The world is melting, the world is melting.....part two.

In part one, I talked about the predictions and proclamations that have been made by global warming supporters. I also showed some recent temperature anomaly data.

Link to part one.

The world is melting part one

 

In part two, I will discuss what I think is causing the global warming. This is much longer than Part 1. But, it covers a lot of scientific ground and is a bit more complex than my typical post.

 The Historic Record:

The Earth has been warmer during certain periods in the past. And there have been times of extreme cold. I'm sure most of y'all know of the great ice ages.  An ice age is an extremely long period (typically millions to tens of millions of years), where surface temperatures are very cold, and large areas of the Earth are covered in continental ice sheets and alpine glaciers. The global record shows there have been at least five great ice ages. The earliest know one was two billion years ago. The latest ice age began about 3 million years ago, looks to have peaked about 20,000 years ago. You might find it interesting  that the globe is still technically still in the current ice age footprint. All ice ages have periodic shorter time spans of warmth called interglacial warming cycles. The current ice age has had several warming cycles. The three most recent are The Roman Warming Period, The Medieval Warming period, and the current warming period.  Between the current and the medieval warming periods, was a time called the Little Ice Age. The Little Ice Age started around 1300 AD and lasted until about 1870 AD (Remember George Washington's cold winter at Valley Forge).  That means it officially ended only 150 years ago. An interesting side note:  as the ice caused by the little ice age melted and retreated there was a lot of increased iceberg activity in the Pacific  and Atlantic Oceans, the sinking of the RMS Titanic of April 15, 1912 happened toward the end of this increased iceberg activity period. The Titanic could be the last victim of the Little Ice Age.

         

The Roman Warming went from about 250BC to about 400 AD.  The Medieval Warming went from around 800 AD to around 1300 AD. Both of these periods spiked warmer than our current warming period has done so far. There are those who say...the processes that led to the Roman and Medieval warming periods were different than what has led to our current warming. I haven't seen anything substantial that supports that claim. But both of those warm periods happened well before the industrial age, and humankind adding  Carbon Dioxide (CO₂)  to the atmosphere. So the idea that natural processes can lead to increased atmospheric temperature spikes isn't absurd.

 

 

 

The idea that we're gradually warming shouldn't come as a big surprise; The Little Ice Age ended not that long ago. Looking at the global record, we should expect the current warming trend to continue for several decades. 

 

Carbon Dioxide VS Water Vapor:

We hear a lot of discussion on how Carbon Dioxide (CO₂) is the cause for the climate warming up.   But I ask all y'all to find a saturation mixing chart for CO_2's  impact on temperature. I hope you have a lot of time to look, because you won't find one. There is no correlation between CO₂  and temperature.  If you can't show a saturation mixing ratio, how can you say that is causing all the problem with rising temperatures?  

But there is a direct correlation between water vapor and temperature. Here is a chart (Joe Bastardi used this) that I've cleaned it up a little, that shows how water vapor concentration effects temperature.

 

The column on the far left shows how the change in temperature VS water vapor goes to near 0. The top row shows that an increase of around 0.12 gram/kg of water vapor at -40°F degrees corresponds to a 10°F degree increase in temperature. Dropping down a couple of rows shows that  an increase of 0.35 gram/kg of water vapor at -20°F degrees corresponds to only a 4°F degree increase in temperature. Dropping down a few more rows shows that  an increase of 0.94 gram/kg of water vapor at 0 degrees corresponds to only a 2°F degree increase in temperature. This clearly shows that the rise of temperature is not a linear process. If you read part one of this series, you will remember, I said "We see the poles have warm temperature anomalies during the arctic cold season, but cooler temperature anomalies during their warm season" understanding the reason for this , is one of the major keys in the cause for a warming Earth.

What the chart is showing us is, if a small amount of water vapor is added to cold air, the rise in dew point temperature in the air will cause the air temperature to get close to or equal to the dew point temperature. The chart shows it takes substantially less water vapor (moisture) to increase the dew point temperature from -40°F   degrees to -30°F   degrees; than to increase the dew point temperature  from 10°F   degrees to 20°F degrees.

