Cold Air Rises – How Wrong Are Our Global Climate Models?

From Scitechdaily

By University of California Davis May 6, 2020

The lightness of water vapor buffers climate warming in the tropics.

Conventional knowledge has it that warm air rises while cold air sinks. But a study from the University of California, Davis, found that in the tropical atmosphere, cold air rises due to an overlooked effect — the lightness of water vapor. This effect helps to stabilize tropical climates and buffer some of the impacts of a warming climate.

The study, published today (May 6, 2020) in the journal Science Advances, is among the first to show the profound implications water vapor buoyancy has on Earth’s climate and energy balance.

The study found that the lightness of water vapor increases Earth’s thermal emission by about 1-3 watts per square meter over the tropics. That value compares with the amount of energy captured by doubling carbon dioxide in the atmosphere.

“It’s well-known that water vapor is an important greenhouse gas that warms the planet,” said senior author Da Yang, an assistant professor of atmospheric sciences at UC Davis and a joint faculty scientist with Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory. “But on the other hand, water vapor has a buoyancy effect which helps release the heat of the atmosphere to space and reduce the degree of warming. Without this lightness of water vapor, the climate warming would be even worse.”

Humid air is lighter than dry air under the same temperature and pressure conditions. This is called the vapor buoyancy effect. This study discovered this effect allows cold, humid air to rise, forming clouds and thunderstorms in Earth’s tropics. Meanwhile, warm, dry air sinks in clear skies. Earth’s atmosphere then emits more energy to space than it otherwise would without vapor buoyancy.

Full article here

Here is the abstract from the paper which can be found here.

Abstract

Moist air is lighter than dry air at the same temperature, pressure, and volume because the molecular weight of water is less than that of dry air. We call this the vapor buoyancy effect. Although this effect is well documented, its impact on Earth’s climate has been overlooked. Here, we show that the lightness of water vapor helps to stabilize tropical climate by increasing the outgoing longwave radiation (OLR). In the tropical atmosphere, buoyancy is horizontally uniform. Then, the vapor buoyancy in the moist regions must be balanced by warmer temperatures in the dry regions of the tropical atmosphere. These higher temperatures increase tropical OLR. This radiative effect increases with warming, leading to a negative climate feedback. At a near present-day surface temperature, vapor buoyancy is responsible for a radiative effect of 1 W/m2 and a negative climate feedback of about 0.15 W/m2 per kelvin.

HT/Clyde Spencer

240 thoughts on “Cold Air Rises – How Wrong Are Our Global Climate Models?

        • This study discovered this effect allows cold, humid air to rise, forming clouds and thunderstorms in Earth’s tropics.

          No, this study did not discover that. It’s basic meteorology. How tropical storms work and what causes the column of moist air to rise is well understood in principal.

          Willis Eschenbach has been saying for years here, how tropical storms act as regulation mechanism for surface temperature and I don’t think he claims to have invented the idea.

          It seems the only thing which may be new here is someone ran a computer model to estimate a magnitude for the effect and then dressed it up as global warming would be even worse if we lived on another planet.

          • They modified a climate model by NCAR to include an effect of water vapor buoyancy. It is models all the way down.

          • Despite the useless PR from Davis, written as usual by a media studies freshman undergrad, the paper looks like a good attempt to fill the gap in computer models by actually modelling thunderstorms at high spacial resolution.

            This may reduce some of the “parameter” guessing and single ‘lapse rate’ going on in models which cannot model the processes which are the most important factors of climate and just make them to fit expected results.

            Sadly they only use a 2D model. Maybe someone can find them some CPU time to do the same thing in 3D.

          • Exactly! Willis described this effect in his article along with the Hadley Cells as thermostat of the earth.
            And Whack!
            “…Without this lightness of water vapor, the climate warming would be even worse.”
            no “real” science without reference to the dogma!
            Thank God we live on the water planet and not on Mars!

          • Greg
            The important points are that they provide a quantitative estimate of the related effects and note that the current GCMs do not take this into account.

          • Greg
            From the full article, “Contemporary cloud-resolving and general circulation models have the physics necessary to simulate the vapor buoyancy feedback.” What is necessary is for the modelers to explicitly incorporate this observation and assess how it affects their outputs.

          • They modified a climate model by NCAR to include an effect of water vapor buoyancy. It is models all the way down.

            So why didn’t the NCAR model include “buoyancy” aka density already? I mean when you are modelling a convection/advection in a mixture of gases you need to know things like mass and density right off the bat.

            You know a model based on “basic physics” kinda needs to take account of basic physical properties.

          • Dr William Gray pointed out long ago that any warming induced evaporation would enhance convection across the planet. His conclusion was this would be a negative feedback on the CO2 greenhouse effect cutting it by at least half. Of course, a big part of this is the lightness of water vapor.

            When I’ve explained this to climate alarmists they always deny it. Now what are they going to do?

          • When I’ve explained this to climate alarmists they always deny it. Now what are they going to do?

            Put out a paper where they find that its worse than we thought.

            Old habits die hard.

          • Greg
            You asked, “So why didn’t the NCAR model include “buoyancy” aka density already?” I have no idea. You need to ask that question of the modelers.

    • Cold air can be humid. Spend some time in a dry environment at 0F then go to a humid environment at 20F and tell me which one is more uncomfortable. (hint: though 20F warmer, it’ll “feel” much more uncomfortable and you’ll swear the cold goes straight through your jacket and into your bones.)

      • Yep. Had that exact effect or similar when, during my Post-doc in Edmonton, Alberta I went back for Christmas and New year in London. Bone-chilling indeed.

        • philincalifornia
          Mark Twain famously said that the coldest Winter he had ever experienced was a Summer in San Francisco. The cold fog that rolls in from the Pacific can be uncomfortable.

          • Indeed. In fact you can spot the Canadians and Brit tourists in the summer. Locals are wearing warm jackets whereas they’re enjoying the San Francisco fog in shorts and t-shirts.

          • Hi Clyde!
            I use this comment connection to send you a comment I just had posted to James McGinn …

            Regards Jürgen

            Jürgen Michele
            Your comment is awaiting moderation.
            May 17, 2020 at 12:56 am
            Hi James McGinn! – the self-proclaimed Genius
            Obviously you have some confused meteorological background!
            I had given you the best model available these days: http://go.vaisala.com/humiditycalculator/5.0/
            This is the calculation sheet for density of air. Density differences are driving the atmosphere.
            You are not aware of the correct influence of water. In air there are always free water molecules as you pointed out yourself.
            Rising “hot” air has not droplets. The equilibrium is far in the range of individual molecules.
            Before condensation happens the air must be “oversaturated”.
            Best condensation nucleus are biological spores. But this need already about 1K lower saturation temperature.
            Humid air – at the same temperature and pressure – has a lower density compared to dry air!
            Calculate the difference using the given calculation sheet by Vaisala. This company is the supplier for humidity measuring devices in sounding ballopons.
            Being a Chemical Engineer I have some knowledge about evaporation and condensation.
            Regards Juergen
            Juergen.michele@jade-hs.de
            PS:
            Check this link for:
            An engineer’s note to the community of meteorologists April 15th,
            2013 Supplemented: August 17th, 2017: Back to the roots
            and
            Some nonsense about humid air (clouds) from Scientific American:
            https://de.quora.com/Why-do-clouds-float
            https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/why-do-clouds-float-when/
            Some Nonsense from Scientific American
            https://www.scientificamerican.c…

          • Jurgen: I had given you the best model available these days: http://go.vaisala.com/humiditycalculator/5.0/

            James: In my opinion, the “best model available” can be found at this link:
            Isaac Newton was a human being
            http://www.thunderbolts.info/forum/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=8&t=16306
            As you can see it is very different from your model.

            Jurgen: This is the calculation sheet for density of air.

            James: This is worthless/misleading if you do not know for certain that the moisture that is suspended in the atmosphere is genuinely gaseous.

            Jurgen: Density differences are driving the atmosphere.

            James: There is little drama in the density differences. The magnitude of flow that is actually observed in the atmosphere is orders of magnitude greater than what can be explained by density differences. Differential pressure is the driving force, the energy of atmospheric flow. Structural capabilities—vortices—are the means by which the flow of the atmosphere is isolated from friction to achieve some very high wind speeds. The emergence of these structural capabilities is the result of the surface tension properties of H2O being maximally expressed on wind shear boundaries.

            Jurgen: Being a Chemical Engineer I have some knowledge about evaporation and condensation.

            James: Being a scientist I am well aware of how easy it is too fool oneself into believing one understands what in actuality one just believes.

            James McGinn / Genius
            Correcting Common Misconceptions About Energy in the Atmosphere
            https://anchor.fm/james-mcginn/episodes/Correcting-Common-Misconceptions-About-Energy-in-the-Atmosphere-e9moua

          • To James McGinn the self-proclaimed Genius!

            You are the greatest fool on earth! Calling others names: morons etc.
            You recycle only your own claims and running in circles …
            In Germany we have a saying: Du siehst den Splitter in des anderen Auge – aber nicht den Balken vor dem eigenen Kopf!
            Translated: You see the splinter in your neighbor’s eye, but not the wooden beam in front of your head …
            Also you do not look into what other people are telling you.
            You are not Newton and not Einstein – but you are also not a scientist!
            You claim to be a physicist: physicist are generally educated and specialized only in one field.
            “Physicists now nothing about every thing”
            You don’t check “your science”

            “James: Being a scientist I am well aware of how easy it is too fool oneself into believing one understands what in actuality one just believes.” ???

            “In God we trust – others bring data”!!!
            Where is your patent – or even patent proposal?

            I realize how you earn some money: it is the internet and your Google Book, where naïve humans may pay one Dollar for that nonsense. I will not waste my time anymore to communicate to you – but tell my friends about your nonsense.

            Humid air is lighter compared to dry air!
            Density differences are driving weather and climate. A fluid mechanics professor is telling that!

          • Jurgen: To James McGinn the self-proclaimed Genius!
            James: That’s me!!!
            Jurgen: You are the greatest fool on earth! Calling others names: morons etc.
            You recycle only your own claims and running in circles …
            James: LOL. The tendency to recycle claims (and absolute refusal to challenge these claims with empirical methods) is the reason millions of millions of pretentious morons believe the absurd convection model. All you morons know how to do is parrot back each other’s stupidity. All you got is group think.
            Jurgen: In Germany we have a saying: Du siehst den Splitter in des anderen Auge – aber nicht den Balken vor dem eigenen Kopf!
            James: Science involves facts. Not slogans.
            Jurgen: Translated: You see the splinter in your neighbor’s eye, but not the wooden beam in front of your head … Also you do not look into what other people are telling you.
            James: I already know what you morons will say. Science pretenders are extremely predictable and common. They/you far outnumber real scientists, like myself. You won’t actually discuss the details of what you believe because these details would reveal that you don’t really understand it. You just believe it.
            Jurgen: You are not Newton and not Einstein
            James: Newton and Einstein were not me either.
            Jurgen: – but you are also not a scientist!
            James: You got nothing, you lazy ass.
            Jurgen: You claim to be a physicist: physicist are generally educated and specialized only in one field. “Physicists now nothing about every thing” You don’t check “your science”“James: Being a scientist I am well aware of how easy it is too fool oneself into believing one understands what in actuality one just believes.” ???“In God we trust – others bring data”!!! Where is your patent – or even patent proposal?
            James: Where is yours?
            Jurgen: I realize how you earn some money: it is the internet and your Google Book, where naïve humans may pay one Dollar for that nonsense. I will not waste my time anymore to communicate to you – but tell my friends about your nonsense. Humid air is lighter compared to dry air!
            James: It’s heavier.
            Jurgen: Density differences are driving weather and climate. A fluid mechanics professor is telling that!
            James: Why would I take your word on this? Show us the freeking proof. You can’t. You can’t because it doesn’t freeking exist. All we have is a bunch of consensus-based morons mindlessly repeating a vague narrative and agreeing to agree.
            Jurgen, listen to this:
            Meteorologists Slyly Refuse to Discuss Storm Theory
            https://anchor.fm/james-mcginn/episodes/Meteorologists-Slyly-Refuse-to-Discuss-Storm-Theory-edslkh

            James McGinn / Genius
            President, Solving Tornadoes

      • Jeremiah
        Definitely! When I was working in the ice tunnel in the Greenland glacier, the temperature was 27 F and it was bone chilling because the RH was high. There were hoar frost crystals the size of my hand, a foot thick on the ceiling, and exposed ice all around. The breathing from the survey crew added to the RH.

