It’s The Water, And A Lot More (vapor)

The title of this posting comes from an old beer commercial. Olympia Beer, for decades, had the slogan “It’s the Water, and A Lot More!”. Trivia for those who might not have a familiarity with beer from the Pacific Northwest of America from 40 years ago ;-) It was the first beer I ever drank, at about age 12… Light, tasty, gentle hops. Just a very drinkable beer with a crisp bubbly finish. Since then it got mergered and the brewery closed in 2003 or so.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Olympia_Brewing_Company

The Olympia Brewing Company was a brewery firm in Tumwater, Washington, USA which existed from 1896 until 1983. It was acquired in the latter year by what would eventually become Pabst Brewing Company. The Olympia Brewery in Tumwater was purchased by SABMiller and operated until its closure in 2003.

Though they still have an official site:

http://olympia-beer.com/

Every so often I’ll hear ‘the water’ and that jingle runs through my mind… and I miss Oly… I’ve not tried the SAB Miller version of it, so can’t say how much it has changed. But when a conglomerate buys a small brewery on a special water supply and merges it into the recipe file, it just isn’t the same…

The Skin Knows

I’m rather fond of “minimalist” things. Be it emergency / preparedness kits, or code in programming, or level of language to conveigh a thought. The same desire holds for observations to support an understanding.

I’m especially fond of simple things that can be easily observed by anyone and have the full understanding in them.

So I was on the lounge chair in the garden. Sunning and thinking. A couple of days back, the same thing. Then, the skin was hot and I had that Typical California feeling of the sun boring into me and making my skin want to burn. As I have the “redhead gene”, I’ve had that feeling most all of my life when in full sun at about noon. Back in the 80’s I used to say that I was good for about 20 minutes at high noon, and then I would be burned. I became VERY aware of that “burn coming” feeling. You can imagine my surprise when I was in Florida and, starting with 20 minutes at “before 10 AM or after 2 PM” I gradually worked around to a full hour at “about noon”. No burn. Heck, not even that “sun boring in feeling of a burn soon”. I commented on it here, and in other places, several times.

My assertion had been that “something had changed” in the sun, and that had to be the large reduction of UV.

Yet, here I was, feeling that old familiar feeling again.

Was the sun back to a ‘hot point’?

Was I just mistaken?

Was there something different about California?…

That last one got me thinking about California dead dry air vs Florida sultry humid air. Yes, there was something different. The water. In the air.

Then, about 20 minutes into this sunning reverie, a couple of small clouds came, and went. The “burn soon” went, and came. Then went again… but the sky was still blue / clear… I used a fist to block out the sun, and noted a feint veil of haze to the sky. There was a bit of “not a cloud” but maybe had been, or would be soon, drifting by. Nothing that anyone would ever call a cloud. Hardly visible at all. Mostly just a slight shift of sky saturation and a bit of ‘flare’ brightness added. I’d call it “clear sky” and not think about it, but for the skin saying “something is cooler, and less burn”.

I stayed through a couple of more cycles to make sure this was repeatable. And repeated it again today. Today was more that ‘crystal clear’ and with “the burn soon” feeling mostly back.

That experience led me to think “It’s the water vapor that modulates surface warming and surface UV”. Which sent me off to do a literature search. Surely someone else had bothered to look and noticed something similar?

Seems they had. Only 5 years back. (Just think, I was only 5 years past finding something new in ‘settled science’ ;-) Further looking showed other folks had already seen this. On the off chance others missed it, I’m going to report on it here.

The Paper of Vapor

http://www.sciencemag.org/content/327/5970/1219.abstract

Published Online January 28 2010
Science 5 March 2010:

Vol. 327 no. 5970 pp. 1219-1223
DOI: 10.1126/science.1182488

Contributions of Stratospheric Water Vapor to Decadal Changes in the Rate of Global Warming

Susan Solomon1, Karen H. Rosenlof1, Robert W. Portmann1, John S. Daniel1, Sean M. Davis1,2, Todd J. Sanford1,2, Gian-Kasper Plattner3
– Author Affiliations

1 National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) Earth System Research Laboratory, Chemical Sciences Division, Boulder, CO, USA.
2 Cooperative Institute for Research in Environmental Sciences, University of Colorado, Boulder, CO, USA.
3 Climate and Environmental Physics, Physics Institute, University of Bern, Sidlerstrasse 5, 3012 Bern, Switzerland.

Since the “models” don’t look to have been rewritten since 2010 (though maybe I just missed it when they cut the CO2 contribution in half…) this alone means they are quite wrong and ought to result in a “halt” to the Warm Mongering.

Paywalled, so all I get is the Abstract. If someone knows were to get the full Monty put up a link… Bold bits added along with white space.

Stratospheric water vapor concentrations decreased by about 10% after the year 2000. Here we show that this acted to slow the rate of increase in global surface temperature over 2000–2009 by about 25% compared to that which would have occurred due only to carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases.

Now think on that for a minute. There is one heck of a lot of water in the air, and not much CO2. Per molecule, they ought to be about the same impact on UV / IR. Water changed by 10% of an orders of magnitude larger number than CO2 concentrations. Hmmmm…. And even by their numbers, that’s a full 1/4 of the warming “kept away”.

More limited data suggest that stratospheric water vapor probably increased between 1980 and 2000, which would have enhanced the decadal rate of surface warming during the 1990s by about 30% as compared to estimates neglecting this change. These findings show that stratospheric water vapor is an important driver of decadal global surface climate change.

Increased water vapor added 30% of warming during the only time things warmed, from 1980 to 2000. It was cold and cooling from about 1950 to the mid 1970s. Now put those two things together. (And I wonder why they were split apart…)

Water Vapor caused a 30% click up, and then a 25% click down to flat. Given that “colder” was happening before the run up (and is returning now, given all the places with unseasonable snow, ice, and cold: http://iceagenow.info/

At a minimum, 1/3 of “global warming” is from water vapor, and more likely closer to 1/2 of it. (That cold prior to the warm means there was more room to the downside). I also note in passing that since 2010, we’ve gone even colder and even dryer. Houston, I think Global Warming from CO2 has a problem…

But Wait, There’s More…

This is only looking at one layer of the Stratosphere. It says nothing about the effect of all the changes of water vapor in the Troposphere and in any other layers of the atmosphere. This is just one slice of the atmosphere that’s accounting for about 1/3 of the warming and modulating it. One wonders about what happens with the total water vapor column + clouds…

Others Saw This Before Me

There are others who’ve already flogged this.

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/is-water-vapor-in-the-stratosphere-slowing-global-warming/

Is Water Vapor in the Stratosphere Slowing Global Warming?
A mysterious drop in water vapor in the lower stratosphere might be slowing climate change

By David Biello | January 29, 2010
[…]
But since 2001 there has been less water vapor in a narrow, lower band of the stratosphere thanks to cooler temperatures in the tropopause, and that may just be holding back global warming at ground level, according to new research published online in Science on January 28.

“We found that there was a surface temperature impact due to changes in water vapor in a fairly narrow region of the stratosphere,” explains research meteorologist Karen Rosenlof of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration’s (NOAA) Aeronomy Laboratory, one of the authors of the study. “The reason for the water vapor change is the temperature drop at the interface between the troposphere and the stratosphere over the tropics. What we don’t know is why the temperature dropped.”

So they admit the top of the troposphere does not have a ‘hot spot’, but cooled. And they don’t know why.

I’d suggest they take a look at Solar UV production and the impact both on direct energy deposition into the Stratosphere and into the water below, along with the height and strength of thunderstorm tops. Along with fewer hurricanes, I think we’re going to see a general drop in “water lofted to height”.

I find this next bit a real hoot. They simply must genuflect to Global Warming, even in a cooling event, and attribute the cooling to warming.. As usual, bold added.

That temperature does seem to correlate, however, to sea-surface temperatures in the Pacific that, of course, follow El Niño–La Niña cycles, along with other trends. A new El Niño cycle—warmer surface waters—began last summer, which may mean that stratospheric water levels could change again. So this effect could either be the result of natural variability in Earth’s climate, or yet another effect of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases like water vapor trapping more heat and thus warming sea-surface temperatures.

Also note that El Nino moves the hot spot left / right, rather than making added heat… It also ignores that the El Nino is offset by La Nina in other years, and the folks in their abstract did not show water vapor doing a yo-yo dance; so I take this to be pure speculation and genuflection.

All told, stratospheric water vapor declined by 10 percent since 2000, based on satellite and balloon measurements, yet that was enough to appreciably affect temperatures at ground level according to climate models. “Reduce the water vapor and you have less long-wave radiation coming back down to warm the troposphere,” Rosenlof says. Conversely, an apparent increase in water vapor in this region in the 1980s and 1990s exacerbated global warming.

Which fails to explain my sunburn a couple of weeks ago in less time than in Florida, nor my skin going from “ooohhh nice” to “gak burn soon”. Yes, there is a significant different feeling to UV than extra IR. The IR just feels warm / hot. I love it. Fireplaces, the burner on the stove, quartz heater. The UV heavy sun has a ‘prickly pins’ aspect absent from sun through loads of water vapor. I’m sure there is some way to actually measure that, and finding a data set that covers it is left as a “Dig Here!”. I mean, it’s nice that I have “calibrated skin” from a few dozen sunburns, but I’d rather have an instrument with data…

Then there is this note about methane changes being another aspect of misunderstood “settled science”:

Of course, the amount of water vapor in the atmosphere is also affected by another potent greenhouse gas—methane—which has unexpectedly failed to increase in recent years. “The other influence is methane, which breaks down into two water molecules and CO2 in the stratosphere,” explains climate scientist Drew Shindell of NASA’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS). “Methane’s growth rate has dropped, so it’ll have become a weaker source of stratospheric water, but we don’t fully understand why its concentrations have not increased as rapidly in recent years as they did for the previous several decades.”