As for the polar regions the coldest and driest air is found there during that poles respective winter season. So the fact that the arctic winter sees the warmest temperature anomalies shouldn't be surprising. Why? Because the heat capacity of air is determined by the amount of water vapor it contains. Since winter in the arctic is very cold and the air is very dry, it has an extremely low heat capacity. So very small inputs of extra energy from the water vapor will increase the air temperature, the colder the air the greater the temperature departure.

What does this have to do with global warming? If the heat capacity of the atmosphere is increased, all else being equal, it will not cool as readily. it will not get as cold. That is because, with the air having a higher heat capacity, removing the same amount of energy will not lead to as large a fall in temperature. Why is most of the heat anomaly in the polar regions? The lower the temperature the more water vapor will mix in to raise the temperature. As the air temperature rises the more the water vapor will tend to limit it. So since the air in the temperate and tropical regions are warmer,  water vapor has less effect on these areas maximum temperatures. This is why those night time temperature anomalies are so high. So since the air can't cool down as readily the globe keeps warming slightly.

The atmospheric ocean system is very complex, water vapor also helps to moderate temperature. Observation shows us that temperature and humidity have an inverse relationship. The higher the temperature the lower the humidity.  During the morning when the day is at it's coolest, the percentage of humidity in the air is higher. But by 3:00 pm, as we approach the warmest part of the day, the percentage of humidity in the air is lower. So water vapor does help keep a cap on how warm the air can get.  Also increased water vapor  leads to an increase in clouds. More clouds equals more redirected Infrared solar radiation. So since there is less solar input temperature is reduced.  But, I have to point out that different cloud types redirect solar radiation in different ways and amounts.   

A look at some of the numbers associated with all of this:

This section involves some mathematics. But I have tried to stay out of the math as much as I can, and try to make it easy to follow. And try to show how I arrived at my conclusions.    

How big a contribution Humankind make to the Greenhouse Effect, depends on if you exclude or include water vapor into the equation. I have found that often, data about global climate, doesn't include water vapor as part of the model input. Instead, the model input relies heavily on CO₂  concentration. In my option, not including water vapor not only skews the data, it makes it unusable.

It is a scientific fact that water vapor is the most abundant greenhouse gas. Based on concentration, water vapor constitutes 95% of the total greenhouse effect. Almost all (99.999%) of the water vapor comes from natural sources, of which the global oceans teleconnection and other cyclical processes contribute the vast majority. The oceans contain 99.9% of the energy of the ocean-atmospheric system. Other atmospheric greenhouse gases,  CO₂, Methane (CH₄), Nitrous Oxide (N₂ O), and miscellaneous other gases (with the exception of  Chlorofluorocarbons (CFC's)),  are mostly of natural origin as well, CFC's are certain types of: refrigerants, solvents, and aerosol sprays. Many CFC's have been banned; the other are tightly controlled.  

Below are some tables that show how the major greenhouse gases stack up against each other. Some of these numbers have been rounded

Table 1

Table 1 was constructed from data published by the U.S. Department Of Energy (DOE) and other sources. The table summarizes the concentrations of various greenhouse gases. Note: the DOE for whatever reason doesn't include water vapor.  The concentrations used are in parts per billion.  

 

Without including water vapor the combined natural and humankind CO₂    production  makes up (368,400 / 370,484) = 99.44% of all greenhouse concentrations. Human added  CO₂  activities cause (11,880 / 370,484) = 3.207% of all greenhouse concentrations. The total human contribution is (12,217 / 370,484) 3.298% for all greenhouse gas concentrations.

Note: the data in the table hasn't been corrected to show the actual Global Warming Potential (GWP) for each of the greenhouse gases shown in Table 1    

 

Table 2

Table 2  takes the same data, but includes the GWP in the results. By including the GWP the data is more useful. But without including water vapor it still shows a skewed view of what is actually going on.

 

I made the conversion by (concentration) (the appropriate GWP multiplier (of each gas relative to CO₂ )) = the greenhouse contribution.   The GWP multiplier can be found on the EPA website. But other sites also carry the table.

When we place GWP into the picture, we find combined natural and humankind CO₂   production , without including water vapor, the combined natural and humankind CO₂  has been reduced to (368,400 / 509.056) = 74.37% of all greenhouse gases. Human activities CO₂ contribution has been reduced (11,880/509,056) = 2.33% of all greenhouse gases. This results in a combined total human greenhouse contribution of (28,162/509,056) = 5.53%

The table shows that, while the other greenhouse gases only make up 0.56% of total greenhouse gas concentration; they contribute about 27.63% of the greenhouse effect. That shows that as a group, they are much more potent and have a much greater impact on global warming relative to CO₂.  

