Climate Models and Evaporation

[IanC]

An article over at WUWT is discussing the evaporation rates on the oceans and whether or not climate model assumptions are even in the ballpark with real world data. Apparently not.

Petschauer, an electrical engineer, also claims to have proven with similar models that CO2 is not a significant greenhouse gas.

Rather than assume the models are wrong, it's safer to assume any WUWT author is confused.

as is usual for you CAGW alarmists....you have nothing to say other than ad homs.

what part of that article are you disputing? is it the idea that bothers you or only who is speaking it? do you realize this is just a rehash of a Mears and Wentz (leaders of the RSS, the AGW friendly satellite guys) paper from 2007?

In an intriguing Climate Change report in Science, Wentz et al. (2007) note that the Coupled Model Intercomparison Project, as well as various climate modeling analyses, predict an increase in precipitation on the order of 1 to 3% per °C of surface global warming. Hence, they decided to see what has happened in the real world in this regard over the last 19 years (1987-2006) of supposedly unprecedented global warming, when data from the Global Historical Climatology Network and satellite measurements of the lower troposphere have indicated a global temperature rise on the order of 0.20°C per decade.
Using satellite observations obtained from the Special Sensor Microwave Imager (SSM/I), the four Remote Sensing Systems scientists derived precipitation trends for the world's oceans over this period; and using data obtained from the Global Precipitation Climatology Project that were acquired from both satellite and rain gauge measurements, they derived precipitation trends for the earth's continents. Appropriately combining the results of these two endeavors, they then derived a real-world increase in precipitation on the order of 7% per °C of surface global warming, which is somewhere between 2.3 and 7 times larger than what is predicted by state-of-the-art climate models.

 

[polarbear]

An article over at WUWT is discussing the evaporation rates on the oceans and whether or not climate model assumptions are even in the ballpark with real world data. Apparently not.

Petschauer, an electrical engineer, also claims to have proven with similar models that CO2 is not a significant greenhouse gas.

Rather than assume the models are wrong, it's safer to assume any WUWT author is confused.

as is usual for you CAGW alarmists....you have nothing to say other than ad homs.

what part of that article are you disputing? is it the idea that bothers you or only who is speaking it? do you realize this is just a rehash of a Mears and Wentz (leaders of the RSS, the AGW friendly satellite guys) paper from 2007?

In an intriguing Climate Change report in Science, Wentz et al. (2007) note that the Coupled Model Intercomparison Project, as well as various climate modeling analyses, predict an increase in precipitation on the order of 1 to 3% per °C of surface global warming. Hence, they decided to see what has happened in the real world in this regard over the last 19 years (1987-2006) of supposedly unprecedented global warming, when data from the Global Historical Climatology Network and satellite measurements of the lower troposphere have indicated a global temperature rise on the order of 0.20°C per decade.
Using satellite observations obtained from the Special Sensor Microwave Imager (SSM/I), the four Remote Sensing Systems scientists derived precipitation trends for the world's oceans over this period; and using data obtained from the Global Precipitation Climatology Project that were acquired from both satellite and rain gauge measurements, they derived precipitation trends for the earth's continents. Appropriately combining the results of these two endeavors, they then derived a real-world increase in precipitation on the order of 7% per °C of surface global warming, which is somewhere between 2.3 and 7 times larger than what is predicted by state-of-the-art climate models.

7% per °C is exactly in line with the Clausius Clapeyron equation:
Clausius?Clapeyron relation - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

In practical terms, this equation determines that the water-holding capacity of the atmosphere increases by about 7% for every 1°C rise in temperature

If "state of the art" computer models use values 2.3 to 7 times smaller than that, that also means that they grossly underestimated convection.
...which in turn results in serious errors in "modeled" cloud cover and solar insolation.

 

[IanC]

Petschauer, an electrical engineer, also claims to have proven with similar models that CO2 is not a significant greenhouse gas.

