beragampengetahuan: Area-based global hydro-climatological indicators – Beragampengetahuan

Tomas Kalisz Aug.8, in defense of Shurly’s 3rd line of argument:
“on the basis of the equivalence between these two parameters that we exhaustively discussed and (as I hope sufficiently) clarified elsewhere”

you mean “on the basis” of our whack-a-mole game, in which each time I whack you or Shurly on the head, by showing that your assumption and/or calculations are wrong, you guys unable to challenge this – disappear, only to reappear in another hole, as if nothing has happened?

The case in point – Shurly:
– first he tried to cloak himself into the authority of Gavin (Schmidt et al. 2010 paper) – but then I showed that he “amended” Gavin’s work with addition of LH (latent heat) from some GEB (Global Energy Budget). It was based on Shurly’s naive reading of GEB graphs – he sees an LH arrow, but doesn’t see a separate arrow drawn for the LH portion of the downwelling LW (longwave) arrow from ALL sources of heat in the atmosphere – and concludes that 0% LH is reradiated to Earth. And on that “0” assumption – he adds ENTIRE LH arrow to the Gavin numbers to triumphantly claim:
“ The Earth being a water-cooled planet – whether you like it or not“

To which I have explained to him, using the same GEB graph, that we can estimate that of all the energy put into the atmosphere ~ 2/3 is reradiated back to Earth – so assuming that the same ratio holds for LH -means that ~ 2/3 of LH is reradiated to Earth, which completely alter the Shurly’s “results – from “The Earth being a water-cooled planet” it now becomes water heated.

Unable to admit his error, Shurly …stopped implying that whoever doubts Shurly, doubts Gavin, and switched to whoever doubts Shurly, doubts … IPCC – linking to the supposedly IPCC graph.

Then again, when I checked the supposed original – the Shurly’s graph … WASN’T from IPCC, but a version of it from Wikipedia, in which its Wikipedia author changed the IPCC label critical to Shurly’s claim:
from “LAND USE REFLECTANCE and irrigation” in IPCC to “Irrigation and ALBEDO” – where the “albedo” Shurly pronounced as “additional cloud albedo produced by irrigation”. When I pointed out that “increased land use reflectance ” DOES NOT mean “additional cloud albedo” , Shurly stopped … wrapping himself in the authority of IPCC, and switched again, this time wrapping himself in the authority of … CERES.

A brief look at his latest (CERES) line of arguments suggests that he repeats … the same approach he did with the first source (Gavin’s 2010 paper): i.e. Shurly cherry-picks some data from his source, and then combines them with selected numbers from “GEB from Trenberth & Loeb”, the same GEB he DIDN’T understand, when he was using combining it with Gavin’ paper.

So there is no point for you, Tomas, asking Shurly how he came up with his precise-looking (2 decimal points!) numbers, because: garbage understanding of GEB in, garbage (=Shurly’s calculations) out.

And then was the point that would be valid EVEN IF the Shurly’s calculations were correct:

ms: ”@Douville Hervé says: Water remains a blind spot in climate change policy”
PiotrJul.30: “Well, that’s because, unlike GHGs, we can’t do much about water cycle:
– what can you do to increase evaporation over 71% of Earth covered by ocean?
– on the remaining 29%, the irrigation is already probably above its sustainable max – we are evaporating more water than is re-supplied – the balance being met by emptying the ground water aquifers that take 1000 yrs to refill (if refilling is even possible – given the frequent collapses of porosity in the aquifers that have their water pumped out).

In other words, without ability to alter the water cycle directly in any significant way –
he have to rely on the fact water cycle is a FEEDBACK, not the driver, of AGW:
we increase GHG concentration, and water cycle makes AGW worse; we decrease GHG conc. and water cycle makes the cooling larger.

Shurly’s “calculations” decouple the decrease in cloudiness
from AGW. i.e. from the Clausius-Clapeyron equation – that in the GHG-warmed air – comparable absolute humidity (AH) would produce LOWER relative humidity (RH), and therefore – lower cloudiness.

To sum it up – the only practical way to use water cycle to help us with GW, is NOT through some absurd schemes of directly altering global evaporation, because these are far too small to matter, but by reducing GHG concentrations in the atmosphere, with water cycle making the GW MORE, not less, sensitive to what we do to GHGs.