water vapor

[glenncz]

I am reading The Chilling Stars and he says that cosmic particles causing a seeding effect in the lower troposphere which cause water vapor to form clouds. We all know that clouds make the day cooler and the night warmer, and I guess there effect overall is to lower the temperature because day is longer than night? Right?

But I continue to be confused because this is the opposite of what IPCC says, they say increased temps from CO2 will cause the atmosphere to hold more water vapor which will amplify the greenhouse effect. This seems to be in direct contradiction to the Chilling Stars theory. But in the Chilling Stars he wrote that High Clouds do cause a greenhouse effect, different from low clouds.

I know I asked this question before, but I can't find the thread.

[Stephen Wilde]

The clouds issue along with the matter of the hydrological cycle seems to be the gaping hole in climate theory at present. That applies to both warmist theory and sceptic theories.

The IPCC and alarmists generally do speculate that extra water vapour in the air should cause extra warming from the greenhouse effect of water vapour. However they ignore the consequential increase in cloudiness if, as I believe, the hydrological cycle then speeds up to remove energy faster from surface to space. The IPCC does however admit that the models do not adequately deal with the effects of varying cloudiness. Not sufficient attention has been paid to that crucial caveat.

Svensmark and others believe that clouds are the key to cli,mate variations and that they wax and wane under the influence of variations in cosmic rays reaching the Earths atmosphere as a result of changes in the level of solar activity. An active sun stops cosmic rays getting to the Earth because the solar 'wind' protects us.

I'm not convinced by Svensmark's ideas because there are plenty of cloud generating nuclei in the air already so cosmic ray particles seem unlikely to be needed to make a significant difference. Furthermore the variations in cosmic rays reaching the Earth do not fit well with observed temperature variations. Also the effect of varying sea surface temperatures would dwarf any cosmic ray effect by several orders of magnitude.

My theory is that the speed of the whole hydrological cycle changes (including cloudiness) in response to a combination of multiple combined factors and the average latitudinal position of all the air circulation systems is the evidence of the net response of the air at any given moment.

The primary driver (second only to the sun) is, in my opinion, sea surface temperature and the air circulation systems always seek to move towards equilibrium between sea surface and surface air temperature with the ocean in command because of it's density and thermal inertia. It now appears that the globe experiences approximately 30 year variations in the rate of energy release from ocean to air with a full 60 year cycle and no one knows why but I think it likely to be some sort of internal oceanic cycle which has not yet been adequately investigated. Such cycles appear to be present in each ocean.

Once one combines variations in solar input to the oceans, varying rate of release of energy from oceans to air and the net latitudinal positions of all the air circulation systems (which control the rate of energy loss from air to space) then that explains all observed global air temperature changes and all observed regional climate variations.

The regional climate variations are explained by the movement of individual regions in relation to the positions of the major air circulation systems. For example Saharan conditions routinely move poleward or equatorward depending on the background warming or cooling trend of the Earth's air over multidecadal time scales.

[Mike Davis]

Stephen:
Fair however I would chose different wording . I think you did a good job for a lawyer.
I wold preffer the use of the word trend instead of variation because weather / climate varies within the trend that forms part of the overall cycle. There are purests that think cycle is not a good word as it denotes a fixed length such as a circle. I feel that is as good as any other word and better understood than many. Even if the many cycles that are experienced in different regions vary in length and intensity. Lengths from 40 to 80 years have been observed and some even shorter or longer. That is why they can not be forcast at this time. I have seen some that are learning about tye cycles and getting a better idea of the indications for the shifts. Piers may have found a leading precursor as he seems to be able to find trends before they start.
Your Sahara example is a good example of the ocean atmosphere cycles. The fact that the phenomena move rather than reverseing course. A 15 degree shift in wind dirrection brings different weather patterns and winds can shift to any compass point. Of course you have explained that before.
Glenn: Average daylight is 12 hours over a years length of time. In the winter the average is shorter depending on latitude and in the summer the length is longer for the same reason.

[glenncz]

I am still a bit confused regarding water vapor are not clouds. I guess I am to think that there could be increased water vapor in a blue sky, it is invisible to a degree. I'm going away for a few days, but when I get back I'm going to try to read the IPCC chapter that deals with this issue, does anyone happen to know which chapter deals with water vapor amplification.

off topic, but I started listening to video by Pachauri and it really gave me the CREEPS!
http://www.abc.net.au/tv/fora/player.ht ... textColor=#408409

I want to find the part where he states(2008) that "we're at a stage where warming is taking place at a much faster rate" to U of New South Wales.