I’d look more to how much swamp gas was being made as the swamps cooled off and less light penetrated deep to make more stuff to rot… Only UV and blue penetrate deeply, and both are reduced. They then go into some (IMHO crazy) speculation on methane changes. Hit the link to read it. Then they, too, end with a catechism of GISS showing “Hottest Year Ever!!!!” (just ignore all the snow in Boston and the blocked roads globally and snow in the Levant and…)

NOAA Noticed

http://www.noaanews.noaa.gov/stories2010/20100128_watervapor.html

Stratospheric Water Vapor is a Global Warming Wild Card

January 28, 2010

A 10 percent drop in water vapor ten miles above Earth’s surface has had a big impact on global warming, say researchers in a study published online January 28 in the journal Science. The findings might help explain why global surface temperatures have not risen as fast in the last ten years as they did in the 1980s and 1990s.

Observations from satellites and balloons show that stratospheric water vapor has had its ups and downs lately, increasing in the 1980s and 1990s, and then dropping after 2000. The authors show that these changes occurred precisely in a narrow altitude region of the stratosphere where they would have the biggest effects on climate.

I also must wonder: IF this is such a good explanation of the halt in global warming, how does it square with the claim that Global Warming didn’t pause? Hmmmm?

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2015/06/04/noaas-new-paper-is-there-no-global-warming-hiatus-after-all/

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2015/06/04/noaancdcs-new-pause-buster-paper-a-laughable-attempt-to-create-warming-by-adjusting-past-data/

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2015/06/04/a-first-look-at-possible-artifacts-of-data-biases-in-the-recent-global-surface-warming-hiatus-by-karl-et-al-science-4-june-2015/

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2015/06/05/has-noaa-ncdcs-tom-karl-repealed-the-laws-of-thermodynamics/

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2015/06/05/the-climate-warming-pause-goes-awol-or-maybe-not/

Now watch the sparks fly — as there are two major constituencies that have a vested interest in the pause:

There are at least two rival data centers that may dispute the NCDC analysis:
the Hadley Centre in England and the NASA-Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS). In fact, Hadley’s partner, the Climate Research Unit at the University of East Anglia, was the first to announce, on the BBC, the existence of a pause in global warming.

Then there are also dozens of scientists who have published research papers, purporting to provide an explanation for the reported pause. Yours truly turns out to be amongst these. They will all be mightily disappointed if their intellectual efforts turn out to be for naught.

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/01/100131145840.htm

Stratospheric Water Vapor is a Global Warming Wild Card

Date: February 1, 2010
Source: National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
Summary:
A 10 percent drop in water vapor ten miles above Earth’s surface has had a big impact on global warming, say researchers. The findings might help explain why global surface temperatures have not risen as fast in the last ten years as they did in the 1980s and 1990s.
[…]
Current climate models do a remarkable job on water vapor near the surface. But this is different — it’s a thin wedge of the upper atmosphere that packs a wallop from one decade to the next in a way we didn’t expect,” says Susan Solomon, NOAA senior scientist and first author of the study.

Since 2000, water vapor in the stratosphere decreased by about 10 percent. The reason for the recent decline in water vapor is unknown. The new study used calculations and models to show that the cooling from this change caused surface temperatures to increase about 25 percent more slowly than they would have otherwise, due only to the increases in carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases.

Also unknown, I might add, is what water vapor was prior to about 1980 and what it is likely to be in the future. Oh, and the effect on water vapor of rapidly expanding Antarctic Ice with ever colder air and ever colder descending stratospheric air in the polar vortex.

In short, on climate time scales (over 60 years as there is a 60 year cycle of change) we have essentially no data and no clue how water vapor changes. Now if we take out their hypothetical positive water vapor feedback that has not been demonstrated in reality, and instead put in this cyclical change of stratospheric water vapor, we start to arrive at reality. There is very little “space” left for CO2 to have any meaningful impact; and the current crop of models are terribly wrong. ( I’d say “crap”, but that would not be polite…)

In Conclusion

For me, the direct sensing of skin temperature modulation with water vapor changes was a clear indication that the effects are huge. That it happened with water vapor lenses drifting by in the troposphere tells me they have a lot more to learn about what water vapor does. There was NOT an increased feeling of warmth as tropospheric water vapor rose; but there was a strong feeling of cooling / relief as it blocked both IR and UV from the sun. Then add in that stratospheric water vapor is also modulating, but on decadal time scales, and it is pretty clear that water matters and CO2 does not.

Earth 250 mb wind with Total Precipitable Water

Earth 250 mb wind with Total Precipitable Water

You can see in the middle of this image that there is a blob of dryer air right over California, and that over Florida it is much wetter. And that makes all the difference in the world to my skin, UV at the surface, and sensible IR. With an air temp of just 60 F or so in California, the sun makes skin feel very warm. In Florida, cold is just cold. In California, the UV prickles and warns to get to shade fast. In Florida I was good for an hour at noon (on more than one occasion, no sunscreen). I think this indicates a much larger process, especially given the wide variations in total water column in different parts of that image.

You may also chose TCW Total Cloud Water and RH Relative Humidity as options. Here’s the link:

http://earth.nullschool.net/#current/wind/isobaric/250hPa/overlay=total_precipitable_water/equirectangular

All of which leads me to the conclusion that climate models can’t handle water vapor correctly. Not in the stratosphere (as the paper above confirms) nor in the troposphere (as the lack of a tropospheric hot spot shows), not as clouds (as the Warmers often admit). Now if you can’t get the absolutely most important aspect of the atmosphere right, what good is the model?

Subscribe to feed

About E.M.Smith

A technical managerial sort interested in things from Stonehenge to computer science. My present "hot buttons' are the mythology of Climate Change and ancient metrology; but things change...
This entry was posted in AGW Science and Background. Bookmark the permalink.

35 Responses to It’s The Water, And A Lot More (vapor)

  1. Peter Azlac says:

    You can find a pdf of the Solomon paper on stratospheric water vapour here:

    http://www.up.ethz.ch/people/plattner/Publications/solomon10sci_express.pdf

  2. Peter Azlac says:

    The amount of water vapour in the stratosphere is linked to the strength of the evaporation and convection of water vapour from the surface of the tropical ocean that is determined by surface temperature and the strength of the surface winds. But these are secondary effects that are determined by events in the stratosphere linked to level and sites of ozone formation and destruction due to changes in the UV component of the solar insolation and the strength of the solar wind.

    These are covered in papers by Earl Happ and Carl Wolk: https://climatechange1.wordpress.com/
    and for the sites of UV formation in the stratosphere: http://www.space.dtu.dk/upload/institutter/space/forskning/06_projekter/isac/wp501b.pdf

    These and other papers support the view, to which I subscribe, that climate change is a “top down” effect controlled by events in the stratosphere and higher rather than a “Bottom up” surface effect determined by surface radiation.

  3. omanuel says:

    Thank you for this intriguing twist in the “settled science” of climatology.

    Theoretical physicists are anxious for, and equally deserve, recognition:

    http://wchildblog.com/2015/06/05/c-e-r-n-the-opening-of-the-abyss/

  4. Adrian Vance says:

    This is a bit of “dog wagging.” Water vapor is one of the two gases in the atmosphere that absorbs infrared heat radiation at all and it is seven times better at it than CO2, the only other gas that captures IR quanta and translates them into kinetic energy we perceive as heat. Where water has 188 times as many molecules per unit volume as CO2 it does 99.8% of all atmospheric heating. This is very easy to demonstrate and we do it, step-by-step in my book “Vapor Tiger” now on sale at Amazon.com in paperback or Kindle. Or, I will email the production PDF file to any reader if you request it from me at adrianvance@dslextreme.com You can get a free reader at Adobe or Foxit.

    “Global Warming” or “Climate Change” is the biggest scam in history. The Federal government spent $322 billion of taxpayer money promoting this nonsense from 1988 to 2000 AD and they have probably spent an equal or greater amount since in grants and support of approved curricula to the colleges that now spend five to 15% of instructional time promoting this myth. Then they accuse oil and power producers of buying off the media with the $24 million they have spent, to date, to fly a few speakers to conferences for a few hundred Dollar honorarium. Give us a break, Democrats.

    With 80% of all power produced by carbon combustion these guys are seeking more money and power in one idea than anything since the signing of the Magna Carta in 1215 AD. They are now debating making it a Federal crime, with prison time, for opposing this phony concept. It is all a myth and bad joke. Just stop and think: What the Hell can anything in the stratosphere do to anything 20 or 30 miles below where there is virtually nothing there? 1/100th, or less, atmosphere? Give me a break. The “greenhouse effect” is a myth as a greenhouse requires a solid, transparent cover, i.e. a “greenhouse,” to do what it accomplishes. Gases cannot form surfaces that reflect and control the passage of light quanta in manner of a pane of glass. It is a stupid concept and soon I could go to jail for presenting that idea to you! This is something cooked up by all the people who deeply regret they missed the Gestapo. Wake up America! They are destroying us!

    Google “Two Minute Conservative” for clarity.

  5. Larry Ledwick says:

    Just a couple random dig here observations. Do you remember the big kerfluffel the ecology folks had about the SST (super sonic transport ) and its contribution of water vapor to the stratosphere back in the late 1970’s early 1980’s. They were concerned about its impact on the ozone level.

    Shortly after the attacks of 9/11 a study was done concerning the effect of aircraft exhaust on high level haze and cloudiness taking advantage of the continent wide grounding of all commercial aircraft. As I recall they did find a detectable impact of aircraft contrails on high altitude moisture.
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supersonic_transport

    Last most moisture introduced to the lower stratosphere is likely due to high altitude blow off of moisture due to large thunderstorms. When they “anvil out” that is due to the convective column running into the interface between the troposphere and the stratosphere. A particularly strong thunderstorm will have an “over shooting top” where the convention column briefly surges into the lower stratosphere then falls back as it cools.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Overshooting_top
    http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/IOTD/view.php?id=78101

    Thunderstorms dump giga tons of water at high altitude. Just a small change in average number or average energy of thunderstorm development would greatly impact the water load dumped at high altitude by thunderstorms. When storm chasing you can often see a thin veil of moisture at very high altitude as thunderstorms fall apart from this excess water carried to high altitude. Like you say, you can feel on your skin the change in solar intensity when one of these thin cirrus decks move into your area even though apparent illumination levels don’t change. The sun just does not have the same intensity. Likewise on some very dry clear days the sun feels like a blow torch and “feels very hot” on exposed skin.

