Water, weather and climate.

[Ebionite]

And we have an Ebionite who can't read their bull****.

Of course. After all, anything that comes from the religious elites must be true, right?

doesn't refute the fact that an elevated temperature increases the chance for droughts or the fact that elevated levels of CO2 increases temperature?

You're confusing a fact with an article of climate dogma. The dominant driver of temperature on this planet is the sun, and the dominant greenhouse gas is water vapour. Unless the variations in those can be accounted for you're just acting as a repeater for the cult of warm.

 

[exchemist]

Of course. After all, anything that comes from the religious elites must be true, right?


You're confusing a fact with an article of climate dogma. The dominant driver of temperature on this planet is the sun, and the dominant greenhouse gas is water vapour. Unless the variations in those can be accounted for you're just acting as a repeater for the cult of warm.

This is why I suggested you need to read the thread.

To repeat: water vapour is of course the chief greenhouse gas in the atmosphere but the point is its level is self-regulating, given a stable temperature, by the balance between evaporation and condensation (rainfall). However when the concentration of other greenhouse gases (CO2, CH4) is increased, that temperature goes UP. This causes the balance point between evaporation and rainfall to shift, yielding a higher equilibrium amount of water vapour in the atmosphere and thereby magnifying the effect. So the role of water vapour is to greatly amplify the changes induced by these other gases.

As for your graph, the choice of scale and range make it fairly useless to illustrate what we see happening. We are actually concerned with a CO2 range from 280ppm (the level at the end of the c.19th) to about 400-450 for the levels we are at today and will reach soon. When you zoom in to that part of the graph, the increase in absorption from 400-450ppm is indeed less than from 350-400 ppm, but it still at least 50% of it, so still very significant indeed. There is no room for supposing that the impact of further CO2 increases will level off in some way.

Here is a bit more on this issue from the Royal Society: 8. Is there a point at which adding more CO2 will not cause further warming? | Royal Society

Our understanding of the physics by which CO2 affects Earth’s energy balance is confirmed by laboratory measurements, as well as by detailed satellite and surface observations of the emission and absorption of infrared energy by the atmosphere. Greenhouse gases absorb some of the infrared energy that Earth emits in so-called bands of stronger absorption that occur at certain wavelengths. Different gases absorb energy at different wavelengths. CO2 has its strongest heat-trapping band centred at a wavelength of 15 micrometres (millionths of a metre), with wings that spread out a few micrometres on either side. There are also many weaker absorption bands. As CO2 concentrations increase, the absorption at the centre of the strong band is already so intense that it plays little role in causing additional warming. However, more energy is absorbed in the weaker bands and in the wings of the strong band, causing the surface and lower atmosphere to warm further.

 

[Ebionite]

To repeat: water vapour is of course the chief greenhouse gas in the atmosphere but the point is its level is self-regulating, given a stable temperature, by the balance between evaporation and condensation (rainfall).

It's not just about temperature. Solar radiation affects cloud formation as well.

New study shows cosmic rays affect cloud formation

Cosmic rays have a greater effect on our atmosphere than first thought, according to new research that studied the effect of solar activity on clouds.

www.yourweather.co.uk

 

[Heyo]

It's not just about temperature. Solar radiation affects cloud formation as well.

New study shows cosmic rays affect cloud formation

Cosmic rays have a greater effect on our atmosphere than first thought, according to new research that studied the effect of solar activity on clouds.

www.yourweather.co.uk

"The solar effects in this study are too short-lived to have a lasting effect on the climate, the researchers say" - from your source.

It's the cosmic rays that have an effect, but since they are more or less random, the maxima and minima over decades level out. Anthropogenic CO2 remains the most relevant forcing agent.

 

[icehorse]

I feel compelled to throw in the bigger context...

Climate change, and any changes to water are both just symptoms of the larger problem, that being ecological overshoot.

There are numerous ways in which we're abusing the planet and our ecosystem in unsustainable ways.

 

[exchemist]

It's not just about temperature. Solar radiation affects cloud formation as well.

New study shows cosmic rays affect cloud formation

Cosmic rays have a greater effect on our atmosphere than first thought, according to new research that studied the effect of solar activity on clouds.

www.yourweather.co.uk

This issue is rapid warming of the surface of the Earth, which is changing the climate. There is no serious suggestion that what we are observing is accounted for by changes in solar output.

