always ask “what would the weather have to be doing to make this happen”. Because its not climate change what changes the weather, its changes to the weather over the longer term that is what makes the climate change.
What has surprised me has been how much recent “Arctic blast” winters in North America have had an effect on the Northern Atlantic. So it got me wondering what was going on. What l think its down to is because when this cold air has pushed down across North America it made the jet stream to become very powerful over the northern Atlantic. Which made both the storms and winds over the northern Atlantic to become stronger and so cooling the waters quicker. Also the Gulf stream running along the USA coast is much warmer then the surrounding waters. Now with the Gulf stream still running this warm while all the cold air from North America and stronger winds was flowing over it. Then l would have thought it must be losing a fair amount of its heat. Now would this also explain the cooler waters further out in the ocean.?
Thanks Dr Ball, makes sense to me, as someone experienced in CRD (climate-responsive design), relating to conditions where heat is the main problem.
?dl=0
?dl=0
I was surprised that advection appeared to be missing from the “climate science”, along with an understanding of evaporation and evapo-transpiration. Climatic design research covers all of this, along with boundary layer characteristics and effects, airflow patterns relating to topography, bluff bodies, Bernoulli effects etc. Maybe the gap between micro and macro is too great, or maybe the problems are being exaggerated? As we know, there are major problems with the fudging of temperature data, but if the “[a]mount of wind data is as limited in space and time as all other weather variables” then how is it possible to construct something like the earth wind mapping at http://earth.nullschool.net/ ?
Ok, this is modelling rather than observation, but it seems to be reasonably accurate.
Wind rose diagrams on older meteorological charts were not that easy to read, but as far as I am aware, most weather stations have wind direction, intensity and frequency, and software such as Ecotect can translate this into a meaningful form:
Oops. Apologies. Supposed to be links to the images.
Ultimately I think advection is a circular argument. Nobody disputes that advection plays some role. But it fails to explain the prevailing part of prevailing winds:
http://www.solvingtornadoes.com
IPCC’s clearly stated mandate, for which they get paid and answer to the boss, is exclusively and only man caused climate effects. Natural forces are not in their scope of supply. And in AR5 TS.6 they admit uncertainty about clouds, precipitation, etc.
Advection depends on the thermal (Carnot) efficiency of the earth, which is a measure of the work the system can perform. This is approximated by:
efficiency = 1 – (absolute temperature at poles / absolute temperature at equator)
AGW is predicted to warm the poles more than the equator. Thus, back of the envelop calculations show that AGW could reduce the earth’s thermal efficiency from something like 20% today to 18% in the future. This means that the work (advection) might be reduced by 2/20 = 10%.
This will reduce the rate of evaporation, reducing the water feedback predicted by temperature alone. This is consistent with observations, which show that wind speed and humidity are decreasing, contrary to the positive feedback predictions of AGW.
In other words, climate science failed to include the effects thermal efficiency in their calculation of feedbacks.
“failed to include” or “choose to ignore”?
+1(%)
Campaigners in the Netherlands are taking the government to court for allegedly failing to protect its citizens from climate change.
The class action lawsuit, involving almost 900 citizens, aims to force the government to cut emissions faster.
The first hearing opened in the Hague on Tuesday.
It is said to be the first time in Europe that citizens have tried to hold a state responsible for alleged inaction on climate change.
It is also believed to be the first case in the world in which human rights are used – alongside domestic law – as a legal basis to protect citizens against climate change.
The campaigners, led by the Urgenda Foundation, want the judges to compel the Dutch government to reduce its carbon emissions to 40% below 1990s levels by 2020.
Prominent Dutch DJ Gregor Salto is among those taking part in the lawsuit
The activists also want the court to declare that global warming of more than 2C will lead to a violation of fundamental human rights worldwide.
Among the plaintiffs is Joos Ockels, wife of the late astronaut Wubbo Ockels, along with DJ Gregor Salto and Nasa climate scientist Prof James Hansen.
“Everybody is waiting for the government to take action but the government has done so little. If the case succeeds, they will be forced to take action,” Salto told the UK’s Guardian newspaper.
The EU has pledged to cut emissions by 40% by 2030, while the US promised last month to reduce its carbon emissions 26-28% by 2025.
However, analysts say the pledges being made ahead of a global deal in Paris in December are not strong enough to stop temperatures rising above the internationally agreed maximum of 2C.
The 2C target was acknowledged at the UN climate convention (UNFCCC) in 2009 as the threshold of dangerous climate change, which scientists say is largely caused by the use of fossil fuels.