        • So, at higher temps the opposite is true? 80 F and high humidity is more uncomfortable than 90 F and low humidity? Your sweat evaporates more easily in low humidity and cools your body, no?

          • Pretty much. It’s all about the body’s thermal balance. Is it trying to retain heat or reject heat?

          • Exactly. More humid air is usually more unpleasant than dry air of same temperature. This is regardless of temperature.
            Humidity is not felt only around 23C (73F) where heat loss of human body is equal of energy created by metabolism.
            Too dry air can be unpleasant too, because of drying skin, lungs and airways.

    • It reads better if you replace “cold” with “cooler” and “warm” with “warmer”.

    • The North Pacific begs to differ. Ever been to Seattle? I don’t recommend going there anymore. Go to Astoria and visit Lewis and Clark State Park.

  1. Warming would be even worse? Worse than what? That there has been warming and that this is a bad thing seems to be a given. In fact what warming there has been has been, not excessive at all, and mostly beneficial. So in what way could being even more beneficial be described as worse?

  2. I’d think that Willis would find this an interesting variable to his theories on tropical Pacific thermostat.

  3. This is apparent over water in still conditions where the molecules from the water surface evaporate into dry air the water loses the latent heat of vaporization the cooled water descends to be replaced by ambient temperature water while the humid air rises away from the water surface to be replaced by drier ambient temperature air and the cycle continues.

    • Excerpted from above published article:

      Humid air is lighter than dry air under the same temperature and pressure conditions. This is called the vapor buoyancy effect. This study discovered this effect allows cold, humid air to rise, forming clouds and thunderstorms in Earth’s tropics. Meanwhile, warm, dry air sinks in clear skies. Earth’s atmosphere then emits more energy to space than it otherwise would without vapor buoyancy.

      “DUH”, …. what is the name of the effect that allows warm, humid air to rise, forming clouds and thunderstorms?

      • “DUH”, …. what is the name of the effect that allows warm, humid air to rise, forming clouds and thunderstorms”

        It’s called moist convection, and is driven by the release of the LH of condensation within a rising column of moist air as it cools/expands.
        Different thing.

        • Anthony Banton – May 10, 2020 at 10:44 am

          It’s called moist convection, and is driven by the release of the LH of condensation within a rising column of moist air as it cools/expands.

          Different thing.

          So, it is called the “vapor buoyancy effect” if it allows cold, humid air to rise, forming clouds and thunderstorms in Earth’s tropics.

          But it is called the “moist convection effect” if it allows warm, humid air to rise, forming clouds and thunderstorms in Earth’s tropics.

          So tell me, Anthony, …… at what temperature does that rising humid air mass “switch” between being designated “cold” verses being ”warm”, ……. or being designated “warm” verses being ”cold”?

          Is there an actual “temperature” that the warm/cold switch occurs …. or is it just a “feeling” temp?

          Curious minds would like to know.

  4. Can someone help me understand why the variable “Volume” is needed to define part of the way colder air is lighter?

      • Or in other words PV/nR determines what T is. What three things are not used when describing “warming” by CAGW proponents. P,V, and n. All three of which directly influence T. Instead all three are assumed to be constant even while they say n is changing(i.e. adding CO2). Things that make you go hmmm.

  5. If there is cold air rising due to water vapor in the tropics would that explain the lack of the tropospheric hotspot that the models predict?

    • Well, Australians seem to survive just fine. Elderly in Florida and Arizona seem to survive just fine. Africans seem to survive just fine, despite no air conditioning and limited water, food, shelter, and clothing. While I prefer dry and under 100F, I have played tennis and golf above 100F in humid environments. I’m sure I can toughen up a bit if this warming ever happens. 90% of Canadians live within 100 miles of the US border because it’s too damn cold up north. I’m sure they’d like it if things warm up a bit.

        • Rick K – that’s always puzzled me. Why would the climate change cult be so strong on what Patrick Moore calls the coldest country on earth? Why would exist there at all?
          I always pictured Canadians as very practical, sensible people but I’ve seen placard waving crowds of them protesting for more action on climate change – proof that commonsense just ain’t that common.

          • In Canada the media has been taken in by CAGW as well as the politicians. In the media you rarely see a skeptic article. Three political parties, Liberals, NDP, and Greens hijacked the last election campaign to “climate emergency” and ignored the deficits by the Liberals. The Conservatives know the truth but are afraid to use it.
            Result is the public is misinformed. The CAGW have also got control of most of our institutions here.
            People DO NOT CHECK what they hear.

      • I’m sure they’d like it if things warm up a bit.

        uhmm…more like a lot – had snow for 5 minutes yesterday in Niagara Falls, chickens were annoyed

      • According to Mike Moore we live close to the USA border as a prelude to invasion😀😀

      • Jeremiah, we would indeed appreciate some warmth
        For all the global warming folks

        Get ready for the next ice age

        Number of consecutive days fall to spring where the daily high in Calgary did not exceed 20C (according to Environment and Climate Change Canada)

        2019-2020: 219 days
        2018-2019: 185 days
        2017-2018: 179 days
        2016-2017: 176 days
        2015-2017: 163 days
        2014-2015: 158 days

        Increased by almost 2 months
        Hit 20.1c April 30 and might not again until end of May. So if you change statement to 20.1c we might hit 250?
        Snowing right now

        No wonder I have issues growing tomatoes last few years

        No heat

      • The northernmost point of 35 US States is farther north than the southernmost point in Canada.

        • Canada is South of Detroit. At least Six states are further north than Maine it might be eight Michigan and Wisconsin may edge outMaine too.

        • I remember seeing a sign at Pt Pelee that said something like “beyond this sign you are further south than the northern border of California”.

      • Don’t forget that as a species, our natural habitat is Ethiopia/Sudan, ie a circa 35/36 degC climate (circa a little less than 100degF). We are only able to inhabit outside our natural habitat by adapting ourselves with clothes (animal skins of old), erecting buildings (caves of old) and fitting them with central heating (fires of old).

        A warmer planet would obviously suit us as a species.

        • richard
          We didn’t just get off the boat. You are giving today’s temperatures, not the temperatures of when Homo sapiens evolved. During the Pleistocene, the Sahara was composed of lakes and rivers with the variety of animals now found only outside the Sahara.

  6. Also outside the tropics. In the summertime on the western plains the cooler but moist air from the Gulf of Mexico encounters hot but dry air from the desert Southwest producing a dry line. This is the locus of often violent thunderstorms. A similar situation occurs in southwestern Europe, where the dry line is classified as a “cold front”, and probably many other places.

    See e.g. Carlson, 1968, Conditions for the Occurrence of Severe Local Storms, Tellus, XX,2,p.203-227.

  7. “in the tropical atmosphere, cold air rises due to an overlooked effect — the lightness of water vapor. This effect helps to stabilize tropical climates and buffer some of the impacts of a warming climate.”

    Or is it just the ye olde heat transfer due to the tropics creating a lot of water vapor that absorbs latent heat and carries it to the higher latitudes by air circulation where the water vapor condenses and gives up the latent heat?

      • Chaamjamal:
        ye olde heat transfer due to the tropics creating a lot of water vapor that absorbs latent heat and carries it to the higher latitudes by air circulation where the water vapor condenses and gives up the latent heat?

        Stephen Skinner:
        Come on now, that just sounds like science.

        James McGinn:
        It’s not science. There is no empirical verification of “latent heat.” It’s just something that was once conjectured. And then it just got grandfathered into the prevailing narrative. It’s science fiction.

        James McGinn / Genius

    • Bingo. The paper authors are scared more water means more radiative heat retained, while ignoring the huge transfer upward by convection and latency. More heat in means faster water cycle and shedding to space.

      • Ron
        I’m afraid that you either didn’t read the article, or didn’t understand it if you did. They specifically point out that the water vapor buoyancy effect leads to greater cooling in the dry, descending part of the cell. That is the opposite of your criticism.

    • Yes, I have a problem with them saying the cold air rises. Either they are simply talking about water vapor rising, or they are suggesting that the rising water vapor carries N2 and O2 along with it. I seriously doubt the later. So boiled down, they are just restating your second paragraph.

    • So, this effect has been documented for a long tine. Are they saying it isn’t in the GCM ensemble?

      • Jean
        They said that explicitly: “Contemporary cloud-resolving and general circulation models have the physics necessary to simulate the vapor buoyancy feedback.” However, the effect isn’t implemented.

        You might try reading at least the discussion section of the full paper.

      • Jean
        From the abstract above, “Although this effect is well documented, its impact on Earth’s climate has been overlooked.”

  8. Evaporation absorbs energy (heat) at a constant temperature. The “vapor buoyancy effect” causes this air to rise. As it rises, it expands and cools. It cools further by conduction and radiation until the vapor condenses, releasing the energy that it carried. The liquid (or solid) water returns to the earth to begin the cycle again. This cycle “is well documented, ” but “its impact on Earth’s climate has been overlooked.” My God! Billions of $’s on “climate models” and this effect has been “overlooked”. “Say, it ain’t so, Joe!”

    • As the liquid water returns to earth, it absorbs CO² and dissolves it in the ocean.

      • Natural acidity of unpolluted rainwater actually has a pH of about 5.6 (acidic) and is distilled and fresh. That must affect shallow corals when a foot of cooler rain dumps after a big storm. Lot’s of variables going on, including minor changing sea levels due to El Nino and La Nina cycling.

      • What is the compound that hits the water?

        H2O + CO2 = ?????? (H2CO3 +++)

        Does it only absorb CO2 or is nitrogen and oxygen also absorbed?

        As can be seen, I am no chemist just an interested observer

        • The rainwater will be at equilibrium with the surrounding atmosphere, so it will be saturated with both N2 and O2. Similarly, the CO2 in the water will be at equilibrium with that gas in the air. Since rainwater, unlike terrestrial water, is free of buffering ions such as carbonate or silicate, the small concentration of CO2 will render it slightly acidic.

    • Much of that precipitation is revaporized by friction on its way down and it creates wind – more energy retention.

  9. “ Without this lightness of water vapor, the climate warming would be even worse.”

    I do wish scientists, or those who purport to be scientists, would stop making value judgments. “Climate warming” would certainly be greater but it is not for Da Yang, speaking in his capacity as an atmospheric scientist, to make any judgment as to whether that is good or bad or in what context it might or might not be “worse”. These are emotional/ethical/moral-type opinions not FACTS which is what science is supposed to concern itself with.

      • Bingo! Hi Nick. I wondered who would be the first to bring up Hadley cells on this thread. Turns out it was you.

        Stay safe and healthy, all.
        Bob

      • It’s science, Nick. It’s only dumb IF the models include this factor. If you think they do, please prove it. Give us the relevant lines of code.

          • Thanks, Nick. But there’s still some slop in the algorithm:

            1001 “Note that this correction as implemented makes a small change to the water vapor as well.
            1002 The pressure correction could be formulated to leave the water vapor unchanged.”

    • Wet air rises at the equator. Precipitation happens. Dry air descends on the tropics. By the time the air gets back to the surface its temperature is higher than it was when it rose from the equator.

      As far as I can tell, the above is uncontroversial and not newsworthy.

  10. Wait a minute, I thought “the science is settled!”, now we have just recognized an important heat release mechanism? By the way, humid air being less dense is why pilots include humidity in density altitude calculations, to know if their airplane flies when it reaches the end of the runway (actually they monitor the airspeed at the decision point). Stay sane and safe.

    • I have always been puzzled about humid air being less dense and therefore produce less lift in flying things. Just seems it should be heavier. Just about everything else gets heavier when water is added.