Obviously all these things like solar output and cloud cover, water vapour etc are in the climate models already. The people that build these models are professionals and the models are highly complex. The factors we hear discussed are, naturally, the ones for which human activity is responsible. You should not imagine that these other parts of the equation have not been taken into account. They have been.

 

[Ebionite]

"The solar effects in this study are too short-lived to have a lasting effect on the climate, the researchers say" - from your source.

Cherry picking like a cult repeater.

The solar effects in this study are too short-lived to have a lasting effect on the climate, the researchers say, but illustrate the cosmic ray-cloud mechanism that works on longer time scales. They hope that their new study will encourage a rethink of the long-term effect of solar activity and cosmic rays on climate.

 

[Ebionite]

This issue is rapid warming of the surface of the Earth, which is changing the climate.

No, the issue is that the cult avoids talking about facts that are contrary to its doctrine.

 

[Heyo]

No, the issue is that the cult avoids talking about facts that are contrary to its doctrine.

Wait ... Climate scientists are a cult? And they have a doctrine?

Now that is claim that needs extraordinary evidence. And that evidence needs also to provide an explanation why the rest of the scientific community hasn't called them out, yet. And why almost exclusively papers get published that confirm anthropogenic climate change.
You are in the same position as YEC are and we know that they are conspiracy theorists. Are you?

 

[Ebionite]

Wait ... Climate scientists are a cult? And they have a doctrine?

No, science and religion are quite distinct things. Climate scientists don't set the agenda and pay for their research, the cult does.

Noting that 2023 was the hottest year on record, the king told the Cop28 UN climate summit on Friday: “Records are now being broken so often that we are perhaps becoming immune to what they are really telling us. We need to pause to process what this actually means: we are taking the natural world outside balanced norms and limits, and into dangerous, uncharted territory.”

https://wattsupwiththat.com/2021/10/15/4-more-new-reconstructions-affirm-the-medieval-warm-period-was-warmer-than-today/

 

[Heyo]

No, science and religion are quite distinct things. Climate scientists don't set the agenda and pay for their research, the cult does.

That still sounds like a conspiracy theory. Climate scientists doing "paid for" research (which gets published by "paid for" journals?). And who is that mysterious "the cult"? Are they the same as the notorious "they"?

Noting that 2023 was the hottest year on record, the king told the Cop28 UN climate summit on Friday: “Records are now being broken so often that we are perhaps becoming immune to what they are really telling us. We need to pause to process what this actually means: we are taking the natural world outside balanced norms and limits, and into dangerous, uncharted territory.”

https://wattsupwiththat.com/2021/10/15/4-more-new-reconstructions-affirm-the-medieval-warm-period-was-warmer-than-today/

And another red herring from another known climate change denier website.

Wonder why they do it. Maybe they get paid? "The cult" pays for research and "the fossil fuel conspiracy" pays for misinformation. How much do you get paid?

 

[Ebionite]

That still sounds like a conspiracy theory.

That's not my problem.

And who is that mysterious "the cult"?

It's not anyone. It's the union of the church and state.

And another red herring from another known climate change denier website.

It's not a red herring, and your characterisation is irrelevant, although not unexpected.

Wonder why they do it.

Apparently they think they're saving the planet.

 

[wellwisher]

The above is a silly and ignorant statement. Anyone who has read even a small amount about clmate models will know that the role of water vapour, which is itself a powerful greenhouse gas, is central to how they work.

The point is that the amount of water in the atmosphere is, or should be, in overall equilibrium with that in the oceans, via the balance between evaporation and rainfall. It is when extra greenhouses gases are added, which are persistent and are not regulated by a natural equilibrating process, that we get a warming effect.

A key feature of the models is that, while the direct warming effects of CO2, CH4 etc are relatively minor in themselves, the heating they cause increases the amount of water vapour in atmosphere. This greatly magnifies the greenhouse effect. The role of water is thus to act as a powerful amplifier for the heating effect caused by the greenhouses gases that mankind adds to the atmosphere.

The reason people don't talk about water vapour all the time is thus obvious: it is not the cause of the problem.

It is rather tiresome to be given a rambling lecture from somebody who has not bothered to do the basic reading on the subject he is pontificating about. (I am assuming, charitably, that the OP is written out of ignorance rather than being a deliberate attempt at disinformation from a climate change denier.)

