Dr. Ricky Rood's Climate Change Blog

Water, Water, Everywhere

Posted by: Dr. Ricky Rood, 10:03 PM GMT del 26 Maggio 2010

Water, Water, Everywhere - Bumps and Wiggles (6):

Introduction: This is the sixth in a series on understanding climate variability, global warming, and what we might do about it. The series focuses on the past 30 years and the next 30 years. Sorry about the hiatus of the WU “expert” climate blog; it’s been a little too busy. There are 2-3 more in the series, then on to something different.

For those who came in late, and might care, the basic idea of this series of blogs is that over the next ten years or so, one of the primary focuses of climate scientists should be to better quantify the variability of the global-average surface temperature. There are a number of reasons for this focus. 1) It brings attention to the “processes” that are responsible for variability, which will help build the foundation for climate forecasts. 2) It is simply no longer adequate to simply say that – given the observed natural variability - that any discrepancies between existing projections and observations are, formally, small. They are noise.

I keep building up this figure. One of my first points was that it is in our best interest not to forget that We the People are in the middle of this climate system, and that when we talk about climate change and its consequences we are, in the end, talking about what climate change means to us.

Figure 1: Simple Earth 4: People, Sun, Volcanoes, and Ocean Heat.

With that in mind we have spent some time following the heat into the ocean; took a distracting turn because of some spurious claims about the Icelandic volcano; and briefly mentioned that we had to revisit the Sun (Remember those little dots on the Sun suggest variability, and I have drawn that wiggly line to remind us.) Ultimately, next blog, I will get back to an old subject, El Nino, Pacific Decadal Oscillation, etc. This blog will focus on something direct, things that change the radiative forcing in the atmosphere.

The whole concern about global warming is the increase of “radiative forcing” in the atmosphere due to the addition of carbon dioxide from combustion. That is the greenhouse effect, and carbon dioxide holding heat close to the surface of the Earth. When we start to worry about the bumps and wiggles in the observations, then we need to think about ways other than carbon dioxide that change the radiative forcing. There is a set of greenhouse gases, nitrous oxide, methane, and the chlorofluorocarbons which are often mentioned. (There is a good entry on greenhouse gases in Wikipedia.) These gases are the ones most associated with being caused by humans. I, however, want to focus on water vapor.

Water vapor is at the core of many of the distracting arguments about global warming. Water vapor is the “most important” greenhouse gas, when most important is defined as what contributes most to the heating of the Earth’s surface. Without greenhouse gases, the Earth’s surface would be close to zero degrees F. Water vapor and naturally occurring carbon dioxide are responsible for the observed surface temperature being closer to sixty degrees F. (Again, Spencer Weart’s great book.) Water is often stated as being responsible for 2/3 rds of the warming.

Water vapor is special, because within the climate it is vigorously cycled and recycled between the ocean and the land and the ice sheets. And it changes phase: gas, water, and solid. The atmosphere is responsible for a lot of the cycling. There is so much water in the ocean, that it always acts as a source of water for the atmosphere. So if it gets warmer, there is more water vapor moving from the ocean to the atmosphere. This, of course, increases the greenhouse effect of water vapor. I have tried to suggest this in the next figure.

Figure 1: Simple Earth 4: Water evaporating from the ocean. Rain back. And some water getting transported up into the stratosphere (the cold spot).

In the figure I have suggested the increased evaporation from the ocean by the big blue arrows. I also suggest the return of water to the surface by the big dotted arrows; that’s rain.

So if we think about it a little, as the Earth warms there will be changes in the water vapor and these changes will impact how much water vapor heats and cools the Earth. Of course, the first way we expect water vapor to behave is to enhance the warming. One paper that I like is by Francis and co-authors. This paper investigates from a process point of view what is happening in the energy balance of the Arctic sea ice. There is a lot going on with Arctic sea ice, ranging from heat transport by the atmosphere and the ocean, to variability of runoff by the rivers of Canada and Russia. The Francis paper finds that there is a large change in the heating due to the increase of water vapor and clouds. This increase is related to not only it just being warmer, but also to their being less sea ice. Hence, it is easier for water to get from the ocean to the atmosphere. (Here is a far more comprehensive discussion by Santer et al. of how water vapor has changed due to carbon dioxide increases.)

If we think about water vapor a little more, however, we come to a situation that is not so intuitive. Back in January Jeff Masters did a thorough report on a cool paper by Susan Solomon et al. . They showed enhanced cooling due to water vapor changes. Cooling? Well it is cooling that is realized by slowing the warming due to carbon dioxide.

What is happening here? Back to my figure, in the tropics air moves upward due to the Hadley circulation (I can use that without explanation?) The Hadley circulation is rising air in the tropics due to heating at the surface and, well, “hot air rising.” As air rises it cools. The higher the air rises the cooler it gets. The colder the air gets, the less water vapor it can hold. I have tried to represent this rising air by the two dark blue lines and the region labeled “cold” in the figure. What Solomon et al. argue is that that cold region has gotten colder. This leads to less water at high altitudes. This reduces the greenhouse effect of water. Because this change takes place at high altitude, where there is very little water and it is very cold, it has a much bigger impact that a similar change would have at the surface.

So here is a change that for the last decade or so has helped to counter some of the warming associated with increasing carbon dioxide. So some heat goes into the ocean, the stratosphere changes – yes, there are ways that the Earth responds that cools things relative to that fellow standing under the apple tree.

The Solomon paper opens up a lot of interesting questions. Why has it gotten colder up in the part of the atmosphere marked "cold" in Figure 2? One reason it could get colder is because of increased heating at the surface, which causes the air to rise higher. Higher rising air equals colder air. Therefore, this change in stratospheric water is not in any way a challenge to the basic fact that increasing carbon dioxide increases surface temperature. (For those who want more, here is a paper by Santer et al. that discusses the tropopause rising.)

Another question that Solomon et al. might motivate is – will the Earth heal itself? Can this cooling act to counter the warming? There are, indeed, ways that the Earth will respond that will include “cooling.” All evidence that we have, however, is that the cooling processes cannot provide enough cooling to counter the warming. If you look at the past decade, the current bump and wiggle, we have to conclude that we have not fully represented all of the cooling mechanisms well enough to explain the observations. No doubt, we also have some details left in the calculation of the details of the warming. It does not seem smart to me to rely on self healing. (And remember ocean acidification.)

There is another thing the Solomon et al. paper makes me think about. They isolate a signal due to a change that is very small. Small change, big impact. This brings us back to a very important point thinking about climate change and humans sitting in the middle of it all. We sit in some sort of balance, and it often does not take something that is in an absolute sense large to cause a big change in the balance. Global warming is caused by a small change in radiative forcing due to large changes in carbon dioxide, which is, in fact, a gas present in relatively small quantities.

Trace substances matter a lot. If that does not make intuitive sense, remember, the amount of oil in the Gulf remains small compared with the amount of water. Pulling for topkill.

r

Bumps and Wiggles (1): Predictions and Projections

Bumps and Wiggles (2): Some Jobs for Models and Modelers (Sun and Ocean)

Bumps and Wiggles (3): Simple Earth

Bumps and Wiggles (4): Volcanoes and Long Cycles

Bumps and Wiggles (5): Still Following the Heat

And here is

Faceted Search of Blogs at climateknowledge.org

Permalink | A A A

Top of Page

Reader Comments

Display: 0, 50, 100, 200

Sort: Newest First - Order Posted

Viewing: 201 - 251

Page: 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 — Blog Index

202. sirmaelstrom 02:37 AM GMT del 01 Giugno 2010
Topic for the future I guess, unless someone else wants to tackle it tonight. Anyway, I'm out; it's been a long day. Good Night. Member Since: Febbraio 19, 2010 Posts: 0 Comments: 568

205. crucilandia 02:24 PM GMT del 01 Giugno 2010
and the global sea ice shows no decrease or increase. just bouncing around the average Member Since: Marzo 6, 2007 Posts: 0 Comments: 2212

208. crucilandia 03:11 PM GMT del 01 Giugno 2010
the first graph is from National Snow and Ice Data center the second is from National Center for Environmental Prediction/NOAA Member Since: Marzo 6, 2007 Posts: 0 Comments: 2212

209. crucilandia 03:14 PM GMT del 01 Giugno 2010
206 your figure shows increase in ice extent in the SH despite the warming trend. I also have data to show the SH ice not much change in the oscillations since 1979 (sources on the figure) Member Since: Marzo 6, 2007 Posts: 0 Comments: 2212

210. crucilandia 03:16 PM GMT del 01 Giugno 2010
207 what is the connection between Arctic temperatures and those of the US? Member Since: Marzo 6, 2007 Posts: 0 Comments: 2212

211. crucilandia 03:28 PM GMT del 01 Giugno 2010
not much change in the ice variability since 2003. Note the the average value starts in 1972 which is mostly not satellite derived and it also include a long period in which sea ice was large until the AO pushed ice of the Arctic ocean which is not GHG induce phenomenon. Thus an unfair average From the 1950s to the 1980s, the AO flipped between positive and negative phases, but it entered a strong positive pattern between 1989 and 1995. So the acceleration in the sea ice decline since the mid 1990s may have been partly triggered by the strongly positive AO mode during the preceding years (Rigor et al. 2002 and Rigor and Wallace 2004) that flushed older, thicker ice out of the Arctic Member Since: Marzo 6, 2007 Posts: 0 Comments: 2212

214. crucilandia 04:05 PM GMT del 01 Giugno 2010
I have never denied warming, I just find insuficient evidence to assign GHG as the direct primary culprits. Member Since: Marzo 6, 2007 Posts: 0 Comments: 2212

215. crucilandia 04:06 PM GMT del 01 Giugno 2010
any comments on # 209 and # 211? Member Since: Marzo 6, 2007 Posts: 0 Comments: 2212

216. crucilandia 04:09 PM GMT del 01 Giugno 2010
213 You are using a localized extreme event to support long term global temperature increase. Member Since: Marzo 6, 2007 Posts: 0 Comments: 2212

220. crucilandia 04:42 PM GMT del 01 Giugno 2010
all graphs were from official sources such as . The National Snow and Ice Data Center (NSIDC) . NASA . NOAA . Japan Aerospace Exploration Agency IARC-JAXA Information System no comments means you do not have counterargument or do not understood the message Member Since: Marzo 6, 2007 Posts: 0 Comments: 2212

222. crucilandia 05:03 PM GMT del 01 Giugno 2010
could not follow what you wrote 1. What is your interpretation of the graphs? 2. What is the mechanism of warming "cutting of the area to the worst warming"? Member Since: Marzo 6, 2007 Posts: 0 Comments: 2212

228. martinitony 06:29 PM GMT del 01 Giugno 2010
How Al Gore Feels About Skeptics Member Since: Luglio 29, 2009 Posts: 0 Comments: 927

230. NRAamy 06:47 PM GMT del 01 Giugno 2010
I have Al Gore posters in three rooms of my house and several al gore tee shirts. We should just talk about al gore and forget everything else. Yes!!!! :) Member Since: Gennaio 24, 2007 Posts: 315 Comments: 31937