 

Table 3

Factors in Water Vapor. Together with all the other greenhouse gases expressed as a relative % of the total greenhouse effect.

 

Water vapor comprises about 95% of the greenhouse effect. While CO₂   impact has been reduced to 3.62%. When we include water vapor, humankinds impact to the greenhouse effect has been reduced to 0.072%.  There is no doubt that water vapor, is the predominate player in the greenhouse arena.

It is true, that some greenhouse gases like CH₄  produce water vapor as a byproduct as they breakdown in the atmosphere. But this a natural process instead of one caused by human activity.  It is also true that  CH₄  is produced mostly from natural sources such as from living organisms and decaying plant matter. CH₄  is also produced in large amounts by volcanos and glaciers.  There is no doubt that human activities like certain agricultural practices, and solid waste landfills also contribute to CH₄  production. The use and transportation for fossil fuels also produces CH₄

 

Table 4.                                         

This Chart takes the data from Table 1, and is used to illustrate the percentage of how much of each greenhouse gas is derived from natural VS human made.  

 

Table 4a

 

The  CO₂ that comes from human activities it totals out to a trifling 0.117%

But when everything is factored in....humankinds total contribution to the greenhouse effect is about 0.28%

 

Below are a couple of tables that show the common CFC's. The data comes from the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

 

 

Global warming alarmist, say "small increases in global temperatures can be hard to measure over short time periods, because they can be masked by natural variations.  The atmospheric ocean system does have cycles of warming and cooling, but they are hard to separate from small changes in temperature caused by CO₂  emissions".  To me, this means they have hypothesis on what is going on.....but not much in the way of provable facts.

I have showed that water vapor is by far the most abundant greenhouse gas in the atmosphere. All human activity contributes virtually nothing as way of direct influence on water vapor atmospheric concentrations. The entire climate system is very complex. The interaction of all the various cycles and other atmospheric process is amazing in it's ability to control and modify the environment and the climate. We have a lot to learn, before we can know all the answers. Heck we're still trying to complete the question.    

I do want to touch briefly on precipitation.

Global warming supporters point out that  CO₂, CH₄ , and other greenhouse gases produced by human activities, stay in the atmosphere a lot longer than water vapor (This is true). These other gases can stay in the atmosphere for years or even a century (depending on the gas). Because they stay in the atmosphere so long, it leads to increased atmospheric water vapor, which leads to more warming. This process is called a positive feedback loop.  Because of this, warmer air can hold more moisture, as the climate warms the higher temperatures leads to more evaporation, which increases atmospheric moisture even more. The increased water vapor in the air leads to even greater warming, which then loops back around enhancing the greenhouse effect, making extreme downpours much more likely. As the positive feedback loop keeps going around the process gets worse and worse.

At first this entire positive feedback loop idea seems reasonable. But I pointed out earlier how properties of water vapor helps to warm cold temperatures, while other properties of water vapor reduces warm temperatures. Water vapor is basically natures thermostat. Seen in this light, water vapor acts more like a negative feedback loop.  If we take the human cause global warming supporters claim of water vapor's positive feedback as valid; wouldn't the planet have had run away global warming long ago?

Because of the way temperature and humidity oppose each other. I can't see how increased water vapor leads to run away warming. Here are some images that show how temperature and humidity are directly opposed to each other.

 

 

Image came from junksciencearchive  

Water vapor is a major part of an amazing and complex natural system. I want to make three major points.

1)  Because of  a process called latent heat of vaporization; It takes heat energy to turn liquid water into water vapor, during the conversion from a liquid to a gas, the absorption of heat energy takes place without changing temperature. The other side of the same coin, is called latent heat of fusion; this takes heat energy to change ice to liquid water, again without raising temperature.

Points 2 and 3 are interlinked and involve the great heat capacity of water and water vapor . Remember I said " The oceans contain 99.9% of the energy of the ocean-atmospheric system".

2)    Water vapor has the ability to store a lot of heat energy. As the warm air rises, the water vapor in the air transports the heat near the surface away. This process is called convection.  

3)   Water vapor is almost transparent to incoming solar radiation. Water vapor is an excellent absorber of infrared radiation.

I've shown how water vapor not CO₂  is the major reason for how the climate is acting.  Over 99% of atmospheric water vapor is natural in origin. in fact other then CFC's most of the other greenhouse gases are also of natural origin.      

Humans biggest contribution to a warming planet are the heat island effect and deforestation. But our contribution to greenhouse gas concentrations is very minuscule. I'm not saying humankind and human activities don't have an impact on global climate. Nor am I saying we have no need to change the way we interact with the environment.  We have to try to find a way to combat the heat island effect and stop widespread deforestation. We can and should also reduce emissions. 

What I am saying is that As far as atmospheric greenhouse gas concentrations, nature far outpaces our input. I'm also saying that I believe  cyclical climate cycles have a great impact on not just the weather, but also the climate as a whole. Natural process have caused at least five great ice ages and these same natural process produced many smaller ice ages as will as several warming periods between the ice ages. None of these needed human intervention to cause them.  I'm also saying, I think these natural processes are more than capable of producing yet another ice age.....and I think nature can reverse this current warm period, just as it has in the past. I think the main driver as far as climate, is water vapor not CO₂.

Increased CO₂  warmer temperatures and extra precipitation can be good for plant growth.

 

Well that's it for Part 2.  

In Part 3 I will get into the  aspect of enhanced plant growth and other vegetation and agriculture. I will again discuss the urban heat island effect and deforestation. I will also discuss the idea of could global warming be beneficial, or the end of human existence.

Link to part 3.




 

The world is melting...the world is melting....Part one.

I saw an NBC article

Where global warming supporters  made the clam that "a strange, wavy jet stream  is blasting Europe with heat. Scientists say this could be the 'new normal" They use words like profound, unusual, extreme.

Here is the link 

Denise Chow (writer and editor at NBC News) wrote:  " An oppressive heat wave baked Western Europe this week, setting record high temperatures in France, Germany, Poland, and the Czech Republic. In India, a severe drought has choked water supplies in the city of Chennai, exposing it's 9 million residents to a major shortage. And after the United States wettest 12 month stretch on record, towns across the Midwest and the Great Plains are reeling from devastating floods".  She also wrote, " The reasons behind these extreme weather events are complex, but scientists believe they have a common trigger: profound recent changes in the set stream, a ribbon of fast-moving air that flows from west to east over the Northern Hemisphere and controls weather systems".

These so called extreme weather events find their way into mainstream and social media all the time. The catch phrase now is climate crisis. Media is talking about Japan seeing its warmest recorded temperature in history of 106°F. How Montreal has seen temperatures approach 100°F. Toronto has seen 18 days that exceeded 30°C, Forest fires in Siberia and Europe are the worst in history, and so on and so on.   

The predictions:

Tornadoes:

The number of tornadoes this year are being blamed on climate change.  But that is simply not true.  Looking at the tornadic trend for 2019 we see it's below 2008 and 2011, both of these years had a lot of cold air in Canada and northern tier of CONUS during May.  For tornado outbreaks to occur the prime requisite is cold air from the Rockies into the Great Lakes, sitting over warm air farther to the South .

 

Above images curtesy of the Storm Prediction Center.

Tropical cyclones:

In the Pacific Hawaii is going to see a lot of action heading their way.  Again the media, will say its global warming is the reason.  supporters of global warming will take that and run with it.  But again it won't end up being true. 

One of the latest global warming idea trends is that tropical cyclone rapid intensification is caused by global warming.  But again that is a gross exaggeration of the facts and what is really going on.

