Tag: evaporation

Implications of the oceanic heat wave west of Mexico

First of all, about the use of AI: A blog like this isn’t me asking AI for an answer I don’t know. I already know the answer it’s going to give, but I think that if I show you an objective tool is also giving the same answer, it’s like having a referee, so it limits my bias.

The Arch of Cabo San Lucas is an iconic rock formation in Baja California Sur, Mexico, where the Pacific Ocean and the Sea of Cortez meet.

From CFACT

By Joe Bastardi|

First of all, about the use of AI: A blog like this isn’t me asking AI for an answer I don’t know. I already know the answer it’s going to give, but I think that if I show you an objective tool is also giving the same answer, it’s like having a referee, so it limits my bias.

So, look at this:

My question: What does the impact of the higher moisture this is adding to the system have on the energy in the air?

Answer: Higher moisture increases the total energy (primarily enthalpy) in air at a given temperature, mainly via latent heat stored in water vapor.

My question: Would the excess SST in the eastern Pacific add to the moisture in the southwest?

Answer: Yes. Excess (above-normal) sea surface temperatures (SSTs) in the eastern Pacific—particularly in and around the Gulf of California and the waters off Baja California and southern California—generally increase the amount of moisture available to the southwestern United States.

Question: Would that mean that if the energy in the air is not balanced by convective processes, temperatures would have to rise?

Answer: Yes. If extra moisture (and therefore extra latent energy) is added to the air column and that energy is not removed or redistributed by convective processes, the excess energy will generally raise air temperatures.

Question: Would it mean a greater rise in overnight lows than daytime highs

Yes. Increased atmospheric moisture (from the excess eastern-Pacific SST) that is not fully removed by convection tends to raise overnight low temperatures more than daytime high temperatures, narrowing the diurnal temperature range.

Why the effect is stronger at night:

  • Water vapor is a greenhouse gas. Extra moisture absorbs outgoing longwave (infrared) radiation that the surface emits after sunset and re-radiates some of it back downward. This slows nighttime radiative cooling, so temperatures do not fall as far → higher minima.
  • Daytime effects are weaker or opposing.
    – Extra moisture can increase low-level cloudiness or haze, which reflects some incoming solar radiation and limits how high daytime temperatures climb.
    – The higher heat capacity of moister air and the energy used in evaporation also moderate the rate of daytime warming.

The net result is that the same added energy produces a larger upward shift in overnight lows than in afternoon highs.

Me: So water vapor is the crucial aspect here, impacting temperatures when it’s lower than when it’s higher?

Answer: Yes — water vapor is the crucial factor, and its impact on temperature is typically stronger when the air starts out drier (lower moisture) than when it is already humid.

Me: So in a larger sense. Given the increase in water vapor from the increase in SST over the last 40 years, we can explain why the warming is greater over the Arctic (much of it in the coldest time of the year).

Answer: Yes. The large-scale rise in SST over the last ~40 years increases evaporation and therefore atmospheric water-vapor content. That extra water vapor produces a stronger warming effect in the Arctic—especially in winter—precisely because of the temperature dependence of the saturation mixing ratio and the nonlinear greenhouse properties of water vapor.

Me: This would mean the dewpoint anchor hypothesis on warming is crucial, right?

Testing the Dew-Point Anchor Hypothesis

Answer: Yes — the dew-point anchor idea is a natural and crucial extension. Here’s why it fits tightly with the points already established:

  • Rising SSTs increase evaporation → higher atmospheric water vapor → higher surface dew points.
  • The saturation mixing ratio’s strong temperature dependence means that the same absolute moisture increase raises the dew point more effectively (and has a larger relative impact) in colder, drier air.
  • Overnight and winter temperatures are physically limited by the dew point: clear-sky radiative cooling can drop the air temperature only to the dew point before condensation begins and latent-heat release slows further cooling. Raise the dew point and you raise that natural temperature floor.
  • Therefore, a long-term rise in dew points (driven by the multi-decadal SST increase visible in the 1986 vs. 2026 maps) preferentially lifts nighttime and winter minima — exactly the pattern that appears stronger in the Arctic winter composite than in the summer composite.