231. LowerCal 06:48 PM GMT del 01 Giugno 2010
Quoting crucilandia: you are talking about extent, but look at volume. Quoting crucilandia: the first graph is from National Snow and Ice Data center the second is from National Center for Environmental Prediction/NOAA Quoting crucilandia: all graphs were from official sources such as . The National Snow and Ice Data Center (NSIDC) . NASA . NOAA . Japan Aerospace Exploration Agency IARC-JAXA Information System no comments means you do not have counterargument or do not understood the message That first graph is a FRAUD! Someone at the "Climate Insiders Group" added the red "Volume" line to a NSIDC graph and now you have published it not only without removing "National Snow and Ice Data Center, Boulder CO" from the graph but then going on to twice assert that it is from the NSIDC! The NSIDC will not appreciate this and I doubt your buddies at the "Climate Insiders Group" will appreciate you blowing their cover. From their "About" page: About "The Climate Insiders". It is a private, protected discussion group. It is not visible to search engines nor to prying eyes. It's purpose is to give us a search-able post and thread system to give all of us far flung professionals a place to try out ideas, post graphics, ask questions, ask for reviews, and plead for help in projects of importance. It is not intended to replace email as a way to alert everyone of something happening, such as what Mr. Morano does, but rather you could think of it as an ongoing climate seminar in a safe zone. Membership is by invitation only. (I wonder if you'll be uninvited now.) Even though the fraudulent graph appears intended to create a certain impression anyone who has passed a high school science class can see that adding the "Volume" line without at least a scale in units of volume is meaningless. To make a truly meaningful comparison the graph would have to include all the volume statistics corresponding to those given for extent also. Member Since: Luglio 26, 2006 Posts: 58 Comments: 8971

232. LowerCal 06:50 PM GMT del 01 Giugno 2010
Re. 229 I love the deadpan sarcasm, LOL! :^) Member Since: Luglio 26, 2006 Posts: 58 Comments: 8971

236. NRAamy 07:20 PM GMT del 01 Giugno 2010
and several al gore tee shirts. can I get those from Amazon.com? Member Since: Gennaio 24, 2007 Posts: 315 Comments: 31937

242. LowerCal 08:47 PM GMT del 01 Giugno 2010
Quoting JFLORIDA: Its not like their track record gives me a reason to trust them - I figure they are all altered, modified and/or misapplied anyway. Those who have previously irresponsibly and rudely wasted my time with alterations and misrepresentations seldom get anymore of my time. In this case the fakery was so obvious and then followed by the repeated assertion that it was genuine that I couldn't let it stand. Member Since: Luglio 26, 2006 Posts: 58 Comments: 8971

243. crucilandia 09:49 PM GMT del 01 Giugno 2010
225 "That means a much stronger than normal polar vortex and lower temperatures over the Antarctic (just as a negative AO/AAO means warmer temperatures)." Was it inducedy by CO2 or GHG? Member Since: Marzo 6, 2007 Posts: 0 Comments: 2212

244. crucilandia 09:52 PM GMT del 01 Giugno 2010
if CO2 conc increases linearly since 1850 the AAO should have changed behavior which it did not Member Since: Marzo 6, 2007 Posts: 0 Comments: 2212

245. crucilandia 09:55 PM GMT del 01 Giugno 2010
but sea ice continue to increase since 1979 I do not see the causative effect of a short term oscillation such as the AAO on sea ice Member Since: Marzo 6, 2007 Posts: 0 Comments: 2212

246. crucilandia 09:58 PM GMT del 01 Giugno 2010
no changes in pattern since 1980 Member Since: Marzo 6, 2007 Posts: 0 Comments: 2212

247. LowerCal 10:48 PM GMT del 01 Giugno 2010
cruci, I see you haven't bothered to remove your fake graph #204 or retract your claims that it was genuine #208 & #220. Member Since: Luglio 26, 2006 Posts: 58 Comments: 8971

248. Dr. Ricky Rood, Professor 12:39 AM GMT del 02 Giugno 2010
I have credible information that the plot in 204 has been fraudulently altered and I deleted it. If re-posted put direct link to NSIDC plot. Member Since: Gennaio 31, 2007 Posts: 264 Comments: 199

Viewing: 201 - 251

Page: 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 — Blog Index

Top of Page

New Comment

Community Standards Policy Comments will take a few seconds to appear.

Post Your Comments

Please sign in to post comments.

or Join

Not only will you be able to leave comments on this blog, but you'll also have the ability to upload and share your photos in our Wunder Photos section.

About RickyRood