Greenhouse gases are minor players compared to water. Why feature the second string and not give the major player the lead role?

If there were no oceans and liquid water on the Earth, the Earth's average temperature would be about 151F. Today with water and oceans and green house gases, the average global temperature is about 59F. Water actually has a larger cooling effect than a heating effect. CO2 and other greenhouse gases are one trick ponies, while water does many tricks, some of which are obvious and do not appear to be in the models. I do deny bad science and I am proud of it. A scientist is suppose to try and falsify, and not just become a cheer leader.

Note: I did a Google search to get the two average temperatures above and for some reason Google would bring me to links that had only incremental temperate change; promote manmade, and not the averages I requested. What type of game is being played? It is not telling me what I want, but what it wants me to see. It took more time to get the facts, than it should. Rigged science needs that.

The main reason why water substantially cools the earth, all else equal, is the heat capacity of liquid water is very high. Heat capacity is defined as the amount of heat needed to raise a substance 1 degree. A good practical example of the importance of heat capacity, is going to the beach where the dry sand is much hotter than the wet sand. The dry sand has less heat capacity and therefore with the same amount of solar heat, the temperature rises faster. The wet sand, due to water, can adsorb a lot more heat and has a much smaller temperature rise. All materials do not heat up; increase temperature, at the same rate.

When we defoliate the earth and lose the surface moisture in the soil, weeds, grass and plants, and leave behind asphalt roads and roofs, we lose heat capacity, so it get hotter, faster, unless it rains to absorb the heat and cool it off. Cities get hotter than the rural suburbs due to the differences in heat capacity that more plants/water create. We may need to bull doze the larger cities and allow more life-water heat capacity to cool the earth.

One of the wild cards of water is the heat capacity curve for liquid water is like a bowl and has a minimum at about 40C, which is a little above the human body temperature. The human body is designed to be near water's heart capacity minimum. This allows us to heat up and cool off faster. Cold polar water can absorb more heat for each degree rise, while Equatorial water will get hotter in temperature, with the same amount of heat. This partly explains the persistent of the Polar ice and even higher equatorial evaporation.

Another possible scenarios is say we have an under ocean heat vent. If we start the ocean water at 5C (to use the graph) and heat it to 40C, the lowering heat capacity will cause the deep ocean to get hotter than expected. This could partially explain the El Niño effects that are what is driving climate change since at least the 1600's. Greenhouse gases are a secondary player to even El Niño, but are giving the lead role.

As far as CO2, the heat capacity curve in the temperature range of the atmosphere is linear and increases with increasing temperature. It is similar to the right side of the water curve with the minimum at lowest temperature. What that means as CO2 rises into the upper atmosphere, its heat capacity lowers as it cools, In the upper atmosphere. There it can get hotter with less heat; more radiational cooling the high up it goes, due to earlier saturation of its energy absorbing ability, per degree.

Another good graph is the solubility of CO2 in water as a function of pressure and temperature; surface to deep oceans. The high pressure and cold temperature of deep oceans have more room for CO2 than the surface water. As a rule of thumb, the pressure increases 1 atmosphere for every 10 meters. So, at 30 atmosphere or the red line we are only at 300 meters down, which includes most of the oceans. This tells me if we heat the deep ocean, and it is not saturated with CO2, there may not be any CO2 release, since it may still be still soluble at that pressure. It also suggest the CO2 absorbed by rain and oceans may be diffusing downward; 2nd law, since there more deep ocean room. This could partially explain why the earth, although heating, is not going as fast as the models predicted.

Real science is not content to just memorize and repeat but likes to analyze deeper.

 

[Kathryn]

Maybe we ARE in the midst of global warming, who knows. Meanwhile, I was told over and over again for many years in school that we were headed toward another ice age, All I know is that we've only been really watching the temps worldwide for under 100 years but climate change has been happening a lot longer than that.

 

[Audie]

Maybe we ARE in the midst of global warming, who knows. Meanwhile, I was told over and over again for many years in school that we were headed toward another ice age, All I know is that we've only been really watching the temps worldwide for under 100 years but climate change has been happening a lot longer than that.

"over and over for many years"?

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

Water is key to the earth being warm and inhabitable. I am concerned that the current climate models, that fixate on a few green house gases, but does not also stress the importance of water, is half baked and misleading.