The Dew-Point Anchor Hypothesis formalizes this by treating the lifting-condensation level (or an effective dew-point-derived surface anchor) as a primary lower-boundary condition that influences the thermodynamic structure of the lower and middle troposphere. In that view, the observed moistening does not merely add a greenhouse term; it shifts the entire convective/thermodynamic reference level upward, producing a larger temperature response where the baseline dew point is lowest (cold, dry Arctic winter air).So yes: once the focus is placed on water vapor, saturation mixing ratios, and the differential impact in dry versus moist air, the dew-point anchor concept becomes a central mechanistic link between the SST-driven moisture increase and the observed spatial/seasonal pattern of warming

Me: So which is the singer, and which is the song? ( previous blog)

Who is the singer, and who is the song?

The man-made warming hypothesis relies on the idea that emissions are warming the air, which expands the “thickness” of the troposphere, allowing more evaporation and a feedback that keeps building. I understand that. If there is less water vapor in the air, then the radiative feedback of CO2 can’t impact it as much. More WV, more impact on the water vapor, and so it warms. That idea claims the ocean is absorbing the excess heat from the air. The ocean then warms, and more WV is added to the air.

They have a point, but only to a point, and I don’t think you can say exactly what that is relative to the entire picture of the geological time scale, for instance, and the large natural drivers

Countering this, and why I just showed the example in the southwest, is the idea that the ocean is feeding the air, and the reaction in the air is because of the release of heat from the ocean. Again, who is the singer and who is the song?.

But here is what one has to remember. If you can find honest brokers (people who have been into the weather all their life and not come along on a bandwagon of climate change or whatever) that disagree with you, you can become stronger because of that. It’s tough to find. For many, if saving the planet, or our way of life (as many on my side of this issue are), is the primary goal, it will distract from the focus on really finding the truth. I believe that the answer is in the depths of the ocean and the power of the sun, input from a geothermal source that we have no idea what it actually is doing given the lack of truly deep ocean data, and of course the sun. The distortion of the warming is leading to less cloudiness over the tropical oceans, as the vertical velocity pattern of the entire global system has been disrupted toward a La Nina Base state (wait till you see the La Niña response to this El Nino, and again it’s a response to warming, not a sign of cooling), and that is a warm global pattern. And as long as its being fed by excess heat from the ocean, it will continue. The most exciting thing about what I am pushing is that we are far more likely to see a downturn in the geothermal input than a reduction of CO2 input. If the geothermal input does decrease, and after a lag we do not see the ocean cooling or at least leveling off, then the man-made idea does carry more weight. However, if it does cool, we know it’s the other way around.

No such test can exist for anyone wanting to save the planet and maintain our way of life, for you will only believe based on what you see. And if you only see one thing, it’s what you will believe. The total-picture test is needed. Each forecast I make is a test of right or wrong. And if wrong, then it leads to an increase in total knowledge (if you already knew something, you don’t gain any extra knowledge). In a way, this is a grand test.

The geothermal input argument gives me a convenient excuse for why I was wrong earlier. But I did not have the knowledge about this then that I do now. But as my dad said, if you are right, it’s a reason. Wrong is an excuse. This next test, and again I showed a local event and tied it into the bigger picture, is probably the one that will contribute the final piece of the puzzle for what we see going on.

Cooling The Niño

This is a two-part post. The first part is to correct an oversight in my recent post entitled Rainergy.

The second part is to use that new information to analyze the effect of clouds on the El Nino region.

From Watts Up With That?

Guest Post by Willis Eschenbach

This is a two-part post. The first part is to correct an oversight in my recent post entitled Rainergy.

The second part is to use that new information to analyze the effect of clouds on the El Nino region.

So, to the first part. In my post Rainergy, I noted that it takes ~ 80 watts per square meter (W/m2) over a year to evaporate a cubic meter of seawater. Thus, the evaporation that creates the ~1 meter of annual rain cools the surface by – 80 W/m2.

Then the other day I thought “Dang! I forgot virga!”

Virga is rain that falls from a cloud but evaporates completely before it hits the ground.

Figure 1. Virga diagram

Here’s the thing. When the virga evaporates, it’s just like evaporation from the surface. It cools both the raindrops and the surrounding air.

That’s what leads to the cold storm winds entrained by the rain that hit the ground vertically and spread out around the base of the storm. You can see all of that happening in this amazing time-lapse video, with the vertical entrained wind striking the surface, spreading out across the lake, and finally agitating the trees in the foreground. On the left of the video you can also see virga falling and evaporating before it hits the ground.

And it’s not just the virga. The raindrops are all evaporating as they fall, which is why rain is almost always so cold.

So I set out to see how much rain evaporates completely before hitting the ground. I couldn’t find a whole lot on the subject, but a few papers said 50% to 85% of the rain evaporates. See e.g. Sub-cloud Rain Evaporation in the North Atlantic Ocean which says 65%

This makes sense, because the huge surface area of the hundreds of thousands of tiny droplets of water allows for large amounts of evaporation.