      • Density of air at 20 C and 1 atmosphere 1.00 [defined]
        Density of water vapour at 20C and 1 atmosphere 0.62

        Humid air at 20c will be less dense than dry air

      • Density altitude includes humidity effects, and the results can be startling, provided you are doing something that exposes the difference. I have flown the same model airplane at least once a month every month for twenty years. Flying in 90F 90% humidity summer air, the plane is sluggish, has stall speeds above 20 mph, requires 200 ft of runway for takeoff, and cannot sustain a climb-out angle above 40 degrees. Flying in 0F 50% humidity, the plane is snappy, stall speed is just above 10 mph, the plane leaves the ground in 20 ft, and the plane has unlimited vertical performance (accelerates going straight up.) Same exact aeroplane.

        The wing generates lift by accelerating air molecules downward in sufficient quantity each second that the change in momentum of the air molecules outweighs gravity, literally. (Bernoulli didn’t know crap about airplanes.) As the air gets warmer and less dense, there are fewer air molecules available, so in order to encounter enough of them per second to overcome gravity, you have to fly faster. As lighter water molecules replace heavier oxygen and nitrogen, again the air is less dense, which requires even more speed to generate the same lift.

        On the other hand, the engine is a simple air pump. The propulsive force is expanding nitrogen, which is heated by using the oxygen to burn nitromethane. In cold dense air, each stroke of the piston ingests more nitrogen to heat, and more oxygen to burn. As the air warms and gets less dense, there is less nitrogen to heat and less oxygen to burn. The same thing happens as humidity goes up, as the water vapor displaces both nitrogen and oxygen.

        So, let’s recap. Warm air requires more speed and hence more power to generate the same lift required to fly as in cold air. But the engine produces less power per stroke in warm air as there are fewer molecules available to burn and heat to run the air pump. Water vapor does the same by displacing the heavier molecules needed to hold up the wing and the oxygen needed to burn the fuel. Or in crude equation form +heat or +humidity => +speed, but +heat or +humidity => -engine power. When the density altitude gets high enough, the engine no longer produces enough power for the plane to fly.

        • Thomas Edwardson: The wing generates lift by accelerating air molecules downward in sufficient quantity each second that the change in momentum of the air molecules outweighs gravity, literally.

          James McGinn: I agree. Both the top of the wing and the bottom of the wing do this, in different ways. The air molecues miss the top of the wing and fall behind it. On the bottom of the wing the air molecule bounce off the surface downward.

          TE: As lighter water molecules replace heavier oxygen and nitrogen, again the air is less dense,

          JMcG: There are no lighter water molecules in earth’s atmosphere. You are the victim of a very popular myth. Steam (monomolecular H2O) does not exist at the low temperatures of earth’s atmosphere. All water in the atmosphere in the form of droplet, some so small the air appears invisible/dry. Consequently moist air is ALWAYS heavier/denser than drier air, all other factors being the same.

          Because of the surface tension properties of H2O, nanodroplets when they are very small are hard. And, as such, they have a low heat capacity. But as they get higher and the pressure/temperature goes down the combine into larger, more liquidy droplets that have a higher heat capacity.

          It is the high heat capacity of the more liquidy droplets in saturated air that reduces aerodynamic lift. (Reduction of lift in aircraft has nothing whatsover to do with density differences. This notion is just a pseudoscientific myth.)

          TE: So, let’s recap. Warm air requires more speed and hence more power to generate the same lift required to fly as in cold air.

          JMcG: This is wrong. The temperature of the air is not the significant factor as regards reduction of lift in moist air. The most significant factor is the size and quantity of energy absorbing, liquidy H2O droplets therein. For more detail read this:
          The Real Reason Moist Air Reduces Aerodynamic Lift
          http://www.thunderbolts.info/forum/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=10&t=16652

          Kobe Died Because of Hubris
          How Kobe Bryant and Linus Pauling Are Connected By Tragedy
          https://anchor.fm/james-mcginn/episodes/Kobe-Died-Because-of-Hubris-eautj6

          James McGinn / Genius

  11. Is this a case of making up rules to make something fit a dogma a bit like making the Earth the centre of the Solar System pre Copernicus?
    Atomic weights of some atmospheric components
    Nitrogen = 14
    Oxygen = 16
    Water = 18
    Any glider pilot will tell you that unstable hot air will rise and on particular days it will do so at a staggering rate to form CBs. That creates a drop on pressure at the base and over a wide area pulling air in and down, irrispective of whether that surrounding air is warm or not. Pressure is a stronger force than the imbalance caused be temperature differences. What have I missued?

    • N2 = 28
      O2 = 32

      ….. not that this matters when climate sensitivity has never been measured to be anything distinct from zero.

    • N2 = 28
      O2 = 32
      0.8 x 28 + 0.2 x 32 = 28.8 (approximate molecular weight of dry air.)

      Adding 18 molecular weight water vapor to the mix does lower the MW of humid air. Of course the max % that is normally reached is about 4% H2O so the effect is fairly small and easily over powered by density differences that result from temperature difference.

      • Finally, someone who can calculate a MW. Well done.

        the effect is fairly small and easily over powered by density differences that result from temperature difference.

        I checked. If I get my sums right, the density difference caused by 4.0% water is equivalent to a ~10 degree rise in temperature. (I based it on a temp of 300K, which is close to room temp.) This looks really substantial.
        Truth to tell, this whole “Cold Air Rises” theme makes me dizzy. Sit on a beach in the tropics and watch the air pick up moisture and head up into the clouds. (Clouds, how about that?)
        True, the air does not warm up (maybe it does), but it is certainly warmer than at 5, 000 ft, or 10,000 feet, where it ends up going.

        Bonus Points:
        Calculate the upward force of a 1.0 km cube of air going from 2.0% water to 3% water.
        Now we know what powers thunderstorms.

        • philincalifornia May 10, 2020 at 8:41 am
          Rick C PE May 10, 2020 at 8:45 am
          TonyL May 10, 2020 at 9:36 am
          Thank you. I’ve learnt something new and see my error. Surely then the weight is insignificant as the only way all the different elements would settle out based on weight would be in a completely still atmosphere at a steady temperature with no weather, maybe a flat earth somewhere?. There was some study done a few decades ago where air samples were taken at altitude. It was noticed how much heavier than air particles there were including small spiders. It was in the National Geographic when it used to be informative.
          Either way, the diagram on the actual article implies that the rising air going into the clouds is becuase it is moist and not becuase of warm unstable air. The descending air is warmer because it is dryer and based on the Dry Adiabatic Lapse Rate it will be warmer than the original rising air, therefore the rising air is not cooler as such. The rising air is still warmer compared to its immediate surroundings. In addition the force of the rising air will suck anything reasonably light enough but must be replaced so there will be sinking air somewhere. How would these researchers explain Cloud Streets?

    • Actually the components are N2 and O2. Their respective molecular weights are 28 and 32.

    • N (At. Wt. 14) doesn’t exist at any significant concentration in the atmosphere. Ditto, O (At. Wt. 16).

    • Nitrogen and oxygen go around in pairs, so the MOLECULAR weights are 28 and 32 respectively.

  12. In other words, just one more pie e of evidence to suggest the universe was created with intelligent design instead of accidental reverse entropy.

  13. IMO The problem with what we quantify is we quantify the WRONG METRIC . Dr John Cahir from PSU has been saying this since I was in college, that its WET BULB TEMPERATATURES and SATURATION MIXING RATIOS that need to be quantified as the real climate metrics. . Increased water vapor may cool temperatures to the wet bulb when the air is saturdated, but those wet bulb temperatures are also coming up. This means the base temperatures are rising you can see that plainly in the tendency for nightime lows to be higher than the daytime maxes vs normal in warm patterns. But that would be expected since the warmer it is, the harder it is to get warmer, That is why forecasts for increases in temperatures in the tropics of up to 7 degrees are likely out to lunch. Its one thing to warm the arctic in its cold season, quite another to try that in the tropics , which if you look at the temperatures since 2005 in the winter season you can plainly see where a huge amount of the warming is coming from, In areas where the wet bulb is impacted more by WV. Increased water vapor makes a huge difference in temperatures in colder drier areas. Think about a cloudy vs clear night and then think about what goes on in the arctic if there is more moisture. The air is more unstable, Pressures are lower, the air more mixed, All these things conribute to make it “look much warmer” If you look at Saturation mixing ratios you can see that the increase of just .1 gram/kg at -40 correlates to a rise to-30. But as you keep going up the ladder, it takes more and more. But do we bother to quantify what the real measure of WV is? Same thing even where temperatures are near frezing and its nothing, One of the reasons ( besides melting which takes heat out of the air) we see no increase in temperatures in the arctic summers is that the increase in WV while large enough to affect the coldest times of the year does not the warmer times. But its that cooling? No? Why? Wait for the next cold PDO for a couple of years, With naturally higher wet bulbs and base temperatures, if we dry you get hotter summers. The base Wet bulb temps of the nation has likely risen but I suspect about half of what the temperature we use is, I understand the authors premise here but again, while it is limiting heat when its moist, but the wet bulb is higher The problem with the AGW community is they know darn well if we were looking at wet bulbs , the increase, which is most assuredly occurring in low levels, is not nearly as “alarming” as what they can do with the total average. Finally the big thing that is exposing them is the DRYING over the tropics above the level of non divergence. It may be that overall, there is a natural balancing act going on that as humans just looking at what could be the wrong metric over what is a snapshot of time and with virtually nothing to compare it too, conclusions are reached that do not take into account other factors, Why is the climate community not doing WV/ Wet bulb studies, Fat chance cause the results would not look nearly as alarming but I dont think it would mean cooling. One more thing. the fact that its raining more in many places is a sign that as we go up in the atmosphere that “warming” cant be outpacing the low levels. again my main thrust here is my Quixotic journey( I realize I am chasing windmills with the climate community) to push the idea that we should be quantifying wet bulbs for a the true climate metric, I may be biased. Just like I loved Dr Gray and use him as a base line for ideas, Dr John Cahir is the same kind of giant to me. Fat chance people pushing AGW would even consider it Peace be upon all of you and stay well This study though, focused on WV is a huge step in the right direction,

  14. Willis has done excellent work on this subject over the years and it’s nice to see scientists catching up with him on this phenomenon and studying how warming SSTs increase equatorial cloud formation, which increase cloud albedo, and also the huge amount of water-vapor phase shift energy that is blown out to space from TOA.

    Willis’ hypothesis certainly helps explains why the “equatorial hot spot” built into all climate models never occurred.

    • Thermostat as Willis has seen in real life.
      Starts at noon and grows just to cool the equatorial belt. It rains a lot at afternoon.

    • SAMURAI: were that they are catching up, but I’ve been telling Willis for some time that researchers will eventually steal his stuff for making ‘discoveries’.

      That water vapor is lighter than air and has a big effect on temperatures should be one of the earliest of climate phenomena recognized by climate scientists! I’m not even sure that the full effect of evaporation and convection of the moist air created is even fully appreciated by these researchers.

      The open oceans have a maximum temperature they can attain of 31C. As the surface water is being heated by the sun, evaporation increases until, at ~31, the cooling effect of the evaporation is in equilibrium with the sun’s insolation impinging on the surface skin of water.

      Massive voumes of water vapour evolve and rise quickly, the sensible heat (31C) and latent heat of evaporation in this moist air pushes through the lower atmospheric layers (chimney-like) to the upper troposhere/ lower stratosphere where it is able to release its heat more directly to space. This volume is also replaced at the surface with a down draft of cooler air-Willis’s cloud development that reflects insolation followed by thunderstorms. So there is a lot going on here. The modest offering below doesnt capture the lion’s share of the phenomenon.

       “But on the other hand, water vapor has a buoyancy effect which helps release the heat of the atmosphere to space and reduce the degree of warming. Without this lightness of water vapor, the climate warming would be even worse.”

  15. “How Wrong Are Our Global Climate Models?”
    They are not even wrong. A dart board, a ouija board, or chicken bones would be more accurate.

    • The rainwater will be at equilibrium with the surrounding atmosphere, so it will be saturated with both N2 and O2. Similarly, the CO2 in the water will be at equilibrium with that gas in the air. Since rainwater, unlike terrestrial water, is free of buffering ions such as carbonate or silicate, the small concentration of CO2 will render it slightly acidic.

  16. Are the authors of this paper on a rescue mission, preparing the get-out clause for the failure of the Warmista’s warming?

    Without this lightness of water vapor, the climate warming would be even worse

    It would have been as bad as we said but for this effect.

    One wonders when people will start to say “‘old on a minute, ‘aven’t you been telling us that the science is settled?”

    • Without this lightness of water vapor, the climate warming would be even worse.”

      “This is why we were wrong!”

    • Yes Robert of Ottawa,

      “Without this lightness of water vapor, the climate warming would be even worse”

      If it were worse, then it must be better now!

  17. “in the tropical atmosphere, cold air rises due to an overlooked effect — the lightness of water vapor. ”

    Climate modelers have ‘overlooked’ many things about the climate. The climate crisis will fade away as more and more ‘scientists’ from the crisis narrative ‘discover’ what the skeptics have been saying all along, claim the discovery as their own and accept the accolades from their peers.

    “All hail Casiodorus Rex, Dragonslayer!”

  18. They JUST discovered “Moist air is lighter than dry air at the same temperature, pressure, and volume because the molecular weight of water is less than that of dry air.” ???

    Strange, I learned that fifty years ago in my graduate thermodynamics class. Also learned that the molecules in liquid water are held together by relatively strong hydrogen bonds, and its enthalpy of vaporization, 40.65 kJ/mol, is more than five times the energy required to heat the same quantity of water from 0 °C to 100 °C. That provides an massive source of energy transfer from the evaporation of water in the Oceans, cooling them, and transporting that heat, enthalpy, to the upper atmosphere. The Sun causes the water to evaporate, however the evaporation takes some of the enthalpy of evaporation from the water. And that “some of the enthalpy” is MASSIVE. More enthalpy is taken than the Sun adds to the water.
    Because of this lack of knowledge, then these “Scientists” do not understand where the heat is going.

    And we wonder if the Climate models are accurate.

  19. “Conclusions [were] reached that [did] not take into account other factors!”

    Epitaph on the tombstone of the great climate crisis narrative, as well as the COVID-19 response.

  20. cool but warm water saturated air at ground level emits photons at CO2 and H20 wavelengths at an ambient temperature
    This cool humid air rises and cools. Thus forming clouds as dewpoint reached. Some will continue up cooling and radiating to space at a much lower temperature than at ground level. Thus less energy transferred to space.
    Clouds will radiate as a near black body as they always do but they will be at a temperature of the level in the atmosphere as they always are.
    I do not see how rising h2o saturated cold air is much different to rising warm h2o saturated warm air. At the time the mean free path to space is long enough and dry enough to allow the radiation to escape the air temperature will be substantially the same.
    cloud and no cloud shows difference in thermography – clouds are near black body so show a valid temperature sky + co2 +water vapour do not radiate in the bandwidth of thermal cameras so the shown temperature is at minimum of the camera (uncooled in this case). CO2 and H2O will radiate in only “fixed” wavelengths
    https://3.bp.blogspot.com/-GT_Ar-9WWfQ/UNkU2Fb2nBI/AAAAAAAAA1M/NLxj8Rt7yRI/s1600/sky+high+low+cloud.jpg

    • Catch here is not in outgoing radiation, I think that clouds are not substantial source of heat emitted to space, in spite of many opinion here.
      Earth is more less homogeneous source of IR heat.
      Catch is in incoming radiation, where clouds are effectively reflecting most of it. 1300W/m2 in space, but around 50W/m2 on the ground under clouds.
      And it is zero sum game, homogeneous IR heat of Earth is same energy as spotty clear sky vs. clouds incoming energy aka. albedo.
      So yes clouds are main driver of Earth temperature and energy equilibrium.

  21. ‘Although this effect (buoyancy) is well documented, its impact on Earth’s climate has been overlooked.’

    Wow! The most important heat transport mechanism in the earth’s atmosphere has been missing from the Climate Models. No wonder the models are so wonderfully (in-)accurate!

    What can one say about these models
    – Garbage In – Garbage Out.
    – Automated Ignorance.
    – Settled Science

    On November 17, 2018, I posted the following comment on WUWT, which presents an overview of the multiple mechanisms by which water, and not CO2) governs the earth’s climate.

    Dear Willis:
    The answer to your question “Why does the global temperature change so little?” is really quite simple.

    Water!!

    Water has truly remarkable properties that enable the earth’s temperature to be governed in a very narrow temperature range. These are:
    – High heat capacity (4 times that of air)
    – High heat of vaporization
    – Vapor pressure which increases exponentially with temperature
    – As a gas, low density relative to air
    – As a liquid, transparent to solar radiation at high frequencies
    – As a gas, broad absorption and emission frequencies in the infra-red range
    – As a solid, very low emissivity

    These properties, combined with water’s abundance on the earth’s surface, enable water to affect, and govern, the earth’s temperature through the following processes:

    1. As a green-house gas, water vapor prevents the earth from excessive cooling:

    From Monkton (https://wattsupwiththat.com/2018/08/15/climatologys-startling-error-of-physics-answers-to-comments/) water vapor was responsible for approx. 75% of the green-house gas effect (in 1850). Because the vapor pressure of water increases exponentially with temperature this is a self reinforcing effect.

    2. As an energy accumulator, the oceans buffer the earth from rapid changes to the earth’s energy balance:

    The heat capacity of the oceans is 3 orders of magnitude greater than the atmosphere. Due to the transparency of water, much of the sun’s energy goes directly into the deep oceans without being absorbed as heat in the atmosphere. And the time constant for temperature mixing in the oceans is of the order of decades.

    Is it any wonder why people, using simple regressions and not taking into account the effects of this buffer, cannot correlate the temperature record to the most active sun in a 1000 years (from the 1950s to the 1990s)?

    3. By mass transfer cooling:

    The principle mechanism of heat transfer from the earth’s surface is not by radiation, but rather by mass transfer. The very large heat of evaporation of water (2250 kJ/kg) is the principle method of heat transfer from the oceans and terrestrial vegetation to the atmosphere. This water vapor is then transported to the upper atmosphere where it condenses, with much of the heat of condensation being directly radiated into space, bypassing the green-house gases.

    If the earth’s temperature increases, the rate of mass transfer cooling increases as a power function of temperature. Not only does the driving force for mass transfer increase exponentially with temperature, in proportion to the exponential increase in the vapor pressure of water, but the mass transfer coefficient also increases, driven by the density difference between water vapor and the rest of the air.

    Thus if the earth’s temperature increases, mass transfer cooling increases exponentially, transferring the surface heat, not only from the earth’s surface to the upper atmosphere, but also from the tropics to the higher latitudes.

    4. As an insulator:

    Snow is a near perfect insulator, and not only that, it has a very low emissivity. Thus there is little heat loss to space from both the arctic and the ant-arctic When the earth cools, the snow cover increases, reducing the earth’s radiative heat transfer to space.

    In conclusion, water, due to both its abundance and its unique properties, is responsible for governing the earth’s temperature.

    If the heat balance becomes energy deficient, water reduces outgoing radiation by the green-house gas effect and the insulating effect of snow.

    If heat balance has excess energy, water increases outgoing radiation by mass transfer cooling, which increases exponentially with temperature.

    And finally, both of these variants are buffered by the energy storage capacity of the oceans with a time constant of the order of decades.

    How could a simple linear constant called “climate sensitivity” possibly describe the multi-mechanism, time-lagged, highly non-linear climate phenomena driven by water?

    • You omitted one of the most important water features: the inversion in the density curve: maximum density occurs at 4°C, freezing at 0°C. Ice floats!

    • Some thoughts. I feel that somehow the energy, enthalpy, in the water vapor has something to do with the fact that the Temperature increases as you gain altitude in the stratosphere and the thermosphere.
      Also, I feel that the use of the term “Temperature” of the molecules of water, CO2, O2, N etc. means nothing. They will still release their energy [enthalpy] to their surroundings. Surely you have noticed that in a room heated to 72F/20C, with no breeze or air currents, as you walk by a large window your bare arm will feel cold when it is cold outside. I feel this effect even with triple pane windows from three feet away.

      • Well done. 🙂

        So many people are saying “heat transfer” when they should be saying “energy transfer”

        They forget that latent heat, does not represent as heat/temperature.

        ie, just because the water vapour measures as having a lesser temperature, does not mean it holds less energy.

        • And there are rivers of water in the atmosphere, carrying more water than the Amazon River. Where are the rivers in the atmosphere taking this water and what happens to the enthalpy when it turns to snow, ice, rain or back to WV from either of these? Me thinks the “Lost heat from the Ocean” was taken away from the Ocean by evaporation lifted into the sky as WV and warmed the atmosphere by releasing the stored enthalpy.
          Notice that this process is self controlling. If to much water is evaporated then the higher moisture content and “warmer” atmosphere will make more clouds and thus less water is evaporated.

    • dh-mtl, you post is nice overall, but there is one glaring mistake in it. You posted: “Water has truly remarkable properties that enable the earth’s temperature to be governed in a very narrow temperature range. These are: . . . – As a solid, very low emissivity.”

      For your reference:
      — emissivity of ice = 0.97 (source: https://www.thermoworks.com/emissivity-table )
      — “investigation of the thermal infrared (8-14μm) emissivity at normal incidence of the type of fresh snowfall typical of the Arctic during winter . . . show that the emissivity varies between 0.70 and 0.92, in marked contrast to Arctic summer snow which has a constant emissivity of approximately 0.99.” (source: https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/01431169308904420?journalCode=tres20 )

      Also, see discussion of snow and ice spectral albedos at http://www.cesm.ucar.edu/models/atm-cam/docs/description/node35.html

      • Perhaps I made a mistake.

        I assumed that because snow covered ice has a high reflectivity to sunlight (https://nsidc.org/cryosphere/seaice/processes/albedo.html), that it also has, as its complement, a low emissivity. This may not be correct at long wavelengths.

        In any event, radiation from snow covered surfaces is minimal, snow and ice do act insulate the land and sea that they cover.

  22. As ever, they and people on here fall into the big strawman trap of discussing the atmospheric physics of CO2 and water vapor as if we’re starting at zero of each. If we want to discuss man-made global warming then we need to start at 280ppm of magic gas and 40,000ppm of water vapor, where the additional effect of magic gas at 416ppm on a background of 40,000ppm of water vapor is the square root of f*ck all. Why does everyone fall into this trap?

  23. You know what is fascinating and please dont accuse me of being a biased against women in the field, but ever notice that the people that comment here are mostly male ( at least their names seem that way) It would be interesting to see a study on skeptics, as to the male, female ratio of commentary here. Now why would I bring this up? Well when I was on Weather Geeks with Dr Marshall Shepherd asked me if there were any women working at weatherbell.com I said well if you want to work like Joe D and I do ( and now Tom Downs and our IT folks who are always on call) which has been producing product every day and going going going( Joe and I both believe you can not take time off from the weather) than you are weathbell material, Basically, this is all I ever wanted to do and I have no problem not taking any days off, I was recently in Texas for a week, but while there, did what I normally do every day Have produced product every day since joined and was on the same streak at Accuweather when I left from when they elevated me in 2003. And I was happy as a clam doing it believe me. ( clams are very happy creatures, like me they like being down in the mud) . , The fact is the weather never stops,) it is a relentless unyielding challenge that will take what you dont know and dont see and drive you to your back with it, Quite Frankly at accuweather, everytime there was overtime available, Dave Bowers and I, ( both mad dogs in the gym) would suck it up. Zevon had a song : I’ll sleep when I’m dead, and it became my theme song, twice i was floored by exhaustion once in college ( I was wrestling, going to school my last term, and had my own radio network) and the night of the blizzard of 1978 was laying in bed not being able to move with a 103 fever. ( But I did not miss class, practice, or any time on my job.. I feel if you give in , then the sickness beats you) In 2014, I was heavily invested in a major snowstorm after Ground Hogs day and for 7 days I did not sleep more than 3 hours, constantly waking up when model runs came in as my body clock would adjust to it. ( I am not a well person, I know that) NYC had an 8 inch snow on Tuesday ( right after the warm super bowl) and the Thursday-Friday storm was a double shot of arctic love The fact that we were way out on a limb from so far out obsessed me even more, Went thru out Nittanly Lion Wrestling club circuit Thursday am, went to the waffle shoppe after with the coaches, came home and collapsed. when I came too Garrett was on top of me, slapping me and asking me to stay with him. I was like where are we going? I had a hit with Cavuto at 2:20 on the storm, and Hannity all afternoon on radio and I had to cancel, When I collapsed again at 5:20 the ambulance came. It got stuck in the driveway cause we had a foot of unplowed snow. Anyway I get to the hospital, they slip a pill under my toungue, boom nausea gone! I was severely dehydrated and had been hit by that flu going around, but until it hit me, I was so obsessd with the weather, I had no idea I had better back off, Anyway as soon as that IV went in I starter posting again ( weatherbell.com subscribers may have seen the posts I cut from my hsopital bed, I wonder if its still in our archives) But check this out, After the second bag I was fine, left the hsopital, and was lifting the next morning, ( I was bummed when we left the hsopital cause the snow had tapered to flurries) So I realize I am not normal, but guess what, there are alot of weather/climate people just as obsessed and to show you how much love they have, many dont even work in the field. You know everyone is created equal, but not all people are the same. I know people that can spend much less time on the weather and come up with the same or better conclusions than I. But it is interesting that question was posed to me, and somehow whenI get on WUWT and look at comments, it seems like the people most into this are male. Yet when we come to voting, many people are now in what I think is a climate change voting bloc and since that may be roughly 50-50 male female, the disconnect spells big trouble. While our merry little band of skeptics may see things one way, if you are not into it and listen to the constant drumbeat of man mad climate change, and your vote is towad a so called “green” policy how would you know, Now there is a chance that many that identify themselves with a nickname are women. But of those that use a name, it seems like its predominately a name that traditionally ( its amazing how you have to adjust wordking today since some woke person is going to say this is code about something. Frankly I never was good at languaages, I have enough problems with English) has been associated with males, that dominates outside of nicknames. One more “exhaustion ” story Sandy: So I was competing in the New England BBchampionships the Saturday before sandy. Garrett and I drove to NYC to do hits on Fox for Thur and Fri, then left late Fri for RI. I competed and came right back so I was doing hits Monday into Tuesday. It was crazy, I was up on the 17th floor of the FOX building and could feel it swaying, Bascially all Garrett and I ate was green room food ( they had these cream cheese brownies that were unreal) So I go from being contest eating to the exact opposite, Anyway when they finally got us back to my brothers, where I left my car in Jersey, while drivng down 206, they had to pull over. Once again Garrett was there to see his dad in a less than ideal state as I was at a strip mall in Hillsborough NJ throwing up into a trash can. All the stress had come off , the exhaustion took over and down goes Frazier, I am quite sure some of you have had similar weather exhaustion stories. I will close with a line from Tom Petty which I think sums it up for us: “Some of us are different, its just something in our blood, there’s no need for explanation we’re just dogs on the run. ” I look at that as a compliment

    • ” . . . a major snowstorm after Ground Hogs day . . .”

      Do people eat hamburgers made from real ham on Ground Hog day?

    • Joe
      Getting back to your opening line, feminists usually attribute differences in the male/female ratio in professions to some sort of discrimination. Yet, those differences continue in voluntary activities. To whit, I co-founded the Bay Area Atari Users Group, back in the days when computers were novelties. We would sometimes have over 100 attendees at our monthly meetings. Less than 10% were female, and they appeared to be there are the behest of their husbands or boyfriends. It was rare to see an unaccompanied female. When I go to a shooting range, again, what few women I see, generally appear to be there with their significant other. I’m active collecting minerals in Ohio. When Friends of Mineralogy goes on field trips, there might be about 20% women. I could go on. The point being is that the interests of American men and women are different and that is reflected in the professions and hobbies they choose.

      As to ‘climastrology’ skeptics, among my social groups, what few skeptics I know, are all male. The few females that even hold an opinion, tend towards being the stereotypical defensive supporters of “We are going to Hell in a man-made handbasket.”

    • Neither masculinist nor feminist, and transgender (i.e. divergent physical and mental sex-corellated attributes) spectrum is not trendy. That said, men and women are equal in rights and complementary in Nature.

  24. No mention of thunderstorms? The Hadley circulation cell? Relationships between, temperature, pressure, air density, and H2O saturation limit? Effect of latent energy? etc. etc. etc.

  25. Any calculation of convection effects require the calculation of density of the air parcel. This would NOT be done on a dry air basis by anyone but the least competent climate scientist. So assuming these guys aren’t in that group, they must be as politely as possible saying something has been missed in the models, maybe ?

    • When air parcel buoyancy is calculated, as in convective processes, the “Virtual Temperature” is used. This takes into account water vapor in the parcel. This is very basic meteorology. But I have worked with some climatologists who actually did not know parcel theory and very basic meteorology.

      • And, I suspect a lot of the computer geeks writing the code for GCM’s have no idea at all.

        I get the feeling many, many of these people have little background in thermodynamics and probably little in physics. I keep reading about how the GCM’s are “physics'” based, yet I never, ever see thermodynamics based.

    • Hi DMacKenzie !

      Please have a look at my comments on this link.
      Juergen Michele

      Meteorologists use a kind of argot! – potential temperatures

  26. Is the implication of the journal Science Advances article referenced above that most/all of those extremely complex general circulation models of Earth’s climate—that have been in development for decades and to the tune of many millions of dollars invested and requiring supercomputers to run—simply neglected to consider how atmospheric density varies with humidity (absolute and/or relative), the so-called “water vapor buoyancy”?

    Hard to believe, but models are not immune from containing bonehead mistakes.

    • Gordon
      You asked, “… simply neglected to consider how atmospheric density varies with humidity …?”

      That was my take on it when I first read it and alerted Charles.

  27. “It’s well-known that water vapor is an important greenhouse gas that warms the planet,” said senior author Da Yang, an assistant professor of atmospheric sciences at UC Davis and a joint faculty scientist with Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory.

    Excuse me if I’m wrong, but is not WV the most important greenhouse gas by a considerable factor?

    • Yes, but WV both warms Earth surface (predominately during nighttimes) and cools Earth surface (predominately during daytimes). NB, the “warming” at night is actually the reduction in heat loss.

      Climate science 101, but universally disregarded by AGW alarmists, such as Da Yang.

      • And doesn’t water vapor cool during the day when it blocks the Sun?
        Sure seems like it does today.
        Is the effect positive, negative equal? Where is this study.

        • Water vapor, per se, “blocks” a relatively small percentage of incoming solar radiation, in SWIR, due to absorption in it’s six major spectral bands between 0.7 and 2.0 microns.

          However, when water vapor condenses to tiny liquid water droplets, thereby forming visible clouds, it can block/reflect a much, much larger percentage of incoming solar radiation across the full spectrum, depending on percent cloud cover over a given surface area.

          I believe the best scientific research shows water micro-droplet clouds are net negative feedback in Earth’s energy balance during daylight hours, thus acting to stabilize Earth’s surface temperatures at these times.

          For sure, clouds stabilize Earth surface temperatures during nighttime by (partially or fully) blocking surface views to deep space through the otherwise “transparent” atmosphere.

          Mother Nature knew what she was doing when she “invented” water vapor and condensed water clouds!

  28. An engineer’s note to the community of meteorologists April 15th, 2013 Supplemented: August 17th, 2017

    Back to the roots

    It is somewhat irritating if an engineer looks into the advanced literature in the field of meteorology. Being used to look for driving forces in chemical engineering one would not even find in some books the word density in the index. So it is possible for the advanced student to read about vertical stability ten pages without hitting the word density.

    Instead he will be confronted with all kinds of temperatures. There is the temperature measured with a thermometer. He will be made aware that radiation from the bulb may give different results. Then there is of course the “wet bulb temperature”. Interesting are then all kinds of “potential temperatures”.

    In a standard text on atmospheric convection the index lists 9 different temperatures and in addition 9 virtual and potential temperatures. Some of these are well known to engineers but the question has to be asked whether all this is necessary. The introduction and discussion obviously brings not more clarity.

    So meteorologists arrived at some kind of argot. To me this seems not to be very helpful when discussing atmospheric convection and especially stability in tornado and hurricane generation situations.

    So back to the roots …

    When Archimedes raised from his bath tub and would run naked through Syracuse shouting his famous “eureka” he did not find a potential temperature but he was aware what density and density differences would mean.

    Density differences are the driving forces in fluid mechanics and meteorology is pure application of fluid mechanics concepts.

    Also the term “wind shear” is not clear to engineers. Usually they deal in pipe flow also in turbulent flow with the concept of velocity gradient or shear rate (with the unit of 1/s). Also mixing processes are fairly well understood by engineers. So the mixing in a free jet is well-investigated more than 50 years ago. The colliding of cold and warm humid air is a mixing process.

    So I believe it would be very helpful not only to engineers if the meteorological community would change back to a discussion of atmospheric science in terms of density and density differences.

    To me potential temperatures do not make life easier.

    Juergen Michele

    Wilhelmshaven, Germany

    PS: Meteorologists have not accomplished that even well educated people know that humid air has a lower density compared to dry air (at the same pressure and temperature). This fact is especially driving atmospheric convection.

    • Let you tell from a cliamte”scientist”, that you don’t understand the difference between weather and climate.
      Let you tell from a sceptic layman, that climate is at least weather over 30 years. Without understanding weather, you don’t understand climate.
      In so far, Jürgen, you are on the right path, you got it very well 😀

    • Back in the day (many, many moons ago!) I’d graduated with a BS in Chemical Engineering, and found myself in the Air Force, being trained at NC State to become a meteorologist. The nomenclature used drove me nuts for a while, but once I figured out it was the same conservation of energy, momentum, and mass going on, but using a different language, it got a lot easier.

      The folks who had it rough were the ones with no background in engineering or physical chemistry. They had to learn it all from scratch.

  29. Dry air has a density of about 1.29 g/L (gram per liter) at standard conditions for temperature and pressure (STP) and an average molecular mass of 28.97 g/mol.
    The gaseous state of water is lighter than air (density 0.804 g/L at STP, average molecular mass 18.015 g/mol) due to water’s low molar mass when compared with typical atmospheric gases such as nitrogen gas (N2).
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lifting_gas

  30. The effect that these researchers demonstrate is fairly small. For example, using the ideal gas law at 25°C and 1 atmosphere (298.15 K and 1010325 Pa for the rest of the world), dry air has a density of 1184 g/cubic meter. Air saturated with water (100% relative humidity) at the same temperature and pressure contains 3.4 mol% water, and has a density of 1169 g/cubic meter. Air at 100% relative humidity at 21.9°C has the same density as dry air at 25°C. Over the ocean, you aren’t going to find any air near the surface that is dry. Therefore, the effect is less than the maximum stated here. So slightly cooler air containing more water can rise relative to a surrounding atmosphere that is slightly warmer and drier.

    I don’t see how this situation is common over the ocean since warmer air is close to the surface and will evaporate more water from the surface if the air is not still. This may happen as moist air blows onshore and meets slightly warmer air that has been heated over the land but not humidified due to the lack of available surface water. I don’t think this is a major factor in cloud development since these are usually formed by warmer, wet air rising through a cooler atmosphere around it. Even after the cloud forms, the air continues to rise because the heat released by the condensing water keeps the inside of the cloud warmer than the air external to the cloud at the same elevation.

    • Loren
      You said, “The effect that these researchers demonstrate is fairly small.” Did you read the full article that was linked at the top?

      • No, I stopped at the statement that in the tropical atmosphere, buoyancy is horizontally uniform. I then asked myself how a thunderstorm rises if the buoyancy is really horizontally uniform. How do sail-planes fly if there are no areas of updraft? I showed through first principles (ideal gas law) that the difference in buoyancy is quite small. Now if their point is that the moist air radiates long-wave radiation and this cools the earth, that again is not really news. How does that effect compare to the cooling effect of a squall line (both radiative and reflective), which Willis E. has shown to be much more significant.

        • Loren
          I think that you misunderstood. They were not saying that the troposphere was horizontally uniform. They were contrasting the continuously changing density in a vertical column with a uniform horizontal density in a rising column. For it to be anything other than uniform horizontally one would be dealing with a chaotic, turbulent system with no organized parcels of rising or descending air columns.

          So, as I understand it, you misread something, decided it wasn’t worth your time to try to get the big picture, and then moved on to demonstrate that you knew more than the authors and thereby debunk the claims that you hadn’t read. That is definitely how science is advanced!

  31. These people call themselves “Climate Scientists”???? And they have just now discovered Meteorology 101???

    No wonder that so many of the Climate Models are so very wrong!!

  32. And doesn’t water vapor cool during the day when it blocks the Sun?
    Sure seems like it does today.
    Is the effect positive, negative equal? Where is this study.

  33. There is an important property of water vapor that has been conveniently overlooked here. It absorbs solar radiation in the near infra-red. The bands are around 0.95, 1.1 1.4 and 1.8 micron. In round numbers this adds about 100 W m^-2 directly into the convection – before the solar flux reaches the surface. Take a look at the reference solar spectrum for solar panel evaluation – ASTM G173-3, http://rredc.nrel.gov/solar/spectra/am1.5/ This is the ‘trigger’ that starts the tropical convection/thunderstorm cycle. The temperature difference between the ocean surface and the air layer above is too small to produce much convection. Sensible heat is about 10 W m^2.
    As the water vapor concentration increases, so does the absorption and the solar heating.

  34. I thought these were scientists talking here: “Without this lightness of water vapor….” It’s DENSITY’ young man!
    The first sentence in the abstract is correct, mentioning temperature, pressure, volume and molecular weights He still uses “lightness” instead of density, but the poor guy went through school not too long ago when precision in speaking went out of style.

    “vapor buoyancy effect. Although this effect is well documented, its impact on Earth’s climate has been overlooked.” It is really hard to believe that thousands of scientists in a many countries “overlooked” the main driver of the weather and climate! It certainly is hard to see how one would write a model of climate or weather without it.

    I hope poor Willis can take the shock.

    • philo,

      Maybe it is a reflection of the knowledge of his peers that he needs to simplify communications to a elementary grade level to try and make them understand.

  35. Philo
    English may not be Da Yang’s first language. You might give him the benefit of the doubt.

    • Flight Level
      Fascinating discussion. The moral of the story is, don’t fly an aircraft into a thunderhead unless you are flying an aircraft with the strength and agility of a fighter, and you are personally indestructible.

      • Clyde yes, in that sense. I would say, don’t even get close as those beasts throw parties in a matter of minutes.

        And also something else worth noting: After all that many years of AV weather science, no one has come to fly in a phenomena where cold air rises. Except maybe very, very close to ground where all can happen.

        All our days at the office are directed the other way round, hot goes up. And it kind of works.

        So my point is that, happens, no crew that I know of has been ever weather-briefed on the dangers of upgoing cold air.

        While hot air can easily reach vertical speeds in excess of 90 knots.

        • Flight Level
          I don’t know how to respond to the lack of empirical data. I suspect the the use of the word “cold” may the the result of the article being edited by someone for whom English is a second language. I think a key is the statement, “Moist air is lighter than dry air at the same temperature, pressure, and volume because the molecular weight of water is less than that of dry air.” So, if air over water is the temperature of the water (relatively cool), and moist, it may be more buoyant than warmer air over dry land, thus creating a thermal cell. I know that glider pilots look for ascending ‘thermals.’ Would you know if water over a reservoir, or on the edge of the ocean would provide potential lift for a glider?

          • Dear Clyde,
            I’m not glider certified. However common core knowledge is that thermal ascendants are mostly due to hot air going up, often very violently.

            Reason why the infamous Swiss solar flyer can only land past sundown when hot air from the runway will not keep it floating.

            Water is a beast. It will boil at 70C at 30’000 feet while at that altitude, the standard air temperature is about negative 34 Celsius.

            Past 10’000 feet, there is really not that much of gaseous water in the air. Higher, water condensates, freezes in various shapes and sizes and can be even super-cooled yet liquid. But not gaseous.

            Clouds are not water vapor. They are both solid, liquid and gas depends on how close one looks at them. Water vapor in actually transparent, invisible. Condensation and tiny ice crystals make clouds what they are.

            Which why it’s a beast. It can “gently” wash your plane, hammer it into a new creative shape when hail or, bring it down altogether by freezing on it plus anything in between.

            So having water in gaseous instead of liquid/solid form would be a welcome present. However, no such free meal.

  36. Cold, humid air rises in the tropics, dry, hot air rises over the Sahara desert — like it’s been doing forever — put it in a model and voilà, science discovers weather.

  37. 150 years ago it was well understood that cool damp air was slightly lighter than warm and dry air, large and small buildings were built in england using that principal to maintain a suitable internal enviroment.
    Why has it taken 150 years for the knowledge to reach the University of California ?
    Many a basement of many a public building including a nice 6,000 sq m grade 2 listed building I have the fun of looking after uses that exact principle to remove the moisture from the underfloor voids. I have seen the underside of slates in roof voids 3 floors updripping with water in the morning, delivered via the wall cavity.
    The moisture exiting from tunnels, at a point higher than ground level, where no natural ventilation exists has always occured and is nothing to write home about, certainly nothing I would want to express my new found amazement about.
    Clever Vistorian engineers !

  38. I took a look at the paper, and then I did a simple word-search (ctrl-f) for the words “condense” “condensation” “evaporate” and “evaporation” and did not find a single occurrence of any of them.

    I would have thought that an analysis of the role of water vapour in tropical weather/climate would have discussed phase changes and how the latent heat of evaporation and condensation moves heat from one place to another, specifically from the surface to the upper troposphere (or is it the lower stratosphere?). They have rising columns of moist air, and descending columns of dry air, but where’s the rain? And where are the clouds (and their effect on albedo)?

    This paper is important because it points out the failure of GCMs to incorporate changes in density due to humidity into the modeling process. And, to be fair, it attempts to rectify that. But without a discussion of the role of phase changes, it presents only part of the overall picture.

    • Smart Rock
      My take on this is that the physics in the GCMs takes into account the phase changes and heat exchanges. They are pointing out that an important parameter, the increased outgoing long-wave radiation in the subsiding column of air, is NOT incorporated in extant models. They are not trying to present a comprehensive model. Instead, they are addressing what they think is a missing, and important part of models.

  39. It would very interesting to examine the Russian model, to see if it handles this concept in a more realistic manner – or at all , for that matter. Could explain why it is the only model that seems to be able to reflect reality.

  40. This super-revalidates that any models that don’t include evaporation tanks are failures.

    Quick Reference: 80°F is 45.45 watts

    @ * Smart Rock* Remember that the “”models”” also assume homogenious pressure, density, mass and specific heat per cubic volume.

  41. Since you are working with a model, there is no reason to limit yourselves to the laws of physics, particularly if you remove the restriction that your model does not have to conform to reality.
    Heat can flow from cold bodies to hot bodies. Time can flow backwards. Water can flow uphill. You can travel faster than the speed of light.
    Climate Models are by construction psychotic.

  42. I loved Willis’ posts about clouds and water temps. I even made a javascript app to take the graphs and extract the data and then use a polynomial regression to graph the relationship. I tried 3rd, 4th, and 5th order to find a function that best describes the relationship. I love this stuff and it was a blast making an app to see what the function would look like to describe. I have no idea which order to use for an accurate and appropriate function since I’m just a dumb carpenter, but I love learning and using programming as the substrate to facilitate my learning of climate science and the math underlying it.

  43. Similar to the idiotic notion that warm water in the oceans sinks and the heat is being stored in the deep ocean (where there is little temperature data). Warm air rises, warm water rises, where is this cold air (in the tropics) coming from? Tropics tend to not have a great deal of cool air, the climate is , well,warm and tropical. I have come to the conclusion that the only way for people to become this ignorant and dumb is to work hard and study for years at an institution of higher learning.

  44. The paper investigates what happens to water vapour after it’s in the air. Other papers have studied how the water molecules got there and the movement of energy. If you think of a process from A->B->C->D, this paper just deals with process B.

    With the same number of molecules before and after, take a N2 or O2 and replace it with H2O reduces the weight. My questions would be, (1) does the water molecule move by itself up through the column of air? or (2) what conditions does the whole air pocket move together?

    It’s very complex going from the 1 square metre at sea level has several square metres at the outer surface of the atmosphere. Potential kinetic energy increases with height. Measured temperature decreases when pressure is decreased. Does that mean the energy of a molecule doesn’t change when pressure decreases but the energy per volume decreases so our understanding of temperature in Kelvins is not an accurate unit to measure energy per volume? As soon as you’ve measured it, it has moved (it’s like trying to solve quantum maths).

    Sufficiently accurate climate models (maintain +/- 0.5C for 100 years) would use more than all the weather/climate supercomputers in the world and take 1 day to model 1 day. Currently we have long term guesses of long term averages. But the answer could be 42 something 🙂

  45. Conventional knowledge has it that warm air rises while cold air sinks

    That was never coventional knowledge. That’s crappy high school teaching. Should have always been taught that less dense air rises. Heating a pocket of air so that it expands is just one of the reasons a pocket of air becomes less dense. Even saying humid air is less dense is wrong. Condensation not only warms the air, thereby expanding it, but also reduces the amount of molecules in the air.

    But it’s not just the fault of teachers.

    https://www.nssl.noaa.gov/education/svrwx101/thunderstorms/faq/

  46. The the evaporation at the surface that increases the moisture in the air at the surface also cools the surface that has a larger negative feedback effect that the models also ignore. In addition, when the added water vapor condenses after rising and cooling, the latent heat so released warms the air at that level as clouds form increasing the heat radiated to space, causing additional negative feedback.

  47. Moist air contains liquid nanodroplets of H2O.

    Moist air is, therefore, always heavier than drier air.

    Uplift as we see in storms is a result of vortice activity above.

    There is no such thing as convection. This was a myth people adopted in the nineteenth century by way of a rough analogy to a pot boiling on a stove.

    This analogy did get one thing right, and that is the involvement of water. However it is not its phase change characteristics (which themselves have been fictionalized by the convection model) that matter. It’s its structural properties that are expressed under shear conditions–specifically and most significanlty, wind shear conditions

    Vortices deliver the low pressure, cold winds of storms.

    Cold air rises because it is literally being sucked into vortices above.

    Vortices provide the structural component of the atmosphere, without which weather is inexplicable.

  48. Boy Oh Boy.
    Have I got a bone to pick with a few school teachers who fed me falsehoods 75 years ago.

  49. Philo
    Da Yang is described as: senior author Da Yang, an assistant professor of atmospheric sciences at UC Davis and a joint faculty scientist with Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory”

    https://www.yang-climate-group.org/resume states:

    2008 – 2014 Ph.D. (Adviser: Prof. Andrew Ingersoll)
    Environmental Science and Engineering, California Institute of Technology

    2004 – 2008 B.S.
    Physics and Atmospheric Science, Peking University

    From which I infer he is native Chinese, born about 1986, lived in the US for the last twelve years. ie does not have English as his first language.
    However – given that he is working at California Institute of Technology – I would expect he has access to fellow workers who are native English language speakers, and who know enough about the subject matter to qualify as peer reviewers.

    I don’t know anything about the way CIT operates, but I would hope that it has a mechanism to prevent an author getting a work reviewed by three mates who know damn-all or who can’t speak the language any better than the author, and then just publishing !

    Unfortunately that does not seem to be the case.

    • OldCynic
      Before I retired, I was asked to review some articles written by Chinese authors. The grammar was so poor I could not get through the papers or really understand the details. I declined any further reviews.