Back in June of1988 James E. Hansen from NASA testified before the Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources (Hansen is called the father of global warming theory, by many). At the time there was a prolonged heat wave impacting North America (this was the first of two devastating heat waves that summer).  Hansen showed a multitude of climate model predictions, and inferred " He had a high degree of confidence, that there was a cause and effect relationship between the greenhouse effect and the observed warming" During his testimony, he said, " The globe would see a significant warming over the next 25-30 years" He also stated " the 1990 into the 2000's would see much greater than average warming in the Southeast US. and in the U.S Midwest"  No such spike in temperatures has ever been measured. Over the ensuing years he talked about how CO₂   was the main culprit, and many more predictions, hurricanes would become increasingly more powerful, Hurricanes would cause increasing more and more damage in the US, tornadoes would become stronger, and the biggest one was in 2007 when he said " the Greenland ice sheet would be completely melted soon, resulting in a rise in the global oceans of 23 feet". He made dozens of other claims.  But looking back at these all of these predictions show none of them have come true. Over the last few years snow and ice amounts have been increasing in Greenland, Hurricanes aren't more powerful than the historic record shows for past hurricanes, Based on the gross domestic product index, hurricanes aren't causing greater amounts of damage (even though the coast is becoming more and more developed). Tornadoes are not becoming more frequent or more powerful than tornadoes of the past.  The list of what didn't occur is long and tedious.  

10 years ago, the media was alight with the talk of perma-drought in California  and the Southern Plains into the Midwest. The climate warming alarmist said perma-drought was here to stay with no  end in sight, that human caused climate change was the reason and that a new dust bowl era had started. But this kind of talk isn't decades old, as resent as 2015 Katherine Hayhole declared that "permanent drought was the future of Texas panhandle and that the nations beef would get increasingly strained".   But none of these predictions came true. Just two to three years after Hayhole's prediction. The same areas that were to have perma-drought, are now overflowing with water. As for California, in 2014 Gov Brown, said perma-drought was the new normal for 40 million people who depend on the Colorado Rivers water" as of the end of June, the upper Colorado River basin had a snow water equivalent of 425% of average. I would say the fear of a perma-drought in California has been erased.

Al Gore has made many of these same claims in his book "An Inconvenient Truth" and in a more recent movie.  It remains to be seen if any of his claims will become true.

To be fair, there are global warming deniers, who go off the scale on the other side of this debate, but it seems to me that they are outnumbered by the global warming supporters.  The current debate is saturated with junk science. We need to get the junk science and politics out of the debate, if we truly want to understand what is going on....   

 Looking at some data:

 We are only 4 days into the month of July and the reports of all time record heat are flying all over the place.  We hear about record heat in Europe,  Miami, FL has had two almost 100 degree days for the first time ever in a single year. Record breaking heat in Alaska. 

When I was at A&M I remember been taught that the highest global temperature ever recorded was 136 in El Azizia, Libya, back in Sept. 13, 1922. But that temperature record was thrown out in 2012.  There have been a bunch of other very hot temperatures thrown out too.  It's hard to refute something if many of the true facts aren't around anymore.

When we look at the current global  2-M temperature anomaly we see it's 0.310 °C above average, With the CONUS 2-M temperature anomaly 0.121°C above average.  When we look back at past decades there were years that saw higher temperature anomalies and lower temperature anomalies. When we look at the overall temperature pattern over the last 40+ years there is no doubt that global temperature anomalies are rising.  But clearly the world isn't burning up (as many in the past have predicted it would be). I mean really, a 2-M global temperature anomaly of 0.310°C isn't a huge difference. There has to be enough compensating colder areas to keep it close.

 

Above image courtesy of WeatherBell Analytics

 

Averaging out year to date, finds the eastern half of the CONUS has been cooler than average. This is a change from last year.

Above image courtesy of WeatherBell Analytics

Current Maximum daytime temperature anomalies are  0.97°F above average

 

Above image courtesy of WeatherBell Analytics

 

Current minimum nighttime temperature anomalies are  2.0°F above average

Above image courtesy of WeatherBell Analytics

The temperature anomalies for the CONUS are well above average. By looking at the daytime and nighttime anomalies we can clearly see most of the temperature anomaly difference is because of very warm nighttime lows.

When we look at the global temperature anomaly map we see the vast majority of the warmth is near and in the polar regions. whereas the temperate regions (where we and everything else lives) is a mixture of warm and cool areas, that seem to balance each other out. So clearly, the heat in the polar regions is a major reason for the above average global temperature anomaly.

We can see how the poles react during the northern and southern hemisphere summer season and winter season.

We see the poles have warm temperature anomalies during the arctic cold season, but cooler temperature anomalies during their warm season. What could be the reason for that?

So while I agree that the global temperatures are gradually increasing. I disagree with the idea from global warming alarmist as to the cause of the current warming.

 What could be causing the warming?

The reasons I think the globe is warming will be covered in part two.

Link to part 2.