And here’s the reason why all of this is important. I had estimated the evaporative cooling associated with a meter of rain to be -80W/m2 per year. That’s the energy it takes to evaporate that meter of seawater.

But I had overlooked the additional cooling from the evaporation of the rain itself.  Given that something on the order of half of the rain evaporates, it would provide an additional 40W/m2 of cooling. And more to the point, it’s not included in the rainfall data—it can’t be, it has evaporated.

Now as I said, there are not a lot of studies, and the evaporation rate depends on a host of variables. So what I’ve done is take the estimate that not half, but a quarter of the rain evaporates before hitting the ground. That gives a conservative value for the evaporative cooling of the rain before hitting the ground, although it is likely higher.

This gives a revised estimate of the evaporative cooling associated with a meter of rain as not -80 W/m2 for a year per meter of rain as I’d thought, but -100 W/m2 per meter of rain.

Thus endeth Part The First.

With my new estimate of the relationship between rainfall and evaporative cooling, and mulling over some ideas of Ramanathan, I decided to look at the variations in total cloud cooling of the sea surface in the area of the El Nino/La Nina phenomenon. To start with, blue box below shows the location of what’s called the “NINO34” area—5°N to 5°S, and 170°W to 120°W. The sea surface temperature in this area indicates the state of the Nino/Nina alteration.

Figure 2. Average surface temperatures and the location of the NINO34 area. Average from Mar 2000 to Feb 2023

And here is the temperature of the NINO34 area over the CERES satellite period. Note that the phenomenon is known as “El Nino”, a reference to the Christ child, because it peaks around December or November. And when there is a full Nino/Nina alteration, it hits the bottom around December/November one year later (blue areas). I discuss this further in my post “The La Nina Pump“.

Figure 3. Monthly sea surface temperatures in the NINO34 area. Note the large swings from ~25°C to 30°C, which make this area valuable for investigating the relationships between sea surface temperature (SST) and various cloud parameters.

Now, those familiar with my work know that my theory is that clouds act as a strong thermoregulator of the surface temperature. When the ocean warms, my theory is that cumulus fields form earlier in the day and cover more of the surface, reflecting more of the sunlight back into space.

And when the ocean warms further, thunderstorms form that cool the surface in a host of ways. This keeps the earth from overheating.

Let me start with the issue of the increase in the strength and duration of the cumulus fields. This is reflected in the cloud area expressed as a percentage of the surface area. Here’s that chart.

Figure 4. NINO34 monthly cloud coverage percentages and sea surface temperatures.

Now, this is most interesting. As the temperature rises from about 26°C to its maximum just under 30°C, the total cloud area doubles, from 40% to 80%. This greatly affects the amount of sunshine reaching the surface, as we’ll see in a graph below of the net cloud radiative effect. And as is clear from the close correspondence of temperature and cloud coverage shown in Figure 4, the amount and strength of the cloud cover is clearly a function of temperature and little else.

Next, cloud top altitude. This is an indirect measure of the number of thunderstorms in the area. Here’s the graph showing the change in the number of thunderstorms with the changing sea surface temperature.

Figure 5. NINO34 monthly cloud top altitudes and sea surface temperatures.

Again we see a very large change. As sea surface temperatures go from ~26°C up to just below 30°C, the altitude of the cloud tops almost triples, from 5 km up to almost 15 km. And again, the number of thunderstorms is also clearly a function of the temperature and little else.

With these changes in mind, we can look at the cooling effects of these cloud changes. Figure 6 below shows the changes in the net surface cloud radiative effect. The net surface cloud radiative effect is the full effect of the clouds on the radiation reaching the surface. Clouds cool the surface by reflecting the sunshine back out to space and by absorbing solar radiation. They also warm the surface by increasing the downwelling longwave radiation. The net surface cloud radiative effect is the sum of these different phenomena.

Figure 6. NINO34 monthly net surface cloud radiative effect and sea surface temperatures.

Note that at all sea surface temperatures, the clouds cool the NINO34 sea surface. And as the temperature goes up the radiative cooling increases, and not by just a little—cooling goes from -10 watts per square meter (W/m2) to almost -60 W/m2 of cooling.

It’s also worth noting that the effect is not linear—small deviations in temperature don’t cause the amount of increase in surface net radiative cooling that is caused by large temperature increases. This is shown by the large peaks in the blue line extending higher than the peaks in the black line.