  50. The amount of “dissolved” water vapor in air (0-15% depending on pressure and temperature) is too small to really have an important effect on air density. The main effect comes from unstable air: when the moist air column rises, it expands which cools the air down till water starts to condense (forms the cloud base). Then the condensation heat of the water is released which heats the air mass and causes it to rise even further (formation of thunderheads). For sure, this effect has a significant contribution for heat transfer from the surface to the upper troposphere. The effect of CO2 is probably negligible in comparison.

    • Eric Vieira May 11, 2020 at 3:37 am
      how does the warm air mass radiate to the void?
      o2 n2 do not radiate significantly
      the o2 n2 molecules have to transfer energy (contact) to ghgs to be able to radiate to space – at high altitudes h20o vapour will be in short supply leaving the other ghgs to do the transfer.

      Clouds will radiate as a near black body but co2 and other ghgs will be there to absorb the energy at certain wavelengths. giving a up/down radiation pattern. Clouds will also be very cold and so will be able to radiate less than the ground could,

      Clouds at night are a very good blanket for the earth.

  51. If you ignore meteorological propaganda and you take a scientific approach you will immediately come to the realization that there is no such thing as vapor buoyancy and buoyancy plays no role whatsoever in weather.

    The correct way to approach any scientific subject is to substantiate your assumptions. This involves empirical testing, which is something meteorology refuses to do. So all we get from meteorology and meteorologists propaganda that is repeated so often it looks like science to outsiders. But that is all meteorologists care about.

    The public treats meteorologists like priests who can do no wrong. And the public is extremely gullible and really only wants to be told a good story so that they don’t have to deal with the complexities that have nothing at all to do with buoyancy.

    When it comes to understanding the physics of storms and weather, all meteorologists are con artists and tbe public is the mark. Getting you to pretend like you understand what actually makes no sense is their only goal.

    All meteorologists (including Anthony Watts) continually walk on egg shells to avoid saying anything that will interrupt the perception that they understand what actually doesn’t make sense.

    Greenhouse Goofiness
    https://anchor.fm/james-mcginn/episodes/Greenhouse-Goofiness-edrn8n

    Claudius Denk / Genius

  52. If you ignore meteorological propaganda and you take a scientific approach you will immediately come to the realization that there is no such thing as vapor buoyancy and buoyancy plays no role whatsoever in weather.

    The correct way to approach any scientific subject is to substantiate your assumptions. This involves empirical testing, which is something meteorology refuses to do. So all we get from meteorology and meteorologists propaganda that is repeated so often it looks like science to outsiders. But that is all meteorologists care about.

    The public treats meteorologists like priests who can do no wrong. And the public is extremely gullible and really only wants to be told a good story so that they don’t have to deal with the complexities that have nothing at all to do with buoyancy.

    When it comes to understanding the physics of storms and weather, all meteorologists are con artists and tbe public is the mark. Getting you to pretend like you understand what actually makes no sense is their only goal.

    All meteorologists (including Anthony Watts) continually walk on egg shells to avoid saying anything that will interrupt the perception that they understand what actually doesn’t make sense.

    Greenhouse Goofiness
    https://anchor.fm/james-mcginn/episodes/Greenhouse-Goofiness-edrn8n

    Claudius Denk / Genius

  53. All meteorologists are frauds who pretend like they understand storms and weather just like climatologists pretend to understand the climate. There is no difference between an Anthony Watt and Michael Mann other than the point of focus of their propaganda. The meteorology’s convection model of storms is equally as fraudulent as climatology’s CO2 forcing. In both cases the only purpose of the narrative is to keep the public confused so that they will surrender and just accept the consensus.

  54. Suppose you had a globe made from a perfect reflector (zero emmission), at 80F in outer space, and you wanted to cool it. Which method would cool it quicker:
    a. Give it an atmosphere of N2.
    b. Give it an atmosphere of CO2.

    Water vapor, being a great emitter of IR, and given the fantastic surface area of clouds, cools the Earth.

  55. Clyde:
    Have you considered a career as a motivational speaker?

    James:
    Did you know that there is zero empirical evidence that moist air is lighter than drier air?
    Did you that dry layer capping is based on physical principles that have never been detected?
    Did you know that latent heat has never been detected?

    Do you consider the convection model of storms to be genuine science or just conversation intended to create the illusion of science?

  56. James
    You said, without qualification, “… there is zero empirical evidence that moist air is lighter than drier air”.
    Have you looked in the CRC Handbook of Chemistry and Physics? You may not find it in the recent editions, but the older books have formulas and tables for calculating the density of dry and moist air.

    • Clyde:
      James
      See https://wattsupwiththat.com/2020/05/10/cold-air-rises-how-wrong-are-our-global-climate-models/#comment-2990778

      James:
      Clyde, there’s your error. You assumed that the H2O in moist air is gaseous. It isn’t. It’s comprised of nanodroplets of unknown size–not genuinely gaseous H2O.

      The correct particle size for application of Avogadro’s law is not 18. It is 18 x X, with X being somewhere between 10 and 1000.

      Moist air is always heavier than drier air. So moist air can’t be ascribed as a source of the energy or uplift of storms by way of buoyancy or convection.

      But this is okay since we already know that the source of the energy of storms is differential air pressure. So we don’t need invoke special energetic properties in H2O (ie. “latent heat”.)

      It is the structural properties of H2O that only get expressed under wind shear conditions that is the wild card in all this (and without which weather is an unsolvable puzzle).

      James McGinn / Genius
      The Central Confusion of Water Science
      https://anchor.fm/james-mcginn/episodes/The-Central-Confusion-of-Water-Science-edrnr2

      • James
        You said, “You assumed that the H2O in moist air is gaseous.”
        As I’m sure the observers did who developed the formulas from empirical observations — the same formulas that ended up in the CRC handbook. The calculations result in moist air of differing dew points having less density than dry air.

        • Clyde:
          As I’m sure the observers did who developed the formulas from empirical observations — the same formulas that ended up in the CRC handbook.

          James:
          Clyde, there is really no such thing as an empirical observation. Empiricism involves reproducible experimental evidence. Can you point me to an experiment that I can do myself that will demonstrate that the moisture in clear, moist air is genuinely gaseous and not just small nanodroplets? Obviously you can’t.

          Clyde:
          The calculations result in moist air of differing dew points having less density than dry air.

          James:
          Nonsense. Moist air is always denser/heavier than drier air, all other factors being the same.

          Ignorance About Water Begets Ignorance About Storms
          https://anchor.fm/james-mcginn/episodes/Ignorance-About-Water-Begets-Ignorance-About-Storms-ea4fmi

          James McGinn / Genius

          • Jürgen:
            http://go.vaisala.com/humiditycalculator/5.0/
            Before condensation happens the air must be “oversaturated”.

            James:
            Condensation and evaporation are continuous processes. Neither ever stops. Droplets in the atmosphere (there is no gaseous H2O in the atmosphere) are under constant bombardment from air molecules (moving very fast–literally hundreds of miles per hour) which breaks them down into smaller droplets. At one and the same time, they are constantly recombining to form larger droplets. Conditions (temp, pressure and other minor factors) will favor one process over the other. When conditions favor condensation (lower temperature and lower pressure) allowing recombination to flourish, droplets begin to become big enough to see and heavy enough to fall out of the sky as precipitation.

            Much of Science Involves Models That Have Been Dumbed-Down to Pander to the Public
            https://anchor.fm/james-mcginn/episodes/Much-of-Science-Involves-Models-That-Have-Been-Dumbed-Down-to-Pander-to-the-Public-e9c1vd

            James McGinn / Genius

          • Hi James McGinn! – the self-proclaimed Genius

            Obviously you have some confused meteorological background!

            I had given you the best model available these days: http://go.vaisala.com/humiditycalculator/5.0/

            This is the calculation sheet for density of air. Density differences are driving the atmosphere.

            You are not aware of the correct influence of water. In air there are always free water molecules as you pointed out yourself.

            Rising “hot” air has not droplets. The equilibrium is far in the range of individual molecules.

            Before condensation happens the air must be “oversaturated”.
            Best condensation nucleus are biological spores. But this need already about 1K lower saturation temperature.

            Humid air – at the same temperature and pressure – has a lower density compared to dry air!

            Calculate the difference using the given calculation sheet by Vaisala. This company is the supplier for humidity measuring devices in sounding ballopons.

            Being a Chemical Engineer I have some knowledge about evaporation and condensation.

            Regards Juergen
            Juergen.michele@jade-hs.de

            PS:
            Check this link for:
            An engineer’s note to the community of meteorologists April 15th,
            2013 Supplemented: August 17th, 2017: Back to the roots
            and
            Some nonsense about humid air (clouds) from Scientific American:
            https://de.quora.com/Why-do-clouds-float
            https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/why-do-clouds-float-when/
            Some Nonsense from Scientific American
            https://www.scientificamerican.c…

          • Jürgen: Hi James McGinn! – the self-proclaimed Genius

            James: Hi Jurgen. I am also the self-proclaimed world’s #1 expert on H2O. See the link below.

            Jürgen: Obviously you have some confused meteorological background!

            James: I think of myself as more of a theoretical physicist. I do my best to sidestep your confused religion.

            Jürgen: I had given you the best model available these days: http://go.vaisala.com/humiditycalculator/5.0/

            James: It’s wrong. See other posts in this thread where I describe the correct way to calculate the density/weight of moist air. (You might also do a googlel search using the phrase “Isaac Newton was a human being.”)

            Jürgen: This is the calculation sheet for density of air. Density differences are driving the atmosphere.

            James: Differential pressure is the force underlying atmospheric flow. Water is involved with atmospheric flow (winds) but meteorology has mischaracterized its role as being the source of the energy. Water is not the source of the energy of storms. As I stated above, the source of the energy of storms is differential pressure. Water’s role is structural. It is the surface tension properties of H2O that are maximized on wind shear boundaries to produce a plasma that is the basis of the sheath of vortices, with vortices being the proximate mechanism that channels and focuses the flow into streams and storms.

            Jürgen: Humid air – at the same temperature and pressure – has a lower density compared to dry air!

            James: Humid air is always denser/heavier than drier air, all other factors being the same. Buoyancy plays no role in atmospheric flow (winds).
            Jurgen, listen to this:
            The Central Confusion of Water Science
            https://anchor.fm/james-mcginn/episodes/The-Central-Confusion-of-Water-Science-edrnr2

            James McGinn / Genius

          • Salviati: …Now you see how easy it is to understand.
            Sagredo: So are all truths, once they are discovered; the point is in being able to discover them.
            — Galileo Galilei

            WHAT GOES UP: Storm Theory: What meteorologists believe but won’t debate, discuss, or even doubt
            https://www.amazon.com/WHAT-GOES-meteorologists-Tornadoes-Atmosphere-ebook/dp/B00KY7EGSG/ref=sr_1_1?dchild=1&keywords=James+McGinn+Solving+Tornadoes&qid=1589907809&sr=8-1

            James McGinn / Genius
            President, Solving Tornadoes

    • Clyde:
      James,
      See https://wattsupwiththat.com/2020/05/10/cold-air-rises-how-wrong-are-our-global-climate-models/#comment-2990778

      James:
      Clyde,
      There’s your error. You assumed that the H2O in moist air is gaseous. It isn’t. It’s comprised of nanodroplets of unknown size–not genuinely gaseous H2O.

      The correct particle size for application of Avogadro’s law is not 18. It is 18 x X, with X being somewhere between 10 and 1000.

      Moist air is always heavier than drier air. So moist air can’t be ascribed as a source of the energy or uplift of storms by way of buoyancy or convection.

      But this is okay since we already know that the source of the energy of storms is differential air pressure. So we don’t need invoke special energetic properties in H2O (ie. “latent heat”.)

      It is the structural properties of H2O that only get expressed under wind shear conditions that is the wild card in all this (and without which weather is an unsolvable puzzle).

      James McGinn / Genius

  57. Clyde, I’m not talking about coorelations or conjectures. I’m talking about a controlled experiment where this specific question/issue was investigated–rigorously.

