“Here, we have demonstrated a major discrepancy between observation-based and climate model-based historical trends in near-surface atmospheric water vapor in arid and semi-ari regions.” – Simpson et al., 2024
A new study published in PNAS has demonstrated, once again, that climate models fail to simulate what happens in the real world with regard to fundamental climate change variables like water vapor. This is a devastating finding, as water vapor is the most significant greenhouse gas due to its alleged “feedback” capacity, accelerating warming well beyond what CO2 is said to be capable of alone.
The authors do not understate the significance of this climate modeling failure.
“This represents a major gap in our understanding and in climate model fidelity that must be understood and fixed as soon as possible in order to provide reliable hydroclimate projections for arid/semi-arid regions in the coming decades.”
Per state-of-the-art climate models, specific humidity (SH) should increase as a consequence of CO2-induced global warming. But 40 years of observations (1980-) show no increasing SH trend over arid/semi-arid regions.
Per state-of-the-art climate models, relative humidity (RH) should decline slightly as a consequence of CO2-induced global warming. But 40 years of observations (1980-) show not a slight declining trend, but a declining trend that is “about an order of magnitude more than the models on average.” In other words, the climate models are wrong by a factor of 10.
Image Source: Simpson et al., 2024
A few years ago another study documented how wildly wrong 102 state-of-the-art climate models have been with regard to a 60-year temperature trends (1958-2017) over tropical regions.
The models say the tropical warming rate should have been nearly 3 times larger than the observations show – “0.389 ± 0.173°C per decade (models) and 0.142 ± 0.115°C per decade (observed)” – due to the assumed feedback response to CO2 forcing over warm regions. Instead, there is a “clear and significant tendency on the part of the models to overstate warming.”
These authors also do not understate the significance of this modeling failure. Climate models are not even realistic.
“Instead, we observe a discrepancy across all runs of all models, taking the form of a warming bias at a sufficiently strong rate as to reject the hypothesis that the models are realistic.”
“[T]he major hypothesis in contemporary climate models, namely, the theoretically based negative lapse rate feedback response to increasing greenhouse gases in the tropical atmosphere, is incorrect.”
There may be no other branch of physical science with model-observation discrepancies (failures) this profound, this fundamental.
[…] From the NoTricksZone […]
[…] From the NoTricksZone […]
[…] From the NoTricksZone […]
[…] From the NoTricksZone […]
[…] From the NoTricksZone […]
Kenneth Richard wrote:
“Per state-of-the-art climate models, specific humidity (SH) should increase as a consequence of CO2-induced global warming. But 40 years of observations (1980-) show no increasing SH trend over arid/semi-arid regions.
Per state-of-the-art climate models, relative humidity (RH) should decline slightly as a consequence of CO2-induced global warming. But 40 years of observations (1980-) show not a slight declining trend, but a declining trend that is “about an order of magnitude more than the models on average.” In other words, the climate models are wrong by a factor of 10.”
They can’t even get the role of water vapor correct, how could they possibly get its effects due to changing atmospheric concentration correct?
Water vapor, far from being a “global warming” gas, acts as a literal refrigerant (in the strict ‘refrigeration cycle’ sense) below the tropopause… it is the most prevalent atmospheric radiative coolant below the tropopause, and CO2 is the most prevalent atmospheric radiative coolant above the tropopause.
The refrigeration cycle (Earth) [AC system]:
A liquid evaporates at the heat source (the surface) [in the evaporator], it is transported (convected) [via an A/C compressor], it gives up its energy to the heat sink and undergoes phase change (emits radiation in the upper atmosphere, the majority of which is upwelling owing to the mean free path length / altitude / air density relation) [in the condenser], it is transported (falls as rain or snow) [via that A/C compressor], and the cycle repeats.
The same holds for other polyatomics, to a lesser extent (mainly because at prevalent Earthly temperatures, their latent heat capacity doesn’t come into play, only their relatively higher DOF (as compared to monoatomics) does).
It is the monoatomics and homonuclear diatomics which are the actual ‘greenhouse’ gases… remember that an actual greenhouse works by hindering convection.
Monoatomics (Ar) have no vibrational mode quantum states, and thus cannot emit (nor absorb) IR. Homonuclear diatomics (O2, N2) have no net magnetic dipole and thus cannot emit (nor absorb) IR unless that net-zero magnetic dipole is perturbed via collision.
In an atmosphere consisting of solely monoatomics and homonuclear diatomics, the atoms / molecules could pick up energy via conduction by contacting the surface, just as the polyatomics do; they could convect just as the polyatomics do… but once in the upper atmosphere, they could not as effectively radiatively emit that energy to space, the upper atmosphere would warm, lending less buoyancy to convecting air, thus hindering convection… and that’s how an actual greenhouse works, by hindering convection.