Rather than assume the models are wrong, it's safer to assume any WUWT author is confused.

as is usual for you CAGW alarmists....you have nothing to say other than ad homs.

what part of that article are you disputing? is it the idea that bothers you or only who is speaking it? do you realize this is just a rehash of a Mears and Wentz (leaders of the RSS, the AGW friendly satellite guys) paper from 2007?

7% per °C is exactly in line with the Clausius Clapeyron equation:
Clausius?Clapeyron relation - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

In practical terms, this equation determines that the water-holding capacity of the atmosphere increases by about 7% for every 1°C rise in temperature

If "state of the art" computer models use values 2.3 to 7 times smaller than that, that also means that they grossly underestimated convection.
...which in turn results in serious errors in "modeled" cloud cover and solar insolation.

Nice find! So the modellers really WERE using the evaporation rate as a fudge factor.

 

[bluesman]

An article over at WUWT is discussing the evaporation rates on the oceans and whether or not climate model assumptions are even in the ballpark with real world data. Apparently not.

I am not saying these guys have it right but this is yet another area where 'settled science' is claiming one version and the data is saying something different. The water cycle is by far the largest factor in our climate and small variations in the assumed magnitudes make large differences that swamp the tiny CO2 effect.

This was in the news about 5 days ago:

There Is A 99% Chance Climate Change Is Not Natural, Says Researcher Using Historical Data, Not Computer Models


...Instead of relying on sophisticated computer models to chart the effect of greenhouse-gas emissions on Earth’s climate, a researcher from McGill University in Montreal turned to historical and empirical data dating back to the 16th century, including that found in ice cores, lake sediment records and studies of Greenland’s ice cap.

Based on his research, Shaun Lovejoy, a nonlinear physicist at McGill and lead author of a study published Friday in the journal Climate Dynamics, says there’s a 99 percent chance global climate change is not natural. Lovejoy has ruled out the natural-warming hypotheses, joining the 97 percent of scientists from around the world who have done the same. Lovejoy’s research adds to the growing pile of evidence that suggests climate change is the result of anthropogenic causes.

“There’s a difference between trying to prove a theory is correct and trying to prove something incorrect,” Lovejoy told Motherboard. “If we can’t prove the theory, we can reject the hypothesis that all we have is natural variability. I’ve rejected that with a 99.9 percent level of confidence.”



This physicist is not using computer models.

 

[westwall]

An article over at WUWT is discussing the evaporation rates on the oceans and whether or not climate model assumptions are even in the ballpark with real world data. Apparently not.

I am not saying these guys have it right but this is yet another area where 'settled science' is claiming one version and the data is saying something different. The water cycle is by far the largest factor in our climate and small variations in the assumed magnitudes make large differences that swamp the tiny CO2 effect.

This was in the news about 5 days ago:

There Is A 99% Chance Climate Change Is Not Natural, Says Researcher Using Historical Data, Not Computer Models


...Instead of relying on sophisticated computer models to chart the effect of greenhouse-gas emissions on Earth’s climate, a researcher from McGill University in Montreal turned to historical and empirical data dating back to the 16th century, including that found in ice cores, lake sediment records and studies of Greenland’s ice cap.

Based on his research, Shaun Lovejoy, a nonlinear physicist at McGill and lead author of a study published Friday in the journal Climate Dynamics, says there’s a 99 percent chance global climate change is not natural. Lovejoy has ruled out the natural-warming hypotheses, joining the 97 percent of scientists from around the world who have done the same. Lovejoy’s research adds to the growing pile of evidence that suggests climate change is the result of anthropogenic causes.

“There’s a difference between trying to prove a theory is correct and trying to prove something incorrect,” Lovejoy told Motherboard. “If we can’t prove the theory, we can reject the hypothesis that all we have is natural variability. I’ve rejected that with a 99.9 percent level of confidence.”



This physicist is not using computer models.

That's nice. Let's see his work.

 

[bluesman]

An article over at WUWT is discussing the evaporation rates on the oceans and whether or not climate model assumptions are even in the ballpark with real world data. Apparently not.

I am not saying these guys have it right but this is yet another area where 'settled science' is claiming one version and the data is saying something different. The water cycle is by far the largest factor in our climate and small variations in the assumed magnitudes make large differences that swamp the tiny CO2 effect.