  58. On many days at Hawaii’s Mauna Loa Observatory (11,200 feet/3.4 km), warm air from below pushes the cool, dry air above it even higher as it rises to the station by mid-morning. I’ve measured and photographed this phenomenon many times. You can feel the cool air on your cheeks before it’s replaced by warm air from below. Cumulus clouds arrive with the warm, moist air and are soon dancing about over MLO.

  59. I’m happy for the authors at UC Davis in keeping their job with the right sentences to stay politically correct. You need that kind of protection when countering Soviet, Vatican, Mullahs, or Climate Crusade leaders and their models. You would not want to fall out of windows as in Russia.

  60. Some nonsense about humid air (clouds) from Scientific American:
    https://de.quora.com/Why-do-clouds-float
    https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/why-do-clouds-float-when/
    Some Nonsense from Scientific American
    https://www.scientificamerican.c
    Why do clouds float when they have tons of water in them?
    Douglas Wesley, a senior meteorologist in the Cooperative Program for Operational Meteorology, Education and Training (COMET) at the University Corporation for Atmospheric Research, explains:
    Image: RON HOLLE, University of Illinois Cloud Catalogue
    FLOATING CLOUDS.The water and ice particles in the clouds we see are simply too small to feel the effects of gravity. As a result, clouds appear to float on air.
    Clouds are composed primarily of small water droplets and, if it’s cold enough, ice crystals. The vast majority of clouds you see contain droplets and/or crystals that are too small to have any appreciable fall velocity. So the particles continue to float with the surrounding air. For an analogy closer to the ground, think of tiny dust particles that, when viewed against a shaft of sunlight, appear to float in the air.
    Indeed, the distance from the center of a typical water droplet to its edge–its radius–ranges from a few microns (thousandths of a millimeter) to a few tens of microns (ice crystals are often a bit larger). And the speed with which any object falls is related to its mass and surface area–which is why a feather falls more slowly than a pebble of the same weight. For particles that are roughly spherical, mass is proportional to the radius cubed (r3); the downward-facing surface area of such a particle is proportional to the radius squared (r2). Thus, as a tiny water droplet grows, its mass becomes more important than its shape and the droplet falls faster. Even a large droplet having a radius of 100 microns has a fall velocity of only about 27 centimeters per second (cm/s). And because ice crystals have more irregular shapes, their fall velocities are relatively smaller.
    Upward vertical motions, or updrafts, in the atmosphere also contribute to the floating appearance of clouds by offsetting the small fall velocities of their constituent particles. Clouds generally form, survive and grow in air that is moving upward. Rising air expands as the pressure on it decreases, and that expansion into thinner, high-altitude air causes cooling. Enough cooling eventually makes water vapor condense, which contributes to the survival and growth of the clouds. Stratiform clouds (those producing steady rain) typically form in an environment with widespread but weak upward motion (say, a few cm/s); convective clouds (those causing showers and thunderstorms) are associated with updrafts that exceed a few meters per second. In both cases, though, the atmospheric ascent is sufficient to negate the small fall velocities of cloud particles.
    Another way to illustrate the relative lightness of clouds is to compare the total mass of a cloud to the mass of the air in which it resides. Consider a hypothetical but typical small cloud at an altitude of 10,000 feet, comprising one cubic kilometer and having a liquid water content of 1.0 gram per cubic meter. The total mass of the cloud particles is about 1 million kilograms, which is roughly equivalent to the weight of 500 automobiles. But the total mass of the air in that same cubic kilometer is about 1 billion kilograms–1,000 times heavier than the liquid!
    So, even though typical clouds do contain a lot of water, this water is spread out for miles in the form of tiny water droplets or crystals, which are so small that the effect of gravity on them is negligible. Thus, from our vantage on the ground, clouds seem to float in the sky.
    Answer originally posted May 31, 1999
    My comment:
    The nonsense:
    1. For an analogy closer to the ground, think of tiny dust particles that, when viewed against a shaft of sunlight, appear to float in the air.
    2. The water and ice particles in the clouds we see are simply too small to feel the effects of gravity.
    3. The total mass of the cloud particles is about 1 million kilograms, which is roughly equivalent to the weight of 500 automobiles. But the total mass of the air in that same cubic kilometer is about 1 billion kilograms–1,000 times heavier than the liquid!
    Ad 1.:
    Dust particles in a house are moved by very small currents created by even very small temperature differences.
    Ad 2.:
    Any mass “experiences” gravity! Even molecules settle. The concentration of higher weight molecules – e.g. CO2 – is higher at the ground.
    Ad 3.:
    This calculation is only silly! The weight of a cloud is a high as the adjacent volume of air at the same pressure and temperature. Clouds never stay constant. They vanish if no energy is added (velocity or temperature).
    In addition:
    Even though I am not an expert in “Relativity Theory”, I learned from Einstein that even photons are experiencing gravity (zero mass but energy – equivalence of mass and energy).
    Obviously even well recognized meteorologists and the editorial board of Scientific American do not now the basic fact, that humid air has a lower density compared to dry air. https://www.vaisala.com/de/lp/hu
    The above copied article showed up first when asking Google: why do clouds float?
    Example for humidity calculations
    Relative humidity/% Temperature/°C Pressure/hPa Density/kg/m^3 Water/g/Nm^3
    0 20 1013.3 1.2041 0
    100 20 1013.3 1.1936 18.609
    Above calculations from the author use a water content of only 1g/m^3.
    The density difference is 0.8796%. This looks very small. But these humidity differences – besides temperature differences – are driving the weather.
    A rising cloud has a lower density compared to adjacent air. A raining cloud is heavier and a momentarily stagnant cloud has the same density.
    Clouds are never permanent!

  61. The polarity (charge) of the H2O molecules in a droplet is inversely proportional to the interconnectedness of the molecules to each other in the droplet. (Note: this is currently not understood/accepted by conventional science. See links below for more details.) Consequently the H2O molecules in larger and rounder droplets have a lower polarity (on average) than do the H2O molecules in smaller, less round droplets. (This fact is extremely important for understanding the emergence of vortices on windshear boundaries, more on this below.)

    The greater is the polarity of the H2O molecules within a droplet the more it is effected by residual electric charges in the atmosphere (the origins of these electric charges can be both or either terrestrial [Earth’s electric field] and/or extraterrestrial [the solar wind].

    The correct particles size for application of Avogadro’s law to determine the density of a parcel of air is not 18 but 18 x X, with X being the average molecular count of the molecules within the droplets. Consequently moist air is ALWAYS more dense (and heavier) than drier air. (Note: Since interconnectedness varies with size and shape of nanodroplets, the actual average polarity of the molecules within a droplet will also vary with changes in shape of nanodroplets. The more elongated is a nanodroplet the greater the polarity within.)

    There is zero gaseous H2O in earth’s atmosphere (it is far too cold). (It is a myth that the invisibility of moist air is evidence that the moisture therein is gaseous.) The reason heavier, more dense, H2O droplets stay suspended in the atmosphere is due to the residual electric charges, mentioned above, or because it is part of a flow that is trending upward. Nanodroplets that are smaller and/or elongated (as a result of spinning, see below) will be invisible.

    To understand updrafts in storms and why they are not the result of buoyancy (convection) you must first understand that structure in the atmosphere is the means by which all flow (including updrafts) takes place. Structure emerges in vortices. And vortices emerge on windshear boundaries.

    The reason vortices emerge on wind shear boundaries is because the spinning of nanodroplets on wind shear boundaries elongates these droplets, increasing their polarity, allowing them to form the plasma that comprises the sheath of vortices.

    Basis of Structure in Earth’s Atmosphere:
    https://anchor.fm/james-mcginn/episodes/Vagueness-of-Convection-Versus-New-Basis-for-Structure-in-Storms-edjtjn

    James McGinn / Genius

    • So you are claiming that the phase diagram for water is wrong and you are a lot smarter than those who produced it. Prove it with physical evidence. What you say in blogs doesn’t cut it. The misuse of scientific words could be considered fraud and saying scientist don’t know the truth could be considered libol.

      For those following this thread who want to know who to believe, google “James McGinn” and “Fred H. Haynie” and decide.

      • Fred:
        So you are claiming that the phase diagram for water is wrong . . .

        James:
        No, ‘Fred. I’m claiming that the standard assumption that clear moist air contains gaseous H2O is pseudoscience. You and all of meteorology are claiming that we can ignore the H2O phase diagram and assume that the moisture in clear moist air is gaseous. I am saying the H2O phase diagram is correct. You are saying it is wrong.

        Fred:
        . . . and you are a lot smarter than those who produced it. Prove it with physical evidence. What you say in blogs doesn’t cut it. The misuse of scientific words could be considered fraud and saying scientist don’t know the truth could be considered libol.

        For those following this thread who want to know who to believe, google “James McGinn” and “Fred H. Haynie” and decide.

        James:
        Fred, if you don’t want me to dismiss you as one of many pretentious bozos out there you are going to have to get more rigorous here.

        Here is something that I think you would find interesting, given you aeronautical background:
        The Real Reason Moist Air Reduces Aerodynamic Lift
        https://www.thunderbolts.info/forum/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=10&t=16652

        James McGinn / Genius
        President, Solving Tornadoes

        • The water in clear moist air is a gas. The clear moist air is a mixture of gases with different molecure weights. The density of a gas is inverely proportional to the molecular weight (PV/nT=R). The molecure weight of dry air is about 28.8 while water vapor is 18. Any amount of water vapor will make the mixture lighter. The lighter mixture rises. As it rises the tempeature decreases because there are fewer molecular colisions. When the temperature reaches the dew point, the air is saturated and some of the water vapor condenses. Condensation is an exothermic process and some of that energy is transferred to air molecules, raising the air temperature and making it lighter. That speeds up the rate of rise. Thus, thunderstorms can have upward velocities that can exceed the terminal velocity of large hail stones. However, with all that condensation and freezing, there is still a small amount of gaseous H2O going out the tops of thunderclouds.

          • Fred: The water in clear moist air is a gas.

            James: No, its liquid. Consult an H2O phase diagram for details.

            Fred: The clear moist air is a mixture of gases with different molecular weights. The density of a gas is inversely proportional to the molecular weight (PV/nT=R). The molecular weight of dry air is about 28.8 while water vapor is 18.

            James: The correct weight for water is 18 x X, with X being the average number of molecules of H2O in its nanodroplets.

            Fred: Any amount of water vapor will make the mixture lighter.

            James: Moist air is always heavier than drier air. Always!!!

            Fred: The lighter mixture rises. As it rises the tempeature decreases because there are fewer molecular colisions. When the temperature reaches the dew point, the air is saturated and some of the water vapor condenses.

            James: LOL. If this was true clouds would not be so cold. Clouds are cold because the heat capacity (the ability to absorb energy in its vicinity) of the droplets in the atmosphere actually increases as the droplets combine into larger droplets.

            Fred: Condensation is an exothermic. That speeds up the rate of rise.

            James: Fred, you are just spouting blatant pseudoscience. Heat is energy that is fully entropized, it cannot cause directed winds.

            Fred: Thus, thunderstorms can have upward velocities that can exceed the terminal velocity of large hail stones.

            James: Ludicrous, there is only a 1% difference possible even if we give in to the absurd notion that moist air contains gaseous H2O.

            Watch this:
            https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LwSyalcoRAk

            Fred: However, with all that condensation and freezing, there is still a small amount of gaseous H2O going out the tops of thunderclouds.

            James: Blatant speculation.

            Ask Any Meteorologist
            https://anchor.fm/james-mcginn/episodes/Ask-Any-Meteorologist-ebuh5q

            James McGinn / Genius

          • You are not proving what you right is true by keep repeating something or just saying what someone else writes is wrong.

            “pretentious bozos”. “genius”, “president”, “theoretical physicist”. The readers of this thread are smart enough to figure out which is most applicable. As for me it appears that it is a waste of my time trying to “educate” you.

  62. Fred:
    You are not proving what you write is true by keep repeating something or just saying what someone else writes is wrong.

    James:
    You got nothing!!!

    James McGinn / Genius
    Solving Tornadoes / Woke Meteorology
    https://anchor.fm/james-mcginn

Comments are closed.