Then we can also look at the cooling effects of the rain. As discussed above, one meter of rain involves evaporative cooling of the surface on the order of 100 W/m2. This allows us to convert rainfall figures to evaporative cooling figures, as shown in Figure 7 below.

Figure 7. NINO34 monthly rainfall evaporative cooling effect and sea surface temperatures. Note that the dataset is a year shorter, because the rainfall data ends in 2021

Here we see the same fivefold increase in cooling with the increasing temperature, but on a larger scale. The rainfall evaporative cooling goes from -50 W/m2 when the NINO34 area is cool to -350 W/m2 when the area heats up. And this effect is non-linear as well, as shown by the peaks in the blue line.

And finally, we can combine the separate effects of the net surface cloud radiative changes and the rainfall evaporative cooling to get the total cooling effect of the clouds on the NINO34 area, as shown in Figure 8 below.

Figure 9. NINO34 monthly total cooling due to clouds. This is the total of rainfall evaporative cooling effect and surface cloud radiative cooling. Again the dataset is a year shorter because the rainfall data ends in 2021

As this shows, the clouds have a very strong cooling effect on the NINO34 area. At the peak temperatures, the clouds are cooling the surface at the rate of -400 W/m2. In addition, the cooling increases faster and faster as the temperature rises, putting a hard ceiling on how hot the NINO34 area can get.

… and the alarmists are concerned about a change in CO2 forcing over the same period of 0.7 W/m2?

That’s lost in the noise compared to the 400 W/m2 peak cloud cooling.

Finally, please be clear that this huge increase in cloud-related cooling is not just happening in the NINO34 zone. It occurs anywhere in the ocean where the temperature exceeds about 25°C. Looking at the NINO34 zone is valuable because the temperature changes so much there, revealing the close connection between temperature and total cloud cooling. For the larger view, here’s a scatterplot of average gridcell sea surface temperatures from 2000 to 2021, versus average gridcell total cloud cooling. Note that in addition to the rapidly increasing cooling at temperatures warmer than ~25°C, the effect of the clouds is cooling over all parts of the ocean.

Figure 10. Scatterplot, total cloud cooling versus sea surface temperature. Blue dots are 1° latitude by 1° longitude gridcells.

And that’s the sum total of what I learned today …

My very best regards to all,

w.

AS ALWAYS, I ask that when you comment you quote the exact words you are discussing. This avoids endless misunderstandings.

New Study Unveils Global Warming’s 65-Year-Old ‘Evaporation Paradox’ Problem

Evaporation is supposed to increase with warming. But, per a new study (Jin et al., 2024), “observation results around the world have shown that evaporation has been steadily declining since the 1950s.” This is referred to as the anthropogenic global warming “evaporation paradox” problem, where models and assumptions are contradicted by observations.

From NoTricksZone

By Kenneth Richard

Evaporation is supposed to increase with warming. But, per a new study (Jin et al., 2024), “observation results around the world have shown that evaporation has been steadily declining since the 1950s.” This is referred to as the anthropogenic global warming “evaporation paradox” problem, where models and assumptions are contradicted by observations.

According to the IPCC (AR6) and the most seminal paper on the subject (Trenberth, 2011, with 3800 citations), “anthropogenic forcings will drive an increase in global mean evaporation over most oceanic areas (high confidence),” as “increased heating leads to greater evaporation.”

Image Source: IPCC, 2021 (AR6), Trenberth, 2011

But new paper once again points out that observations conflict with the anthropogenic global warming narrative.

“Paradoxically, against the backdrop of rising global temperatures, terrestrial observation results around the world have shown that Epan has been steadily declining since the 1950s…”

“The ‘evaporation paradox’ phenomenon has been reported in many studies on regional or global scales.”

The authors acknowledge it is “widely proposed” there will be “increased evaporation in open water bodies” with warming. So their results, which show declining evaporation since the 1950s, may “seem surprising.”

“At first glance, these results may seem surprising, since the near-surface air temperature has been rising, and it is widely proposed that warming climate will make the air drier and promote the hydrological cycle, which will lead to increased evaporation in open water bodies, including pan evaporators.”

If it can indeed be established that evaporation increases with warming, and, simultaneously, evaporation trends can be shown to be declining, at what point do we question if there has indeed been sufficiently significant warming in the regions where evaporation is declining? Why is referring to these trends as a surprising “paradox” that can perhaps be explained away with more assumptions the better option?

Image Source: Jin et al., 2024
c047p123Herunterladen

rtad033Herunterladen