This was in the news about 5 days ago:

There Is A 99% Chance Climate Change Is Not Natural, Says Researcher Using Historical Data, Not Computer Models


...Instead of relying on sophisticated computer models to chart the effect of greenhouse-gas emissions on Earth’s climate, a researcher from McGill University in Montreal turned to historical and empirical data dating back to the 16th century, including that found in ice cores, lake sediment records and studies of Greenland’s ice cap.

Based on his research, Shaun Lovejoy, a nonlinear physicist at McGill and lead author of a study published Friday in the journal Climate Dynamics, says there’s a 99 percent chance global climate change is not natural. Lovejoy has ruled out the natural-warming hypotheses, joining the 97 percent of scientists from around the world who have done the same. Lovejoy’s research adds to the growing pile of evidence that suggests climate change is the result of anthropogenic causes.

“There’s a difference between trying to prove a theory is correct and trying to prove something incorrect,” Lovejoy told Motherboard. “If we can’t prove the theory, we can reject the hypothesis that all we have is natural variability. I’ve rejected that with a 99.9 percent level of confidence.”



This physicist is not using computer models.

That's nice. Let's see his work.

There Is A 99% Chance Climate Change Is Not Natural, Says Researcher Using Historical Data, Not Computer Models

Based on his research, Shaun Lovejoy, a nonlinear physicist at McGill and lead author of a study published Friday in the journal Climate Dynamics


I am sure that you can get access to it. But if you are not a real scientist, they (the real scientists) are not going to want to hear your opinion about it.

 

[westwall]

This was in the news about 5 days ago:

There Is A 99% Chance Climate Change Is Not Natural, Says Researcher Using Historical Data, Not Computer Models


...Instead of relying on sophisticated computer models to chart the effect of greenhouse-gas emissions on Earth’s climate, a researcher from McGill University in Montreal turned to historical and empirical data dating back to the 16th century, including that found in ice cores, lake sediment records and studies of Greenland’s ice cap.

Based on his research, Shaun Lovejoy, a nonlinear physicist at McGill and lead author of a study published Friday in the journal Climate Dynamics, says there’s a 99 percent chance global climate change is not natural. Lovejoy has ruled out the natural-warming hypotheses, joining the 97 percent of scientists from around the world who have done the same. Lovejoy’s research adds to the growing pile of evidence that suggests climate change is the result of anthropogenic causes.

“There’s a difference between trying to prove a theory is correct and trying to prove something incorrect,” Lovejoy told Motherboard. “If we can’t prove the theory, we can reject the hypothesis that all we have is natural variability. I’ve rejected that with a 99.9 percent level of confidence.”



This physicist is not using computer models.

That's nice. Let's see his work.

There Is A 99% Chance Climate Change Is Not Natural, Says Researcher Using Historical Data, Not Computer Models

Based on his research, Shaun Lovejoy, a nonlinear physicist at McGill and lead author of a study published Friday in the journal Climate Dynamics


I am sure that you can get access to it. But if you are not a real scientist, they (the real scientists) are not going to want to hear your opinion about it.

So, I went to his University website and accessed the paper. The link to it is posted below.

I found this passage very revealing. Now ask yourself why?



Two innovations were needed. First, we used a stochastic approach that combines all the
(nonlinear) responses to natural forcings as well as the (natural) internal nonlinear variability into a single global stochastic quantity Tnat(t)that thus takes into account all the
natural variability. In contrast, the anthropogenic warming (Tanth(t)) is treated as deterministic. The second innovation is to use the CO2 radiative forcing as a surrogate
for all anthropogenic forcings. This includes not only the relatively well understood warmings due to the other long lived Green House Gases (GHG’s) but also the poorly understood cooling due to aerosols. The use of the CO2 forcing as a broad surrogate is
justified by the common dependence (and high correlations) between the various anthropogenic effects due to their mutual dependencies on global economic activity (see
fig.2a,b below).




http://www.physics.mcgill.ca/~gang/...neweprint/Anthro.climate.dynamics.13.3.14.pdf

 

[bluesman]

That's nice. Let's see his work.

There Is A 99% Chance Climate Change Is Not Natural, Says Researcher Using Historical Data, Not Computer Models

Based on his research, Shaun Lovejoy, a nonlinear physicist at McGill and lead author of a study published Friday in the journal Climate Dynamics


I am sure that you can get access to it. But if you are not a real scientist, they (the real scientists) are not going to want to hear your opinion about it.

So, I went to his University website and accessed the paper. The link to it is posted below.

I found this passage very revealing. Now ask yourself why?



Two innovations were needed. First, we used a stochastic approach that combines all the
(nonlinear) responses to natural forcings as well as the (natural) internal nonlinear variability into a single global stochastic quantity Tnat(t)that thus takes into account all the
natural variability. In contrast, the anthropogenic warming (Tanth(t)) is treated as deterministic. The second innovation is to use the CO2 radiative forcing as a surrogate
for all anthropogenic forcings. This includes not only the relatively well understood warmings due to the other long lived Green House Gases (GHG’s) but also the poorly understood cooling due to aerosols. The use of the CO2 forcing as a broad surrogate is
justified by the common dependence (and high correlations) between the various anthropogenic effects due to their mutual dependencies on global economic activity (see
fig.2a,b below).




http://www.physics.mcgill.ca/~gang/...neweprint/Anthro.climate.dynamics.13.3.14.pdf

You are asking me to review the work of a scientist. I am not a scientist. Therefore, I am going to defer to his expertise on what he said. If you want to do some sort of peer review, then you would already know the correct way to do that. It isn't something that can be done on a political message board.

This was a story I saw in the news when it came out a few days ago and I remembered that his findings did not rely on computer climate models. I get it that the first reaction of the deniers is to automatically try and find fault but unless you are a real scientist and using approved scientific methods, then political opinions will not counter what he has said. If you can find another scientist who reviewed his work and found fault with it, then that would be the way to attack it. However, the goal of attacking scientific findings is not objective and therefore specifically un-scientific.

 

[westwall]

There Is A 99% Chance Climate Change Is Not Natural, Says Researcher Using Historical Data, Not Computer Models

Based on his research, Shaun Lovejoy, a nonlinear physicist at McGill and lead author of a study published Friday in the journal Climate Dynamics


I am sure that you can get access to it. But if you are not a real scientist, they (the real scientists) are not going to want to hear your opinion about it.

So, I went to his University website and accessed the paper. The link to it is posted below.

I found this passage very revealing. Now ask yourself why?



Two innovations were needed. First, we used a stochastic approach that combines all the
(nonlinear) responses to natural forcings as well as the (natural) internal nonlinear variability into a single global stochastic quantity Tnat(t)that thus takes into account all the
natural variability. In contrast, the anthropogenic warming (Tanth(t)) is treated as deterministic. The second innovation is to use the CO2 radiative forcing as a surrogate
for all anthropogenic forcings. This includes not only the relatively well understood warmings due to the other long lived Green House Gases (GHG’s) but also the poorly understood cooling due to aerosols. The use of the CO2 forcing as a broad surrogate is
justified by the common dependence (and high correlations) between the various anthropogenic effects due to their mutual dependencies on global economic activity (see
fig.2a,b below).




http://www.physics.mcgill.ca/~gang/...neweprint/Anthro.climate.dynamics.13.3.14.pdf

You are asking me to review the work of a scientist. I am not a scientist. Therefore, I am going to defer to his expertise on what he said. If you want to do some sort of peer review, then you would already know the correct way to do that. It isn't something that can be done on a political message board.

This was a story I saw in the news when it came out a few days ago and I remembered that his findings did not rely on computer climate models. I get it that the first reaction of the deniers is to automatically try and find fault but unless you are a real scientist and using approved scientific methods, then political opinions will not counter what he has said. If you can find another scientist who reviewed his work and found fault with it, then that would be the way to attack it. However, the goal of attacking scientific findings is not objective and therefore specifically un-scientific.