The surface would also have to warm because that ~76.2% of energy which is currently removed from the surface via convection and evaporation would have to be removed nearly solely via radiation (there would be some collisional perturbation of N2 and O2, and thus some emission in the atmosphere)…. and a higher surface radiant exitance implies a higher surface temperature.
So we live, at the planet’s surface, in what can be analogized to the evaporator section of a world-sized AC unit, with H2O playing the part of a literal refrigerant, with other polyatomics (CO2) contributing less to the cooling (because while they have more DOF (Degrees of Freedom) than monoatomics and homonuclear diatomics and can thus transit energy more efficiently than monoatomics and homonuclear diatomics, their latent heat doesn’t come into play at prevalent Earthly temperatures), and with Ar, O2 and N2 playing the same role as noncondensable gases would play in an AC unit… a reduction in the efficiency at which energy is transited from surface to upper atmosphere and emitted to the infinite heat sink of space.
Backradiation? It’s a mathematical artifact due to misuse of the Stefan-Boltzmann equation.
First, some background primer…
Force: [M1 L1 T-2] /
Area: [M0 L2 T0] =
Pressure: [M1 L-1 T-2] /
Length: [M0 L1 T0] =
Pressure Gradient: [M1 L-2 T-2]
Energy: [M1 L2 T−2] /
Volume: [M0 L3 T0] =
Energy Density: [M1 L-1 T-2] /
Length: [M0 L1 T0] =
Energy Density Gradient: [M1 L-2 T-2]
Pressure and energy density are two forms of the same thing (note the identical dimensionality bolded above), just as pressure gradient and energy density gradient are two forms of the same thing.
Thus, just as, for instance, water only spontaneously flows down a pressure gradient (ie: downhill), energy only spontaneously flows down an energy density gradient. This is reflected in 2LoT in the Clausius Statement sense.
Energy density is a pressure, energy density gradient is a pressure gradient… for energy.
https://i.imgur.com/QErszYW.gif
Idealized Blackbody Object (assumes emission to 0 K and ε = 1 by definition):
q_bb = ε σ (T_h^4 – T_c^4) A_h
= 1 σ (T_h^4 – 0 K) 1 m^2
= σ T^4
Graybody Object (assumes emission to > 0 K and ε 1 m^2], which converts the result from radiant exitance (W m-2, radiant flux per unit area) to radiant flux (W).
Temperature is equal to the fourth root of radiation energy density divided by Stefan’s Constant (ie: the radiation constant).
e = T^4 a
a = 4σ/c
e = T^4 4σ/c
T^4 = e/(4σ/c)
T = 4^√(e/(4σ/c))
T = 4^√(e/a)
q = ε σ (T_h^4 – T_c^4)
∴ q = ε σ ((e_h / (4σ / c)) – (e_c / (4σ / c))) Ah
Canceling units, we get J sec-1 m-2, which is W m-2 (1 J sec-1 = 1 W).
W m-2 = W m-2 K-4 * (Δ(J m-3 / (W m-2 K-4 / m sec-1)))
∴ q = (ε c (e_h – e_c)) / 4
Canceling units, we get J sec-1 m-2, which is W m-2 (1 J sec-1 = 1 W).
W m-2 = (m sec-1 (ΔJ m-3)) / 4
One can see from the immediately-above equation that the Stefan-Boltzmann (S-B) equation is all about subtracting the radiation energy density of the cooler object from the radiation energy density of the warmer object.
∴ q = σ / a * Δe
Canceling units, we get W m-2.
W m-2 = (W m-2 K-4 / J m-3 K-4) * ΔJ m-3
For graybody objects, it is the radiation energy density differential between warmer object and cooler object which determines warmer object radiant exitance.
Do keep in mind that a warmer object will have higher energy density at all wavelengths than a cooler object:
https://i.stack.imgur.com/qPJ94.png
Warmer objects don’t absorb radiation from cooler objects (a violation of 2LoT in the Clausius Statement sense and Stefan’s Law); the lower radiation energy density gradient between warmer and cooler objects (as compared to between warmer object and 0 K) lowers radiant exitance of the warmer object (as compared to its radiant exitance if it were emitting to 0 K). The radiation energy density differential between objects manifests a radiation energy density gradient, each surface’s radiation energy density manifesting a proportional radiation pressure.
CAGW is a scam built upon mathematical fraudery… as most of the climate alarmist agenda is.
In fact, the Kiehl-Trenberth ‘Earth Energy Balance’ graphic (and all subsequent similar graphics), which are representations of the mathematics used in Energy Balance Climate Models (EBCMs) does exactly this sort of mathematical fraudery… it treats a real-world graybody surface as though it’s an idealized blackbody object (with emission to 0 K and emissivity = 1)… it isolates each object into its own system so the objects cannot interact via the ambient EM field.