[Stephen Wilde]

Water vapour is a transparent gas.

Clouds form when the air temperature falls and the vapour changes state from a gas to a liquid (condensation) so that many tiny droplets float about together in the form of a cloud which is opaque.

In the process of vapour changing state from gas to liquid a good deal of energy is released to the air and the higher up in the air the condensation takes place the faster that released energy is radiated away to space.

The hydrological system taken as a global energy transfer system can be seen to be very fast in it's responses to temperature changes and so may well be the mechanism which keeps global temperatures relatively stable.

[tallbloke]

Current climate science seems to believe that a net radiative imbalance of a couple of Watts/m^2 can cause the earth's average air and sea surface. temperature to increase in temperature 1/2 a degree centigrade or so in the space of 30 years.

I'm not sure about this and would welcome Stephen's or anyone else view on this.

I have performed some calculations on ocean heat content using the satellite altimetry findings as a colorimeter. What I have discovered is that the sea level rise due to thermal expansion between 1993 and 2003 indicates a net gain in energy by the ocean of around 14x10^22J. This is significantly higher then the average of estimates given by the recent ocean heat content studies by Levitus et al 2009, Domingues et al 2008, Wujfells 2008 and Ishii and Kimoto 2008.

This value is equivalent to a solar forcing of around 4W/m^2 on the ocean.

By studying the periods when the sea level rise rate went negative, as it has done at solar minimum regularly during the C20th, and by looking at the timing of the ~4W/m^2 swings in surface outgoing longwave radiation in relation to the waxing and waning of the solar cycles since 1974, I believe the ocean works in two primary modes of heat absorption to great depths of 1000m or more, and heat release in el nino events and general rise of SST at times of low solar activity. My estimate of the threshold between these two modes is a monthly sunspot number of around 42 +- 5.

I think Stephen's idea of the average latitude of the air circulation systems changing to accommodate variations in radiative imbalance is very perceptive. In a discussionon WUWT, I suggested to Stephen that rather than acting a governor or compensator for the entire climate system, his latitudinal shifts may be governing the wider dissipation of equatorial and tropical heat, but that the net effect on the earth as a whole might not be to 'correct' global warming.

If as I believe, global warming and cooling is induced primarily by the level of solar activity, then the overall radiative balance will change accordingly and there's nothing much the earth can do except change the way it's distributed internally.

I think we may not be far away from being able to build a simple climate model which uses just a few parameters and constants.

1)Sunspot number, as proxy for TSI
2)Radiative imbalance, defined by the difference between incoming and outgoing radiation, and it's deviation from an absolute value.
3)Ocean heat content derived from 1) and 2)
4)Latitudinal spread of circulations, as both a product of absolute incoming radiation, and a contibutary cause of the value of outgoing radiation, along with ocean emission derived as a function of sunspot number and current heat content.

I get the nasty feeling simultaneous equations will be involved somewhere down the line. I've tried to work out some equations and basic logic flow, but my head is hurting. Any offers of help appreciated.

[adinnhall]

There is a large amount in the atmosphere for one and it can absorb the sun's rays. I might say the only gas more plentiful than water vapour is carbon dioxide, making water vapour come in second in global warming gasses. Vapour pressure cannot exceed the maximum saturated vapour pressure for that temperature.

[Ravenna]

There is a large amount in the atmosphere for one and it can absorb the sun's rays. I might say the only gas more plentiful than water vapour is carbon dioxide, making water vapour come in second in global warming gasses. Vapour pressure cannot exceed the maximum saturated vapour pressure for that temperature.

Huh?

I think you have it backwards.

Water Vapor is almost always more plentiful than CO2.

[Mike Davis]

If 95% of the GHGs in the atmosphere are water vapor and 3% are CO2 how do you get CO2 as being more plentiful than water vapor?
I could be off on the water vapor as it is probably between 85% and 97% but the last I read the CO2 contributing was 3% or less.

[lisacherry225]

Water vapour is the most important greenhouse gas. If you get a fall evening and the sky is clear, heat will escape, the temperature will drop. If there's cloud cover, the heat is trapped by water vapour and the temperature stays warm. If you go to In Salah in southern Algeria, they recorded at noon 52°C. By midnight, it's -3.6°C.