And you have no doubt investigated these models, understand what you've read, and deem yourself qualified to judge. Or is the OP simply some verbose joke?

 

[Kathryn]

"over and over for many years"?

Yes, I was born in 1962. So I did hear it over and over again for many years. Now, I don't doubt that we're experiencing global warming or "climate change" or whatever you want to call it.

 

[Valjean]

Maybe we ARE in the midst of global warming, who knows. Meanwhile, I was told over and over again for many years in school that we were headed toward another ice age,

Were you told why we were headed for an ice age, so you could evaluate the evidence pro and con for yourself?
The cooling threat was mainly a product of the tabloid press.

I don't believe the near-future, anthropogenic ice-age threat was ever a widely held scientific view, save for a possible nuclear Winter. I think the cooling threat was mainly being spread by the tabloid press.

Serious scientific warnings of anthropogenic warming appeared in the '70s, but were soon suppressed by those who found them inconvenient.
Today, the evidence has become overwhelming, and acceptance of warming has become almost universal amongst the scientifically literate.

All I know is that we've only been really watching the temps worldwide for under 100 years but climate change has been happening a lot longer than that.

We can track regional climate back for tens of millions of years.

 

[wellwisher]

Were you told why we were headed for an ice age, so you could evaluate the evidence pro and con for yourself?
The cooling threat was mainly a product of the tabloid press.

I don't believe the near-future, anthropogenic ice-age threat was ever a widely held scientific view, save for a possible nuclear Winter. I think the cooling threat was mainly being spread by the tabloid press.

Serious scientific warnings of anthropogenic warming appeared in the '70s, but were soon suppressed by those who found them inconvenient.
Today, the evidence has become overwhelming, and acceptance of warming has become almost universal amongst the scientifically literate.

We can track regional climate back for tens of millions of years.

I believe we are warming, slightly, but the man made variable is not the whole story. I do not see how they can hold all the natural variables constant to isolate the manmade variables, since geological evidence shows natural is not static. We are still connected to a longe term warming trend from the last ice age. Water, alone has many extra tricks up its sleeve. Here is a new trick; altering atmospheric chemistry.

A volcanic eruption sent enough water vapor into the stratosphere to cause a rapid change in chemistry - NOAA Research

The eruption of the Hunga Tonga-Hunga Ha’apai volcano on January 15, 2022, produced the largest underwater explosion ever recorded by modern scientific instruments, blasting an enormous amount of water and volcanic gases higher than any other eruption in the satellite era.

Two research papers have now detailed how that water vapor rapidly affected the Earth’s stratosphere between 10 and 31 miles above the surface, causing an unexpectedly large loss of ozone and an unexpectedly rapid formation of aerosols.

“Up until now, sulfur has been the primary focus of research on eruptions,” said Elizabeth Asher, a CIRES research scientist now working at NOAA’s Global Monitoring Laboratory. Asher led one of the two recent studies while at the NOAA’s Chemical Sciences Laboratory. “Studying Hunga Tonga showed that other gases, like water vapor, can have a profound impact on these outcomes.”

Another set of natural events, that cycles is El Niño and La Niña. These have been recorded as far back as the 1600's. How many thought the record 2023 warming was due to greenhouse gases? Fake news is placing its thumb on the scale for manmade.

2023 set a new warmest-year record by a wide margin. Unlike the previous two years (2021 and 2022), which were squarely entrenched in a cold phase El Niño Southern Oscillation (ENSO) episode, also known as La Niña, 2023 quickly moved into ENSO neutral territory, transitioning to a warm phase episode, El Niño, by June.

One man made change, that may be causing the manmade bias, in science itself, is how climate data is collected. The first weather satellites were launched in the 1960's and 1970's. These bird's eye views of the earth gave a much broader view of the earth compare to the limited number of weather stations at that time. These now allow science to get an actual global average, based on everywhere, including the oceans and impenetrable forests. Ocean data use to be limited to ships and trade routes and not all the treacherous places. This could explain why the first early warning signs of global warming appeared with the rise of the age of satellites and genuine global data; 1970's. The classic weather data was showing a cooling trend.

When you look at the ancient past we also have data, but there are limitations such as where you can collect data. Ice core samples are useful but these occur where there is no life to fix CO2 and locally lower the CO2. Today we can get real time data.

Does anyone know if science is running parallel testing, using old timer methods; mercury thermometers and limited weather stations, and comparing this to the satellite data, to see how close these match? Or are we just assuming they will match? That assumption may be part of a conscious or unconscious magic trick, if the answer is no. Science likes the latest toys and may not want to get sent back to the stone age with spartan tools and locations. The bias may remain for prestige reasons.

 

[Valjean]

I believe we are warming, slightly, but the man made variable is not the whole story. I do not see how they can hold all the natural variables constant to isolate the manmade variables, since geological evidence shows natural is not static. We are still connected to a longe term warming trend from the last ice age. Water, alone has many extra tricks up its sleeve. Here is a new trick; altering atmospheric chemistry.

Most of the natural variables are known, fairly regular, and predictable, so their effects can be modeled. Irregular factors like ice ages are gradual enough that their effects can be tracked over decades/centuries, isolated from other variables, and factored in to the model.
Things like el niño or la niña are less predictable individually, but averaging over centuries can yield a usable pattern.
Sudden, upredictable events like volcanism or meteorite impacts leave clear geological footprints, so effects can be isolated from other variables and factored in.

Climatologists model and analyze these to understand which are doing what, just as a meteorologists models immediate local factors to make short range, local predictions.
Climate prediction is the more accurate, as it can average relevant factors over decades and centuries, and isn't perturbed by sudden local variation, as weather prediction is.

The patterns that have emerged show a massive and geologically explosive change, such as hasn't been seen since the Chicxulub impact, that can't be accounted for from the effects of any variable other than known, human activity.
They've also correlated fairly well to future forecasts using these data, though in hindsight predictions have usually proved too conservative.

A volcanic eruption sent enough water vapor into the stratosphere to cause a rapid change in chemistry - NOAA Research

Yes, and these leave a clear footprint. We know what occurred and when, so purturbations from the non-event predictions can be attributed to it and added to the overall calculations.
A volcanic eruption sent enough water vapor into the stratosphere to cause a rapid change in chemistry - NOAA Research

Another set of natural events, that cycles is El Niño and La Niña. These have been recorded as far back as the 1600's. How many thought the record 2023 warming was due to greenhouse gases? Fake news is placing its thumb on the scale for manmade.

These are tiny, sort blips in the overall model. A single such event produces only a short-term variation, not the centuries long changes that cause climate change. Averaging them over decades smooths the overall climate trend.

One man made change, that may be causing the manmade bias, in science itself, is how climate data is collected. The first weather satellites were launched in the 1960's and 1970's. These bird's eye views of the earth gave a much broader view of the earth compare to the limited number of weather stations at that time. These now allow science to get an actual global average, based on everywhere, including the oceans and impenetrable forests. Ocean data use to be limited to ships and trade routes and not all the treacherous places. This could explain why the first early warning signs of global warming appeared with the rise of the age of satellites and genuine global data; 1970's. The classic weather data was showing a cooling trend.

Yes. satellite and remote monitoring technology has vastly improved since the '70s, but it's not the only way we discover and trace changes. Dendrochronology, palynology, stratigraphy with radiometrics, fossil deposition, coral and stromatolite growth, ice and &c earth core analysis, &al. are also useful.

When you look at the ancient past we also have data, but there are limitations such as where you can collect data. Ice core samples are useful but these occur where there is no life to fix CO2 and locally lower the CO2. Today we can get real time data.

True, but you can also get, seasonal, temperature, pollution, palynographic, and atmospheric gas data from ice cores too, and factor them in with the data from other sources, no?

Does anyone know if science is running parallel testing, using old timer methods; mercury thermometers and limited weather stations, and comparing this to the satellite data, to see how close these match?

As soon as data is collected, discrepancies are immediately apparent. If we don't figure out where they originate, the whole monitoring infrastructure is compromised till we make corrections.

Or are we just assuming they will match? That assumption may be part of a conscious or unconscious magic trick, if the answer is no. Science likes the latest toys and may not want to get sent back to the stone age with spartan tools and locations. The bias may remain for prestige reasons.

The whole point of monitoring is to eliminate assumptions and maximize consilience. The old-timey toys tend to be cheap, reliable, plentiful and transportable. More of them are deployed than large, complex, expensive, delicate systems. For every satellite temperature or CO2 detector, there must be thousands of cheap, portable thermometers and gas detectors deployed.