    You might want to look at the UV intensity index numbers as they predict ground level UV for the day. Important issue here at high altitude for folks hiking in the mountains, as high UV index can lead to burning very quickly for the unprotected.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ultraviolet_index

  6. Larry Ledwick says:

    New product of National Weather Service, unfortunately it is graphical rather than numerical.
    http://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/stratosphere/uv_index/uv_alert.shtml

    There is tabular data (updated daily here)
    http://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/stratosphere/uv_index/bulletin.txt

  7. craigm350 says:

    Reblogged this on CraigM350.

  8. p.g.sharrow says:

    IT’s The WATER!! Yes, Yes! It is the sun on water that makes weather. It is the sun and water within our Oxygen/Nitrogen atmosphere that creates the climate. Methane and Carbon Dioxide are TINY bit players. Methane is too short lived to be of much effect and Carbon Dioxide’s main contribution to climate is in the Greening of the planet. Something that we all need to survive.
    The Church of the Sacred Carbon “Praise be to Carbon, foundation of life, giver of health and happiness!”
    and a “Wave Offering” to the Waters of Life. pg

  9. H.R. says:

    Thanks for bringing up Oly, E.M. It’s tied for my favorite with Anchor Steam beer, which was (still is?) made in San Francisco.

  10. The phase changes of water help the system to maintain stability but even without any water convection alone would achieve it.

    http://www.public.asu.edu/~hhuang38/mae578_lecture_06.pdf

    as one can see from a comparison between the atmospheres of Earth and Venus. Both have approximately the same temperatures at the same pressures within their atmospheres despite very different compositions.

  11. I think the reason for less water vapour in the stratosphere since around 2000 is that cloudiness has increased overall in the troposphere since then as a result of the less active sun.

    With more lower clouds, one gets radiation to space from those clouds at a lower height and thus higher temperature.

    Warm low clouds radiate more to space than do high cold clouds.

    That reduces the speed of convective overturning so that less tropospheric water vapour gets injected into the stratosphere.

    Meanwhile, humidity increases above the surface, which produces less solar burning of skin.

    Dry air is certainly more transparent to solar energy than is humid air.

    Increased humidity can result from either higher temperatures causing more evaporation or lower temperatures narrowing the gap between dew point and the ambient temperature.

    Since 2000 it has been the latter.

  12. Pingback: It’s The Water, And A Lot More (vapor) | Climate Collections

  13. Another Ian says:

    E.M.

    On beers and slogans your way

    “Coors Beer: brewed with Rocky Mountain spring water. Lots of it”

    In the spirit of Mad Magazine’s “complete the ad”

  14. Ian W says:

    @Larry Ledwick
    Shortly after the attacks of 9/11 a study was done concerning the effect of aircraft exhaust on high level haze and cloudiness taking advantage of the continent wide grounding of all commercial aircraft. As I recall they did find a detectable impact of aircraft contrails on high altitude moisture.
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supersonic_transport

    What these studies do not mention is the dome of high pressure over most of the country at the time leading to drier cooler days and nights. If you look at the films of 9/11 you will see that the weather is clear and sunny. The ‘scientists’ were keen to make their point so did not control for the weather at the time – but the myth stuck, and that appears toe the aim of all ‘climate research’ .

  15. Wayne Job says:

    Very nice analysis by using direct observation, something sadly missing in a lot of science.
    The royal society in England that august body of the cream of science once declared that heavier than air craft would never fly. Five minutes in the great scheme of things before the Wright brothers, two push bike mechanics proved them wrong.
    That body of pontificators obviously had no windows to look out of and see the birds and insects happily flying.

    The AGW mob must also be short on windows [ unless it is a Bill Gates product ] they also are good at pontificating and ignoring contrary information. New York harbour will freeze over [ as it did in the past some 170 years ago or so] before the UN dictated global warming will be put to bed.

    A new scare will be invented at it’s demise, or the new world order meme will be finished.

  16. Paul Hanlon says:

    I can certainly attest to the tingly feeling being fair-skinned myself. I particularly noticed it in London in the ’80’s and ’90’s when I lived there. It’s a major city, so it would be warm anyway, but there was an intensity to it that I didn’t feel to it lately when I visited last Summer, even though still sensitized.

    Any energy that is likely to be “stored” by the oceans can only really be coming from UV light, surely. Any heating done by visible light would be returned back to the atmosphere pretty quick in the normal churning that would be going on between the two.

    I’m pretty sure I’m remembering correctly, in one of Willis’s posts, it showed that the tropics can get around a kW /m^2 in early afternoon. Assuming UV at 5% of total gives 50W/m^2 going in to the deeper parts of the ocean. There is as much water between the two tropics as there is land on Earth, so any drop in UV would have to have longer term consequences, particularly in the way the warmth spreads towards the Poles.

    Hmm, I don’t think we’ll be growing Sorghum in Ireland anytime soon.

  17. p.g.sharrow says:

    I can also attest the the sunlight is more benign over the tropics then the polar regions. Maybe the thicker atmosphere has some effect on on the wave length that reaches the ground. pg

  18. Chris in Calgary says:

    Living in Canada, I’ve been impressed by the amount of water that’s being dumped out of the atmosphere lately. In Calgary, we got severely floods in 2013, and we’re not the only place (e.g. Colorado). Older relatives of mine have commented that lake beds dry since the early 1950s have filled up in the first half of this decade. That’s roughly one PDO/AMO cycle in between fillings.

    Following up on an ice-age related posting of mine earlier, my understanding of the Milankovitch cycles is that ice ages depend on declines in solar insolation in the Northern summer to tip the climate into an ice age. Given that we won’t have such a decline in the near future, since the earth’s orbit has minimum eccentricity at this point, it seems implausible to me that we’ll get an ice age soon.

    A Bond event that produces significant cooling could well be upon us, though. And water vapour exiting the atmosphere would be a precursor to that as well as a sign of cooling. Indeed, that would tend to mask the cooling trend for the first number of years, since the energy released by condensing water would remain in the atmosphere, warming it.

    And regarding your prior comment on planetary influence, it’s interesting that the Jupiter-Saturn resonance of 60 years is about equal to one PDO/AMO cycle. (You may be interested in the following article: Decandole, J., Heliocentric Conjunctions of Jupiter, Saturn, Uranus, and Neptune, Journal of the Royal Astronomical Society of Canada, 97:173-176, August 2003.)

  19. David A says:

    The atmosphere absorbs about 20% of incoming solar radiation. For clear sky, water vapour accounts for 70% of this (according to KT97).
    That is a lot of energy not reaching the surface in some W/L

  20. Reblogged this on The GOLDEN RULE and commented:
    Whilst on the global warming topic –
    This post, from an impressive thinker, analyst and publisher, adds weight to my previous CAGW reblog.
    Two comments – Firstly, again the warmists admit to not understanding the degree of water vapour infuence of near-surface temperatures. In fact cannot even be sure if it is a net positive or negative feedback factor. Secondly, an off-shoot of the first, if there is “historically” less water vapour is it because the surface is cooler in the first place, or is less water vapour a/the cooling influence?
    Water vapour in the form of clouds clearly shadows the earth surface and obviously creates less heating at the surface. It is also clear that clouds at night have the effect of lessening heat loss from the surface. It is also clear that warmer water body surfaces generate more atmospheric water vapour. To quantify all this on a global basis in a scientifically conclusive manner is more than has been possible and probably more than can ever be possible.
    No settled science here!
    Climate models fail to represent reality, water vapour is demonstrably a far greater temperature modulator then CO2 – the public need to apply a little logic and physics that were once taught in school, into their understanding of the environment. Also to apply a little commonsense to their assessment of human behaviour.
    How come the political repercussions are so set in concrete? To accept that paradox is not logical.

  21. adrianvance says:

    The only reason the warmists express confusion with regard to water vapor is that they do not want to admit it is the master driver for heating the atmosphere. Every water vapor molecule absorbs 6.83 times as much IR energy as every CO2 molecule and there are 188 times as many “waters” as “CO2’s”. Summing and comparing the sources you will see that water vapor is responsible for 99.8% of all atmospheric heating up to about 5,000 feet.

    Above 5,000 feet clouds form with tiny water droplets. In aggregate they form clouds that are reflective and send much solar energy back to space, but liquid water absorbs in the blue, high energy side of the spectrum and re-emits infrared, IR, heat energy with about 1/3 of it going earthward and it represents a gain over air not having liquid water in it. The warmists have dared to say liquid water does not heat the air, but it does better than the vapor alone. The liquid water molecule is not H2O, but a chain of eight of them, as indicated by the much higher than expected boiling point and the way it absorbs and re-emits solar energy. And, this mechanism is ignored by the “warmists.”

    From 1988 to 2000 “warmists” have taken $322 billion in grants to write 20,000 “scientific” papers and articles that are pure nonsence, utterly hypothetical and nothing less than “lies for money.” This is an academic industry justifying these crimes as “…getting money for science!” It is not science; it is fraud and they have poisoned educational publishing in the process. The economists of the Forbes publishing estimate the total damage is on the order of $7 trillion, but the media lets them get away with blaming big oil for “denying science” and they want to put we on the other side in jail. We have lost America to a bunch of would be SS men and women in deep regret they missed the Gestapo!

    Google “Two Minute Conservative” for clarity.

  22. adrianvance says:

    The reason the warmists express confusion with regard to water vapor is that they do not want to admit it is the master driver heating the atmosphere. Every water vapor molecule absorbs 6.83 times as much IR energy as every CO2 molecule and there are 188 times as many “waters” as “CO2’s”. In summing and comparing the sources you will see that water vapor is responsible for 99.8% of all atmospheric heating up to about 5,000 feet.

    Above 5,000 feet clouds form with tiny water droplets reducing water vapor concentration. In aggregate they form clouds that are reflective and send much solar energy back to space, but liquid water absorbs in the blue, high energy side of the spectrum and re-emits infrared, IR, heat energy with about 1/3 of it going earthward and it represents a heat gain over air not having liquid water in it. The warmists have dared to say liquid water does not heat the air, but it does better than the vapor alone. The liquid water molecule is not H2O, but a chain of eight of them, as indicated by the much higher than expected boiling point and the way it absorbs and re-emits solar energy. And, this mechanism is ignored by the “warmists.”

    From 1988 to 2000 “warmists” have taken $322 billion in grants to write 20,000 “scientific” papers and articles that are pure nonsense, utterly hypothetical and nothing less than “lies for money.” There is an academic industry justifying these crimes as “…getting money for science!” It is not science; it is fraud and they have poisoned educational publishing in the process.

    The economists of the Forbes publishing estimate the total damage is on the order of $7 trillion, but the media lets them get away with blaming big oil for “denying science” and they want to put we on the other side in jail. We have lost America to a bunch of would-be SS men and women in deep regret they missed the Gestapo!

    Google “Two Minute Conservative” for clarity.

  23. Thanks Adrian, an impressive and welcome contribution to my post, a great summary.

  24. Will Janoschka says:

    Most error comes from the meteorologists refusal to accept that airborne water condensate (an aerosol colloid), but not a gas, is always part of this atmosphere. Having little latent heat, and a colloid means it is not a party to the molecular mass of a gas nor are the molecules in any way limited by Avogadro’s number! TCW Total Cloud Water or total precipitable water is difficult to measure but estimated to be an average of 2.4-2.7 cm column! This means the atmosphere supports 8-9 days of precipitation (rainfall). In order for all of this to be the gas water vapor (WV)
    the minimum temperature of all of the atmosphere would be 30o Celsius. Most of the atmosphere is colder so that H2O is in a form of water condensate, that that makes clouds visible, most is way to small to be detected visibly. A large part of this airborne colloid is near solid snow in the stratosphere, but sometimes falls to the troposphere. As you observed as the overcast or clouds “burn off”, this condensate must absorb 2400 joules of insolation, the big reason, not cloud reflection, for the surface and your body to appear “cooler” No body of meteorologists has ever tried to estimate the amount of insolation continuously absorbed (evaporating to WV) sunside and dissipated as (condensed back to water condensate nightside via EMR to space. None of this is in any so called energy budget, or part of any so called climate model.

  25. Will Janoschka says:

    The meteorologists also deny any mechanical convection or global circulation cells. Many know but refuse any explanation except temperature induced convection. Shitcan all Climate Buffoons using meteorology based on the religion of temperature!

    Hire some competent engineers like those at JPL and Lockheed. These folk have some background in aerodynamics and fluid dynamics. They would at least know where to start asking questions of: This rotating sphere with surface velocity up to 1000 MPH rotating in a self imposed compressible fluid atmosphere with the only motion constraint on that atmosphere a single gravitational force always in the direction of the center of that sphere!!
    Computational fluid dynamics has already studied this much!! They have Identified the air lift points and the likely angular location, with respect to the spin axis, of instabilities and likely vortexes all depending on Reynolds number and local viscosity of that atmosphere. All this has been done without the added complexities of vast temperature gradients formed by the uneven insolation.

  26. Thank you E M Smith!
    Here I have a place for my WAG’s in away that may be accepted, discarded, ignored, or disputed!
    I would to reply to any that accept, discard, ignore, or dispute! As long as I maybe able to decode such post! Chiefio your criticism would be most welcome :-)

  27. E.M.Smith says:

    @Will:

    I’ll give a longer answer in a little while, right now I’m swamped with stuff… Generally I agree with the notion that water as heat transporting fluid is vastly underestimated and that the climate modelers have trained their models to the CO2 thesis and left out real physicality like latent heat and UV / Solar and lunar / tidal variations.

    Frankly, I think if they hired a refrigeration engineer that’s make a lot more progress.

    @All:

    I’ve read your comments and would like to respond to them all, but at the moment I’m dealing with two cats wanting to hang out in the back yard with the rabbit… in the dark… along with trying to get about a dozen postings done… so it will come later.

  28. p.g.sharrow says:

    @Will Janoschka; I like your word pictures. In particular the water vapor/solid conversion in the very high atmosphere. Those full phase changes, that can be seen everyday, exchange a lot of energy the never gets close to the surface or into the oceans.

    In the early 1970s The new doctorates in “Climate Science” actually said that they did not understand how the long term climate worked, But, if they got funding and access to the “Super Computers” in the 1970s they could input the the weather information and the computers would produce the answers! They had no real answers just a request for research funding funding to discover the answers. Even at that time the Ecoloons had captured the toll gates to public funding and DEMANDED you must back their religion of Human caused environment degradation.
    A computer can quickly give you the answer that you already know but it is just a dumb machine, it has no insight. If the programer does not know how to get to the answer, the computer can not as well. Garbage In, Garbage Out! If you “tell” a computer to find a particular outcome, it will. Much as funding a researcher to find a particular outcome will “discover” that outcome.

    As long as “Ecoloons” control public funding the answers will point to ecoloon solutions.
    We Don’t Need Them.

    We need Honest answers, real knowledge disseminated. The Internet is our tool to develop and broadcast that knowledge. pg

  29. omanuel says:

    @p.g.sharrow

    You are right. Astronomers were not allowed viewing time on the very best telescopes if they refused to promote “consensus science” of hydrogen-filled stars powered by hydrogen-fusion.

    Thanks to insight from this blogger, https://malagabay.wordpress.com/2015/06/19/the-unholy-trinity/

    And information recorded from 1945-46 by Fred Hoyle and Paul K. Kuroda,

    It is obvious now that leaders of Government, Science and Religion – Earth’s powerful, politically-correct, but unholy trinity – suffer from these defects:

    FEAR-induced selfishness, inability to grasp the benevolent and probably infinite

    REALITY/GOD/UNIVERSE/TRUTH:

    The Creator, Destroyer and Sustainer of every atom, life and planet in the Solar System is the pulsar in the core of the Sun, powered by the FORCE of neutron repulsion [1] and guided by the “conscious and intelligent Mind” [2] Max Planck recognized behind the Matrix of All Physical Matter in 1944.

    Social sanity requires us to accept and appreciate, rather than to fear, hide or ignore, the solar pulsar core that controls our lives and the climate
    changes that guide life’s evolution.

    References:

    1. Oliver K. Manuel, “Solar Energy,” Adv. Astron. (submitted 1 Sept 2104; published privately 17 Mar 2015)
    https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/10640850/Solar_Energy.pdf

    2. Max Planck, “The Essence of Matter,” from a speech Dr. Planck presented in Florence, Italy in 1944, entitled “Das Wesen der Materie” (The Essence/Nature/Character of Matter) Quelle: Archiv zur Geschichte der Max-Planck-Gesellschaft, Abt. Va, Rep. 11 Planck, Nr. 1797: http://www.greggbraden.com/resources

  30. @ p.g.sharrow
    Thank you!
    I agree ” We Don’t Need Them.” Political Climate Clowns, or the meteorological Climate Buffoons.
    I thought that the release of latent heat only powered the EMR exitance to space. After reading Anastassia Makarieva work in atmospheric physics, I am convinced that that latent heat also powers all of the weather on this planet including the very interesting hurricanes and tornadoes, before the leftover atmospheric entropy is dispatched to space.
    -will-

  31. p.g.sharrow says:

    @Will Janoschka; 50 years ago I learned to repair, design and create commercial walkin coolers and freezers, 25 years ago it was industrial fume scrubbers. I even have a patent for a “gas/liquid contacting device and method” that uses water to wash contaminates from the air stream just as a hurricane or a thunderstorm cleanses the air of it’s contaminates even CO2.
    The atmosphere and climate we enjoy is the direct result of the Earth’s “dirty” oceans and the activities of water in air. Carbon Dioxide is far too minimal to have any appreciable effect. It is the action of sun energies on water that air-conditions the planet and wind on water that cleanses the atmosphere.
    The change of state of water creates all kinds of imbalances in atmospheric densities as energized water vapor molecules are lighter in volume then the main constituents, oxygen and nitrogen and many times heavier as solid/liquid that condenses out when the energy is lost. Water is the main ingredient for weather as well as a large factor for local climate.
    pg

  32. p.g.sharrow says: 21 June 2015 at 1:04 am
    @Will Janoschka; 50 years ago I learned to repair, design and create commercial walkin coolers and freezers, 25 years ago it was industrial fume scrubbers. I even have a patent for a “gas/liquid contacting device and method” that uses water to wash contaminates from the air stream just as a hurricane or a thunderstorm cleanses the air of it’s contaminates even CO2.

    Indeed, but it is the same WV and airborne water condensate. That may doom your electrostatic
    conveyance “saucer”. This atmosphere is really weird, H2O in any phase is unexplainable.
    If this atmosphere had mostly He, as in the gas giants, but some H2O this atmosphere would be much more unexplainable.

  33. p.g.sharrow says:

    @Will Janoschka; The physics experiment, capacitive disk, is a part of a EMF (Electro-Motive Force) magnetic attempt to manipulate mass/inertia. Electro-statics is not supposed to be a factor. There are Electro-static propulsion devices that seem to exibit something extra in their action. The Russians seemed to have used a submarine with a magnetic drive and my examination of weather indicates to me that Earth’s magnetic fields may have something to do with the creation and movement of atmospheric pressure zones.
    Lots of may be’s, could be’s and possiables here! 20 years ago a friend said I should build something and “prove” my concepts as I was the only one with enough talents to create it. Considering the time and money it has cost This might be a curse!. pg

Comments are closed.