Sceptics say the threat from climate change is exaggerated.
Commentators say it remains to be seen whether the Dutch court is able and willing to rule on an issue that is still the subject of scientific debate.
However, Jaap Spier, Advocate-General to the Dutch Supreme Court, was quoted by the newspaper Trouw earlier in April saying that courts could force countries to adopt “effective climate policies”.
http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-32300214
http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2015/apr/14/dutch-government-facing-legal-action-over-failure-to-reduce-carbon-emissions
“Everybody is waiting for the government to take action”
How typical.
Not everybody; just these 900 deluded citizens trying to impose tyranny of the minority.
“The early Greeks had a better, more basic understanding of weather and climate than the people involved in the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).”
No, I think I can safely say this is not true.
I disagree. There lives depended on understanding weather and climate so I think the statement is valid.
There should be Their.
“I think”
Since we already know that in your case, this is not true, the rest of your post is thus falsified.
Of course I agree and understand this. However, the IPCC maintains, still, that more heat is being retained than being released in the energy budget. That’s how they are able to say that big wind events will become worse. The heat gets transformed into mechanical energy. With the lack of hurricanes and such, I wonder what happened? Where is the missing heat? Is it possible that the math is wrong on the retention of heat in an open atmospheric state rather than a closed controlled one?
“It is not possible to identify critical points in the complex system that is weather and climate, but that is what the IPCC was set up to do. ”
Actually, the purpose of the IPCC was to produce propaganda while pretending to be studying climate. They had no real intention of embracing the real science as it would hog against the Summary for Policy Makers and the agenda goals.
“The IPCC essentially consider only the vertical winds of convection, but by their admission do it inadequately. ”
The IPCC’s treatment of convection is token, as they manage to completely ignore the global heat engine of the water cycle, with warm humid air carrying as much as 85% of the energy budget away from Earth’s surface. This comprises the “missing heat” that Trenberth is always moaning about and trying to claim is hiding in the ocean depths.
The great part about the water cycle is that, as the climate warms, this heat engine revs up and serves to bring the temperature back down. It is a huge negative feedback mechanism that the IPCC will never admit to.
“warm humid air carrying as much as 85% of the energy budget away from Earth’s surface. ”
This physical convective motion of the atmosphere is independent of CO2 concentration entirely, which is why radiative climate models are junk.
Dr. Ball, thanks for your clear and revealing explanation.
Leonardo da Vinci (1452-1519) must have also read the classics when he said: “Water is the driver of nature”. Interestingly, winds are also key in the ocean pacemaker, AMOC:
“These anomalies modulate the trajectory and strength of the North Atlantic Current. The importance of the western margin is a direct consequence of the thermal wind relation and is independent of the mechanisms that create those density anomalies. (ii) Density anomalies in this key region are part of a larger-scale pattern that propagates around the subpolar gyre and acts as a “pacemaker” of AMOC variability. (iii) The observed variability is consistent with the primary driving mechanism being stochastic wind curl forcing, with Labrador Sea convection playing a secondary role.”
More here: https://rclutz.wordpress.com/2015/04/13/climate-pacemaker-the-amoc/
I constantly see references to “thermodynamics” however, I have not seen any reference to the effect I was taught in thermodynamics of heat transfer in a heat exchanger about fluid flow in a pipe. In a pipe, tube, tank, etc. even with rapid fluid flow, the water on the surface is essentially stationary – not moving at all. This has an insulating effect in that it slows down the transfer of heat to the flowing medium (water, etc.) If not taken into consideration in high temperature boilers this effect can cause failure of the tubing.
I and I am sure most reading this have seen this effect in the atmosphere. Standing up you feel a breeze on your face and body, Laying down, flat on the ground – you feel nothing. No breeze at all. This effect is even used as advice for people caught in a severe storm or tornado – Get out of you car and lay down flat on the ground.
So, just what does this effect have on global warming science and calculations? How much does it factor into the so called “base” greenhouse effect of the atmosphere (you know, the 33 degrees)? Don’t tell me it does not exist, you use it and rely on it every time you hit a gulf ball.
@Mr. brain
-for the sake of skeptics here and everywhere, please try not to ‘Do a Daniel’
i.e. Unlike Daniel, its good to read the writing before commenting, esp that which follows Figure 2 above
I had read that and got the impression that they were only concerned with the atmosphere at/above 1 meter I.e. “but the IPCC only deal with conditions at the Stevenson Screen from 1.25 to 2 meters and above. ” In water systems a layer thinner than paper can cause utter destruction. My google searches have been unable to lead me to information on the last mm or even inch for air. Even though they use the same and similar terms, they kind of lump all of the area below 1 meter together. a Reynolds number for that are would not work, IMHO. If I did that with water flow I would design a disaster. Would appreciate any good links.
“…you hit a gulf ball.”
usurbrain, you mean GOLF right? Unless you are playing down in Florida then you could hit a gulf ball.
The blasted new tablet I am using likes to guess the words I am typing when using the touch-screen keyboard and auto finishes them. Worse yet, when I see them and correct them, it changes them back to the one it wants again! It thinks it knows what I am writing and what word I should. Have found no way to shut it off.
The joy of auto-correct …
http://media.tumblr.com/9fce62e9b79710b7323dec08dab7983d/tumblr_inline_njca04LsIG1t6a1wv.gif
usurbrain April 14, 2015 at 7:51 am
The water in your simple heat exchanger example is in liquid form, sensible heat applies, 1.0 Btu/lb-F. For a 50% glycol mix, 0.85 Btu/lb-F.
Consider what happens in a steam condenser or wet cooling tower. Latent heat of evaporation/condensation moves heat at about 1,000 Btu/lb. Consult the psychrometric properties of moist air. Trane’s commercial web site has a nice interactive app.
A 30% change in humidity, 20% to 50%, moves 4.31 Btu/lb without a temperature change, i.e. isothermal. If the grains/lb dry air stay constant, no moisture added by evaporation to the air, that same 4.31 Btu/lb heat transfer would raise dry bulb by over 17 F.
That’s the fundamental problem with the popular greenhouse analogy, it does not account for the power of humidity to absorb/release heat and act as a thermostat or moderate/modulate the temperature.
IPCC AR TS.6 admits they don’t understand this.
(I’m using my BSME and 35 years of actually applying it.)
Finally someone that has at least though about some of my questions/concerns. My training was in Nuclear Engineering 50 years ago and just had one course in thermo and one in Heat Transfer/Fluid Flow. And, talking about “the power of humidity to absorb/release heat” I have never seen any AGW believers talking about the three (four) states of water and the heat of fusion, sublimation and vaporization and the mechanisms that the changes from one state to the other has on heat transportation through the atmosphere. When a tube gets hot enough to cause nucleate boiling massive amounts of heat can be transferred.
I have read about rivers of water carrying more water than the Amazon river in the upper atmosphere. What happens when that water (vapor) turns to liquid? or the liquid turns into ice? the latent heat has to come from/go somewhere. I see gazillions of BTUs taken from the warm parts of the ocean and dumped over land thousands of miles away by these rivers. Would they not have an effect similar to the ocean currents? How are they modeled in AGW models? But all I read about is 2 degrees of temperature change, My electronic, solid-state microprocessor thermostat is actually not much more accurate than that, on that is on a daily basis! Even before the furnace starts pumping out heat on a very cold day the change can be more than a full degree (from max to min) inside the house.
You are told to lay flat on the ground in a tornado so that you won’t be hit by flying debris.
Having lain on the ground during a light breeze, I can assure you that you can still feel the breeze. It may be less, but it is not gone.
Here is another effect of advection to ponder. The ARGO buoys allegedly follow a consistent mass of water and report its time rate of temperature change. The IPCC would interpret this to mean the partial derivative with respect to time. In fact, what the buoys measure is total time derivative of temperature. There is an advective influence on the total measurement that derives from a term like the dot product of buoy velocity against horizontal temperature gradient. If buoys preferentially move with respect to the water mass across isotherms, then there is the possibility of confounding steady horizontal drift with time rate of temperature change. Since buoys are buoyant they will respond to inclinations in ocean surface. Sea surface inclination and horizontal temperature gradient are correlated–I see the potential for a warm bias in ARGO data because of advection of buoys.
Kevin, if our land based thermometers moved both laterally and vertically, I think I would see the potential for a bias in their observations as well, so I agree with you.
Fortunately our land based climate stations do not move.
Unfortunately we move them via adjustments and computer algorithms, and choice of stations used ever changing.
“Unfortunately we move them via adjustments and computer algorithms, and choice of stations used ever changing.”
And yet the satellites are said to be less reliable and/or accurate than these surface station records.
This makes no sense to me, if the idea is to objectively measure the actual temperature and trends.
What say you?
Evaporation is a negative feedback, cooling the ocean and atmosphere.