You have a brain...right? At least you make out like you have one. You don't need to be a scientist to read the paper. It is actually one of the most devoid papers I have seen when it comes to actual data and algorithms used.

Here's a hint. Look up the word "stochastic"

 

[bluesman]

So, I went to his University website and accessed the paper. The link to it is posted below.

I found this passage very revealing. Now ask yourself why?



Two innovations were needed. First, we used a stochastic approach that combines all the
(nonlinear) responses to natural forcings as well as the (natural) internal nonlinear variability into a single global stochastic quantity Tnat(t)that thus takes into account all the
natural variability. In contrast, the anthropogenic warming (Tanth(t)) is treated as deterministic. The second innovation is to use the CO2 radiative forcing as a surrogate
for all anthropogenic forcings. This includes not only the relatively well understood warmings due to the other long lived Green House Gases (GHG’s) but also the poorly understood cooling due to aerosols. The use of the CO2 forcing as a broad surrogate is
justified by the common dependence (and high correlations) between the various anthropogenic effects due to their mutual dependencies on global economic activity (see
fig.2a,b below).




http://www.physics.mcgill.ca/~gang/...neweprint/Anthro.climate.dynamics.13.3.14.pdf

You are asking me to review the work of a scientist. I am not a scientist. Therefore, I am going to defer to his expertise on what he said. If you want to do some sort of peer review, then you would already know the correct way to do that. It isn't something that can be done on a political message board.

This was a story I saw in the news when it came out a few days ago and I remembered that his findings did not rely on computer climate models. I get it that the first reaction of the deniers is to automatically try and find fault but unless you are a real scientist and using approved scientific methods, then political opinions will not counter what he has said. If you can find another scientist who reviewed his work and found fault with it, then that would be the way to attack it. However, the goal of attacking scientific findings is not objective and therefore specifically un-scientific.

You have a brain...right? At least you make out like you have one. You don't need to be a scientist to read the paper. It is actually one of the most devoid papers I have seen when it comes to actual data and algorithms used.

Here's a hint. Look up the word "stochastic"

Before you start giving hints, maybe you should just come out and say whatever it is that you want to say. I don't have time to play a little guessing game with you. You are obviously trying to claim you know better than this scientist. You cannot provide peer review here on a political forum. The scientist is not here to counter what you are saying. His findings were published in a scientific journal. If they are faulty, then the real scientists will be the ones who would provide the reasoning and explanation. It is pure silliness for a non-scientist or an amateur right wing denier/scientist wannabe to try and pretend that they know more than real scientists.

 

[IanC]

Petschauer, an electrical engineer, also claims to have proven with similar models that CO2 is not a significant greenhouse gas.

Rather than assume the models are wrong, it's safer to assume any WUWT author is confused.

as is usual for you CAGW alarmists....you have nothing to say other than ad homs.

what part of that article are you disputing? is it the idea that bothers you or only who is speaking it? do you realize this is just a rehash of a Mears and Wentz (leaders of the RSS, the AGW friendly satellite guys) paper from 2007?

7% per °C is exactly in line with the Clausius Clapeyron equation:
Clausius?Clapeyron relation - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

In practical terms, this equation determines that the water-holding capacity of the atmosphere increases by about 7% for every 1°C rise in temperature

If "state of the art" computer models use values 2.3 to 7 times smaller than that, that also means that they grossly underestimated convection.
...which in turn results in serious errors in "modeled" cloud cover and solar insolation.

I am very glad polarbear brought this to our attention. it points out that the consensus view has been settled for quite a long time about evaporation rates with respect to temperature.

as so often happens in climate science the null hypothesis has been overturned with no fanfare so that climate models agree with predetermined results rather than reality. I personally am shocked that such an easily checked factor has been corrupted. how do things like this get through peer review?

 

[Abraham3]

Let's have a look at a little more of Dr Lovejoy's article. The link Westwall provides is a "pre-proof version of Lovejoy, 2014".

Abstract
Although current global warming may have a large anthropogenic component, its quantification relies primarily on complex General Circulation Models (GCM’s) assumptions and codes; it is desirable to complement this with empirically based methodologies. Previous attempts to use the recent climate record have concentrated on “fingerprinting” or otherwise comparing the record with GCM outputs. By using CO2 radiative forcings as a linear surrogate for all anthropogenic effects we estimate the total anthropogenic warming and (effective) climate sensitivity finding: ΔTanth = 0.87±0.11 K, 2 λ2x,CO2,eff = 3.08 ±0.58 K. These are close the IPPC AR4, AR5 values ΔTanth = 0.74±0.18 K and λ2x,CO2 = 1.5 - 4.5 K (equilibrium) climate sensitivity and are independent of GCM models, radiative transfer calculations and emission histories. We statistically formulate the hypothesis of warming through natural variability by using centennial scale probabilities of natural fluctuations estimated using scaling, fluctuation analysis on multiproxy data. We take into account two nonclassical statistical features - long range statistical dependencies and “fat tailed” probability distributions (both of which greatly amplify the probability of extremes). Even in the most unfavourable cases, we may reject the natural variability hypothesis at confidence levels > 99%.

As long as we're going to cherry pick, we might as well cherry-pick something actually representative of the paper as a whole.

A few more:

Today, GCM’s are so much the dominant tool for investigating the climate that debate centers on the climate sensitivity to a doubling of the CO2 concentration which - whether “equilibrium” or “transient” - is defined as a purely theoretical quantity being accessible only through models. Strictly speaking - short of a controlled multicentennial global scale experiment - it cannot be empirically measured at all. [please, all those demanding experimental proof take note]
...
...
...
This situation can easily lead to the impression that complex GCM codes are indispensible for inferring connections between greenhouse gases and global warming. An unfortunate side effect of this reliance on models is that it allows GCM skeptics to bring into question the anthropogenic causation of the warming. If only for these reasons, it is desirable to complement model based approaches with empirically based methodologies.

...
...
...

And then the leader into the text that Westwall found so significant. I find it interesting that he omitted this text. It changes the import and meaning of his quotation.

The purpose of this paper is thus to establish an empirically based GCM-free methodology for quantifying anthropogenic warming. This involves two parts. The first part is to estimate both the total amplitude of the anthropogenic warming and the (empirically accessible) “effective” climate sensitivity. It is perhaps surprising that this is apparently the first time that the latter has been directly and simply estimated from surface temperature data. Two innovations were needed. First, we used a stochastic approach that combines all the (nonlinear) responses to natural forcings as well as the (natural) internal nonlinear variability into a single global stochastic quantity Tnat(t) that thus takes into account all the natural variability.

And for those interested in the mystery term apparently fraught with import:

sto·chas·tic
adjective Statistics.
of or pertaining to a process involving a randomly determined sequence of observations each of which is considered as a sample of one element from a probability distribution.

In case you were concerned that there might be some trickery or underhandedness taking place here, the application of this concept and the differing approaches to anthropogenic and natural warming is thoroughly discussed in section 2.1 "A simple stochastic hypothesis about the warming". Correlations between anthropogenic warming and CO2 as well as between anthropogenic warming and economic activity are well established and with a high correlation coefficient.

Read the paper. Critique by cherry picking sound bites is bullshit. The man makes an excellent case. The probability that the warming we've experienced since the beginning of the Industrial Revolution are NOT anthropogenic is very close to nil. I know that must be tough to hear but I should think you'd become accustomed to mainstream science telling you your views were incorrect. That's what happens when you decide to be wrong.

 

[IanC]

I notice Abraham is ignoring the concept of this thread. theoretical evaporation rate of oceans ~7% per 1C. data findings for evaporation rate of oceans ~7% per 1C. climate model input for evaporation rate of oceans ~3% per 1C.

hmmm.....which of the three is different? I wonder why?

from the article-

The IPCC has a positive cloud feedback of 0.69 Wm-2 / C with a very large range. But it is not based on reduced clouds with warming, but as a residual of the amount of warming the models can not explain by the other feedbacks (Soden and Held (2006), p 3357, paragraph 2). So this is not a true estimate of cloud feedback. Eliminating it and replacing the lapse rate feedback with our evaporation feedback cuts the IPCC feedback multiplier from 2.48 down to 0.910.

could that be the reason?






turtles.....all the way down

 

[Abraham3]

I have ignored this thread. I have yet to read the lead post. For that matter I haven't posted much (as much as usual) on anything in this forum for several days. A combination of little interest and little time.

 

[IanC]

I was halfway through when I ran into "Humid air is lighter". Want to rethink that one?

how did you get out of grade school science? have you never wondered how a barometer works for predicting the weather? what do you think powers the water cycle? giant water magnets in the sky?

Barometers measure atmospheric pressure, not humidity. Perhaps you're thinking of a sling psychrometer.

Your turn.

And to think you wrote this AFTER you learned humid air is lighter. You still don't seem to be able to put the pieces together. Barometers measure the weight of air above them, which means you can infer how much moisture it contains. Tapping the glass adds info about direction of change.

Obviously you haven't had time to assimilate the ramifications yet. But someone with such obvious deficiencies in understanding such as yourself shouldn't be lecturing others on how to think.

hahahahaha. I was looking for stuff on McGill prof Lovejoy and his 99.9% certainty that the warming trend is human caused, and out popped THIS blast from the past! crickham and his confusion about the water cycle. hahahahahahaha

 

[Billy_Bob]

An article over at WUWT is discussing the evaporation rates on the oceans and whether or not climate model assumptions are even in the ballpark with real world data. Apparently not.

I am not saying these guys have it right but this is yet another area where 'settled science' is claiming one version and the data is saying something different. The water cycle is by far the largest factor in our climate and small variations in the assumed magnitudes make large differences that swamp the tiny CO2 effect.

IN REAL SCIENCE -->> IF the empirical experiment shows the theroy wrong, it is the theroy which is wrong. In climate science however, if the experiment shows the theroy wrong change the data until it matches.

 

[Billy_Bob]

Petschauer, an electrical engineer, also claims to have proven with similar models that CO2 is not a significant greenhouse gas.

Rather than assume the models are wrong, it's safer to assume any WUWT author is confused.

as is usual for you CAGW alarmists....you have nothing to say other than ad homs.

what part of that article are you disputing? is it the idea that bothers you or only who is speaking it? do you realize this is just a rehash of a Mears and Wentz (leaders of the RSS, the AGW friendly satellite guys) paper from 2007?

7% per °C is exactly in line with the Clausius Clapeyron equation:
Clausius?Clapeyron relation - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

In practical terms, this equation determines that the water-holding capacity of the atmosphere increases by about 7% for every 1°C rise in temperature

If "state of the art" computer models use values 2.3 to 7 times smaller than that, that also means that they grossly underestimated convection.
...which in turn results in serious errors in "modeled" cloud cover and solar insolation.

I am very glad polarbear brought this to our attention. it points out that the consensus view has been settled for quite a long time about evaporation rates with respect to temperature.

as so often happens in climate science the null hypothesis has been overturned with no fanfare so that climate models agree with predetermined results rather than reality. I personally am shocked that such an easily checked factor has been corrupted. how do things like this get through peer review?

There is no PEER review, It is now called PAL REVIEW. The agenda trumps real science. That is how it has got through and why no one will call these people on their gross misrepresentations of science.

 

[Old Rocks]

LOL 2015 is putting our deniers in panic mode. All that water that hit Texas did not come from evaporation? Record rain there and other places in the world this year. Right in the places that there is normally a lot of rain in an El Nino year, just this year, a lot more rain than has been the norm. In the meantime, the areas normally warm and dry are even warmer and dryer. Another correct prediction borne out by the AGW theory. And it is not happening just in the remote Arctic, but right across the major population centers of this planet. And that is putting our deniers in a panic.

 

[westwall]

LOL 2015 is putting our deniers in panic mode. All that water that hit Texas did not come from evaporation? Record rain there and other places in the world this year. Right in the places that there is normally a lot of rain in an El Nino year, just this year, a lot more rain than has been the norm. In the meantime, the areas normally warm and dry are even warmer and dryer. Another correct prediction borne out by the AGW theory. And it is not happening just in the remote Arctic, but right across the major population centers of this planet. And that is putting our deniers in a panic.

It is? Natural disasters have never happened before? Well, at least in your bizarre, twisted view of the world they didn't, but we who actually follow science and the scientific method, understand that it is normal.

The only people getting hysterical are you because the world ain't warming up like you hoped it would and the people are abandoning your religion.

So sad for the olfraud. Though, you were able to convince the progressive Pope over to your side. Kudos for getting more religious nuts on your side. However, we scientists know that facts will trump propaganda in the end.

 

[IanC]

Major Errors Apparent in Climate Model Evaporation Estimates | Watts Up With That?

The physics of evaporation has complications related to what happens at the water / air interface such as wind speed and wave action. However if these factors remain constant, how evaporation changes with temperature and humidity can be estimated with well-known equations based on how water vapor pressure varies with temperature. For example, at a typical ocean temperature of 17 C, it should increase about 6.5% / C if the water vapor increases to maintain relative humidity, that the climate models indicate. If the surface air tracks the water within ± 2 C, the rate varies from 6.2% to 6.9% / C. Data over oceans by Wentz et, al (2007) report values of about 6% / C.

But the complex computer climate models show averages of only about 2.5% / C. There are no claims of reduced wind speeds or wave action or increased relative humidity to explain this. However many papers on the subject claim that the available energy is limiting evaporation in these models. But physics theory tells us that the latent energy for evaporation comes from the temperature of the water itself. The latent heat leaving the surface cools it and deposits heat in the atmosphere, part of which escapes to outer space. This combination causes negative feedback. The reduced net energy from increased CO2 still warms the surface, but this energy can’t be separated from what aids the final increased evaporation. A 6% / C increase applies to the water after the negative feedback is complete. Do the climate models ignore this cooling and feedback process?

it is interesting to note that the skin of water at the ocean/atmosphere boundary is always cooler than the water just beneath it, because of the evaporation process.

link to the first article pointing out the error in GCMs for evaporation rates, and hence climate sensitivity.

another article by the same author. I am a climate skeptic who believes in global warming Watts Up With That

as a sidestory he explains how CO2 warms the atmosphere and surface using Trenberth 97

Digging deeper – does carbon dioxide really trap heat?
We have heard that carbon dioxide “traps” heat high in the atmosphere somewhat like a blanket that covers everything and is getting thicker as emissions increase, trapping more heat. Well, it’s not so simple and fortunately not that bad. Let us explain what happens.



The above figure is taken from an often cited paper, including by the IPCC, titled “Earth’s Annual Global Energy Budget” by Kiehl and Trenberth from the Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society, 1997, with notations that we added. The top curve shows how the intensity of the average heat leaving the earth’s surface varies with infrared wavelength. The lower jagged curve is that leaving at the top of the atmosphere under average cloudy conditions. The area under a curve is its total heat in watts per square meter. Note the large downward notch leaving the atmosphere in the 12 to 18 microns range caused by CO2. It is such a strong absorber here that it cannot release its heat outward until the density of its molecules drops significantly at high altitudes where the temperature is about –60 F. Hence the low radiation rate. If the amount of CO2 increases, the escape altitude moves up causing both the temperature and heat loss to drop further. The area of the CO2 notch below the dashed line is about 22 watts per square meter and represents the impact of the total CO2 given the existing clouds and water vapor. Doubling CO2, taking over 100 years at the current growth rate, would move the notch downward and increase the area by about 3.5 watts per square meter, or 16%. When the heat loss drops, since the net heat from the sun remains at 235, the atmosphere gains heat and warms about 1 degree C until its emissions rise back to 235, restoring balance. A warmer atmosphere reduces the heat loss from the surface, and it also warms about 1 C. This is all that CO2 does. And very slowly. The feedback processes can increase or decrease this warming, as they do for any other temperature change.