Climate Models and Evaporation

[Billy_Bob]

Both are taking place (flooding and droughts) and both are weather extremes and both are climate change. When people report records broken by sizable margins, they ARE crazy and weird and unprecedented. That's what those words mean.

And yet they are not unprecedented or unusual.. They have happened for eons in cyclical fashion. Why do you make outrageous claims that are unsupported by facts?

 

[IanC]

I bust up laughing every time I see Ian raving about the "GHG bottleneck at the surface". One of those odd denier memes, it appears.

Ian, I suggest you write up your novel new theory there, as well as your very peculiar energy balance claims. It will set the world on fire, as obviously nobody ever thought of such things before.

I can never figure out whether the pooh flinging monkey is disagreeing with me or just throwing out insults from habit. have you ever noticed he seldom actually says anything? is he actually disputing that there is a GHG bottleneck at the surface?

let's look at CO2 as a simple case. the temperature of the surface is controlled by energy input minus energy output. the surface radiates energy away as infrared, about 10% of that IR is strongly absorbed and scattered/thermalized by CO2 in the first 10 meters. adding more CO2 only shortens that 10 meter distance for total absorption by a few centimeters. Tell me how that is not a surface bottleneck.

add to that how the atmosphere is thickest at its lowest point, the surface. more molecules present to absorb, with less space in between.


the pooh flinging monkey also mocks my energy budget claims. he didnt say that they were wrong, just that others had thought of them before. it is obvious from the SB laws that the surface will indeed radiate an extra 5W for a 1C increase from 15C to 16C. I thought the IPCC was predicting/ projecting a 3.7W increase in backradiation at the surface for doubling CO2. perhaps I am wrong. even if it was 5.5W it would be hard pressed to warm the oceans, warm the surface, power the extra evaporation, and every other thing it's supposed to be doing.

 

[mamooth]

You still failed to explain how the surface was bottlenecked more than anywhere else. Keep trying. Impressive handwaving, of course, as always.

Einstein is attributed to saying, "everything shoiuld be made as simple as possible, and no simpler". You fail to grasp the "no simpler" part. Your energy budget is comically simplified to the point of absurdity.

But hey, maybe all the real scientists just failed to see the brilliance of a guy whose only talent is parroting kook blogs. It could be true, you know. You really need to write your theories up and publish them.

 

[mamooth]

More specifically, Ian's error is taking the TOA/Tropopause energy balance numbers and throwing them into a surface energy balance. Apples and oranges, and quite senseless.

 

[SSDD]

the pooh flinging monkey also mocks my energy budget claims. he didnt say that they were wrong, just that others had thought of them before. it is obvious from the SB laws that the surface will indeed radiate an extra 5W for a 1C increase from 15C to 16C. I thought the IPCC was predicting/ projecting a 3.7W increase in backradiation at the surface for doubling CO2. perhaps I am wrong. even if it was 5.5W it would be hard pressed to warm the oceans, warm the surface, power the extra evaporation, and every other thing it's supposed to be doing.

There is no bottleneck...the bottleneck would produce a tropospheric hot spot and we know that none exists....why do you keep claiming a bottle neck when the one thing that would prove it continues to fail to materialize.

 

[IanC]

More specifically, Ian's error is taking the TOA/Tropopause energy balance numbers and throwing them into a surface energy balance. Apples and oranges, and quite senseless.

thanks for actually stating something that I can argue against rather than your usual boring ad homs.

here is a recent overview of the earth's energy balance for both models and observational data-
http://users.clas.ufl.edu/prwaylen/...ce in light of latest global observations.pdf

a graph from that paper showing both TOA and BOA imbalances-

the TOA and BOA imbalances are the same, albeit with considerably different certainty ranges. this implies that the imbalance is going into the surface somewhere.

please, dont anyone assume that I am endorsing the numbers here, on Trenberth's cartoon, or any other graph.

 

[IanC]

while looking for the Stephen's diagram I found this one, which I like because it is simplified to surface, atmosphere, space. eg surface boundary, cloudtop boundary, and escape

also the numbers are in a percentage ratio rather than actual values. notice that nearly two thirds of the solar input energy leaving the surface is already in non-radiative form, latent and sensible heat (evaporation and convection).

doubling CO2 would add 3.7W to the greenhouse effect raising the 88 to 89, at the expense of lowering the outgoing radiation. what would happen to this retained energy? presumably it would follow the same pathways as the other energy, eg 2/3rds would go into convection/evaporation, 1/3rd into the surface causing some warming. how much warming? interesting question. how fast does the heatsink of the earth's surface warm up? 1/7th of the surface radiation gets through (eg 16/104), 1.2W TOA (eg 3.7/3) is needed to balance, there for we need the temp to increase about 8W, say 1.6C (eg 5W/1C). 1.6C for doubling CO2. but it would take a long time for the heatsink to fill.

 

[SSDD]

let's look at CO2 as a simple case. the temperature of the surface is controlled by energy input minus energy output. the surface radiates energy away as infrared, about 10% of that IR is strongly absorbed and scattered/thermalized by CO2 in the first 10 meters. adding more CO2 only shortens that 10 meter distance for total absorption by a few centimeters. Tell me how that is not a surface bottleneck.

Instead of looking at CO2 as a simple case....why not look at it as reality demands. At least some scientists are and it appears that the consensus stranglehold on information is weakening to the point that actual science is being published rather than the consensus fantasy.

Self-aggregation of convection in long channel geometry - Wing - Quarterly Journal of the Royal Meteorological Society - Wiley Online Library

A paper was just published in the Journal of the Royal Meterological Society finding that GHG's at current earth temperatures are providing negative feedbacks and are producing cooling....seems that my claim that the climate sensitivity to CO2 is zero or LESS THAN ZERO is now part of the published literature. Maybe the worm has turned and the consensus has finally damaged its credibility so badly that obscurity can't come fast enough for it. Don't be surprised when you see more and more papers published based on an atmospheric thermal effect as the greenhouse hypothesis and with all its magical properties dies the ignominious death it so richly deserves.

 

[IanC]

let's look at CO2 as a simple case. the temperature of the surface is controlled by energy input minus energy output. the surface radiates energy away as infrared, about 10% of that IR is strongly absorbed and scattered/thermalized by CO2 in the first 10 meters. adding more CO2 only shortens that 10 meter distance for total absorption by a few centimeters. Tell me how that is not a surface bottleneck.

Instead of looking at CO2 as a simple case....why not look at it as reality demands. At least some scientists are and it appears that the consensus stranglehold on information is weakening to the point that actual science is being published rather than the consensus fantasy.

Self-aggregation of convection in long channel geometry - Wing - Quarterly Journal of the Royal Meteorological Society - Wiley Online Library

A paper was just published in the Journal of the Royal Meterological Society finding that GHG's at current earth temperatures are providing negative feedbacks and are producing cooling....seems that my claim that the climate sensitivity to CO2 is zero or LESS THAN ZERO is now part of the published literature. Maybe the worm has turned and the consensus has finally damaged its credibility so badly that obscurity can't come fast enough for it. Don't be surprised when you see more and more papers published based on an atmospheric thermal effect as the greenhouse hypothesis and with all its magical properties dies the ignominious death it so richly deserves.

get us a link to the paper not the abstract.

 

[jc456]

let's look at CO2 as a simple case. the temperature of the surface is controlled by energy input minus energy output. the surface radiates energy away as infrared, about 10% of that IR is strongly absorbed and scattered/thermalized by CO2 in the first 10 meters. adding more CO2 only shortens that 10 meter distance for total absorption by a few centimeters. Tell me how that is not a surface bottleneck.

Instead of looking at CO2 as a simple case....why not look at it as reality demands. At least some scientists are and it appears that the consensus stranglehold on information is weakening to the point that actual science is being published rather than the consensus fantasy.

Self-aggregation of convection in long channel geometry - Wing - Quarterly Journal of the Royal Meteorological Society - Wiley Online Library

A paper was just published in the Journal of the Royal Meterological Society finding that GHG's at current earth temperatures are providing negative feedbacks and are producing cooling....seems that my claim that the climate sensitivity to CO2 is zero or LESS THAN ZERO is now part of the published literature. Maybe the worm has turned and the consensus has finally damaged its credibility so badly that obscurity can't come fast enough for it. Don't be surprised when you see more and more papers published based on an atmospheric thermal effect as the greenhouse hypothesis and with all its magical properties dies the ignominious death it so richly deserves.

get us a link to the paper not the abstract.

Ian, the paper was there, but has to be purchased.

 

[Crick]

A review of the abstract will show that SSDD has completely misunderstood the content of the paper. GHG's do NOT provide a negative feedback to warming. They provide a negative feedback to the process of self-aggregating convection. Not the same thing Sid. Not at all.

 

[SSDD]

get us a link to the paper not the abstract.

You can read the whole paper HERE. The full text of the paper is down towards the bottom of the page in an insert.

 

[SSDD]

A review of the abstract will show that SSDD has completely misunderstood the content of the paper. GHG's do NOT provide a negative feedback to warming. They provide a negative feedback to the process of self-aggregating convection. Not the same thing Sid. Not at all.

Sorry this is all so far past your understanding crick....the gist of it, however, for your simple mind is that your religion is starting to be seriously questioned...and you know as well as I that it can't withstand much of that...consensus is all you have and when the serious questions begin, the consensus will disappear like smoke because the perpetrators of the hoax aren't going to want to be around to try to provide reasonable answers.

 

[Crick]

The abstract from your article:

Cloud cover and relative humidity in the tropics are strongly influenced by organized atmospheric convection, which occurs across a range of spatial and temporal scales. One mode of organization that is found in idealized numerical modeling simulations is self-aggregation, a spontaneous transition from randomly distributed convection to organized convection despite homogeneous boundary conditions. We explore the influence of domain geometry on the mechanisms, growth rates, and length scales of self-aggregation of tropical convection. We simulate radiative-convective equilibrium with the System for Atmospheric Modeling (SAM), in a non-rotating, highly-elongated 3D channel domain of length > 104 km, with interactive radiation and surface fluxes and fixed sea-surface temperature varying from 280 K to 310 K. Convection self-aggregates into multiple moist and dry bands across this full range of temperatures. As convection aggregates, we find a decrease in upper-tropospheric cloud fraction, but an increase in lower-tropospheric cloud fraction; this sensitivity of clouds to aggregation agrees with observations in the upper troposphere, but not in the lower troposphere. An advantage of the channel geometry is that a separation distance between convectively active regions can be defined; we present a theory for this distance based on boundary layer remoistening. We find that surface fluxes and radiative heating act as positive feedbacks, favoring self-aggregation, but advection of moist static energy acts as a negative feedback, opposing self-aggregation, for nearly all temperatures and times. Early in the process of self-aggregation, surface fluxes are a positive feedback at all temperatures, shortwave radiation is a strong positive feedback at low surface temperatures but weakens at higher temperatures, and longwave radiation is a negative feedback at low temperatures but becomes a positive feedback for temperatures greater than 295–300 K. Clouds contribute strongly to the radiative feedbacks, especially at low temperatures.
****************************************************************

The entire abstract is talking about self-aggregating convection, not temperatures. And it's all addressed to something seen in "IDEALIZED NUMERICAL MODELS".

Can you not read?