That’s the only way the Kiehl-Trenberth diagram can get to 390 W m-2 surface radiant exitance.
Doing so inflates radiant exitance of each object, necessitating that the climastrologists subtract a wholly-fictive ‘cooler to warmer’ energy flow from the real (but far too high because it was calculated for emission to 0 K) energy flow.
The S-B equation is supposed to be used by subtracting cooler object energy density from warmer object energy density to arrive at the energy density gradient.
That ‘cooler to warmer’ energy flow is the mathematical artifact due to misuse of the S-B equation. It’s not real.
“But they’ve measured backradiation!”, some may protest… yeah, no.
https://claesjohnson.blogspot.com/2011/08/how-to-fool-yourself-with-pyrgeometer.html
As Professor Claes Johnson shows in that article on his website, pyrgeometers (the instrument typically used to ‘measure’ backradiation) utilize the same sort of misuse of the S-B equation as the climastrologists use. The bastardized form of the S-B equation used by pyrgeometers [ usually some form of q = (σ T_h^4 – σ T_c^4) or equivalently Ld = U_emf/S + σT_b, as outlined in the documentation for the instrument, with U_emf/S being negative in sign ] apriori assumes a subtraction of ‘cooler to warmer’ energy flow from ‘warmer to cooler’ energy flow, which as has been shown, is fallacious.
Do remember that photons, each a quantum of energy, are considered the force-carrying gauge bosons of the EM interaction.
Going back to dimensional analysis:
We start with Energy: [M1 L2 T−2] –
Force: [M1 L1 T-2] *
Length: [M0 L1 T0] =
[M0 L0 T0]
We are left with nothing on the ‘transmitting’ end… [M0 L0 T0]. In other words, that Energy is used to apply a Force along a Length. It’s obvious then, that if an equal and opposing Force were applied along that Length, no energy can flow… this is just as true radiatively as it is mechanically.
That Force applied along a Length gives us (on the ‘receiving’ end):
Force: [M1 L1 T-2] *
Length: [M0 L1 T0] =
Work: [M1 L2 T-2]
You’ll note that Energy and Work have the same units:
Work: [M1 L2 T-2] = Energy: [M1 L2 T−2]
For those who want to put it in terms of Momentum:
Momentum: [M1 L1 T−1] *
Velocity: [M0 L1 T-1] =
Work: [M1 L2 T−2]
That means Energy Expended = Force * Length = Momentum * Velocity = Work
There’s a reason for that. Free Energy is defined as that energy capable of performing work. This is reflected in the equation for Free Energy (represented here as a single object and its environment):
F = U – TS + PV
Where: F = Free Energy; U = internal energy; T = absolute temp; S = final entropy; TS = energy the object can receive from the environment; PV = work done to give the system final volume V at pressure P
If U > TS + PV, F > 0… energy must flow from object to environment.
If U = TS + PV, F = 0… no energy can flow to or from the object.
If U < TS + PV, F < 0… energy must flow from environment to object.
Of course, if we were talking about a system with only two objects with the same physical parameters and nothing else in the system, we could represent the Free Energy as: F = U1 – U2
Which is better represented as internal energy over volume to get energy density (since internal energy is an extensive property), converting the calculation to that of an intensive property and thus allowing us to compare dissimilar-sized objects: F = U1/V1 – U2/V2 = e1 – e2
And that’s exactly what the S-B equation does. Remember that temperature is a measure of radiation energy density, equal to the fourth root of radiation energy density divided by the radiation constant (Stefan’s Constant). Remember that I wrote above:
∴ q = (ε c (eh – ec)) / 4
Canceling units, we get J sec-1 m-2, which is W m-2 (1 J sec-1 = 1 W).
W m-2 = (m sec-1 (ΔJ m-3)) / 4
One can see that the S-B equation is all about subtracting the radiation energy density of the cooler object from the radiation energy density of the warmer object (to arrive at the radiation energy density gradient) because Free Energy is all about subtracting the energy density of one object from the energy density of the other object (no matter the form of that energy).
Ha, LOL write with many words what John write in few.
Very good.
It easy. Radiation cool atmosphere.
If more vapor, more radiation, it more cool.
[…] From NoTricksZone […]
[…] – New Study: Climate Models Get Water Vapor Wildly Wrong – A ‘Major Gap In Our Understanding’ […]
[…] Related: More of what the “Greens” don’t get: New Study: Climate Models Get Water Vapor Wildly Wrong – A ‘Major Gap In Our Understanding’ […]
[…] New Study: Climate Models Get Water Vapor Wildly Wrong – A ‘Major Gap In Our Understandi… […]
[…] Link: https://notrickszone.com/2024/02/19/new-study-climate-models-get-water-vapor-wildly-wrong-a-major-ga… […]
[…] Sources: No Tricks Zone; Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences […]