A couple of weeks ago the EU announced that they were funding a project called DestinE (Destination Earth) to build ‘digital twins’ of the Earth System to support policy making and rapid reaction to weather and climate events.
While the term ‘digitial twin’ has a long history in the engineering world, it’s only recently been applied to Earth System Modeling, and is intended (I surmise, as does Bryan Lawrence) to denote something more than the modeling of either weather or climate that we’ve been doing for years. But what exactly? And is it an achievable goal or just a rebranding effort of things that are happening anyway?
To summarise the proposals, here are two videos that give the vision for DestinE as seen from ECMWF. The first from PI. Dr. Peter Bauer (on Youtube – not embeddable for some reason) and one by Dr. Irina Sandu:
The triplet nature of the digital twin
There appear to be three strands to the digital twin concept as conceived by the EU (see also Bauer et al (2021)). The first is an upgrade to the basic weather forecast machinery at ECMWF to higher horizontal resolution. This is perhaps an acceleration of work that would likely have been done anyway and, based on past performance, is likely to pay dividends in improved weather forecasts, and more realistic reanalyses (ERA6?) eventually. The reason we can be confident that this is practical is that we have seen dramatic increases in weather forecast accuracy over the last couple of decades in part driven by the increases in resolution (as well as improvements in process modeling and increased observational data ingestion).
The connection between higher resolution and better weather forecasts lies in the decrease in numerical diffusion, and better ability to track the large scale synoptic situation, including the fronts and atmospheric rivers etc. before the chaotic nature of the weather renders forecasts unreliable. In other words, weather forecast accuracy relies heavily on the simulation of atmospheric dynamics, and if that improves, so will the weather forecast (up to a point).
The second strand is that the new digital twins for climate will be better linked to impact models across a suite of fields – from urban planning, water resource management, coastal resources, emergency planning, infrastructure design etc. This would be undoubtedly be a good thing to have. However, this is a large increase in complexity and one that does not have a prior track record of success to build on. The issues here are that a) climate forecasts need to be accurate on the scale of the local impact, and b) that some way can be found to connect up the myriad impact models to the forecasts at scale despite the massive heterogeneity in tools, inputs, platforms, users etc. This is (to my mind) a huge challenge even if we assume that point (a) is deliverable (but I’ll return to that below).
The third strand is heavily user-focused. A step change in the quality of data visualization and user interfaces, combined with a greater degree of interactivity driven by users themselves as opposed to the developers. This is interesting, but raises many questions about what would really be doable.
En-twin-ing climate and weather
However, in the presentations above there is a large and mostly unstated assumption that revolves around the question of whether an improvement in climate forecasts, particularly at the decadal scale, would follow from the increased focus on higher resolution in climate models. Many people working in numerical weather prediction, having seen the improvements that higher resolution has brought, often claim that climate predictions will become more accurate at about the same rate. But this neglects the fact that the factors that provide predictability at either the decadal or multi-decadal timescale are not the same as the drivers of accuracy in weather forecasts. In climate models, these revolve around the climate forcings and climate feedbacks, not so much the quality of the dynamics.
This is not to say that better dynamics have no impact on climate feedbacks – indeed, there are many potential paths for this to make a difference. But the dominant uncertainty in climate feedbacks involve cloud processes (micro-physics, macro-physics, aerosol-cloud interactions) that are still many decades away from being fully captured from first principles in global models. Take the CMIP6 models that we have written about before (#NotAllModels, Sensitive but Unclassified, Part II): the biggest causes of diverging climate projections relates to Southern Ocean cloud feedbacks (Zelinka et al , 2020), which is unconnected to resolution. In fact, there is no evidence that I am aware of that suggests that increasing resolution (in the current climate model regime*) reduces uncertainty in climate sensitivity.
Additionally, there is a very basic assumption that (given the forcings) more accurate decadal/multi-decadal forecasts of important impacts are possible at higher resolution. Results with large ensembles however, show that, even for 50 year trends in spatial precipitation patterns at the continental scale, there is a huge range of variability just from the unforced, weather, component (Deser et al, 2015) – and this is unlikely to change with higher resolution models, it may even increase!
However, if we accept that while higher resolution likely won’t reduce uncertainty in global warming, it might provide better estimates of local impacts, given any particular level of global warming. But this would suggest a hybrid design, whereby SST/sea ice projections from climate models could be used as input to weather models to better assess the consequences for the weather regime. Frankly, I am surprised this isn’t done more, but it doesn’t appear to be considered here.
*Eventually, when we are modeling everything from first principles, we would expect convergence as resolution increases, but we are not yet there. Until then, we will need to impose observational constraints post-hoc.
Real problems that deserve real resources
At the heart of the DestinE project are two real problems that do require increased focus from funders and researchers: the need for more direct (and more comprehensive) pipelines from climate projections to impacts, and the (related) need for a convergence of data of all kinds. This also relates to the push in the US to focus more funding on climate resilience and to better support climate policy decisions. A key step in these efforts is to be build platforms where all data sets (climate observations, reanalyses, projections, socio-economic data etc.) can be found (in the same accessible formats) and layered on top of each other at the appropriate scales. In DestinE, there is talk of a data lake, and efforts in the US to place more data in the cloud (e.g. Pangeo, EIS) go in the right direction. The challenges are finding formats that work in massively parallel data analytics platforms (zarr, xarray etc.), and in getting existing data centers to deliver in these formats. Given a full data platform, others can then build the interfaces that can answer the questions that any particular locality, sector, planner etc. may have.
Part of the answer will likely be developing open standards that will allow for a uniform query of multiple, structurally varying, (downscaled?) climate model output for each application so that updates, additions, and improved constraints, can be automatically passed down the pipeline. Additional effort will be needed to find ways to co-produce new models /assessments /projections that allow for feedbacks from the impact research to the upstream climate modeling efforts. This will not be easy.
Visualizations and Interactivity
The two user focused aspects of DestinE, are related to developing better visualizations and user interfaces (IMO this will be effort well-spent), and developing a new functionality for user input to projections such that they can easily see the impact of particular interventions. I have to confess that I do not quite understand what is envisaged here. Having users define changes in emissions and land use and having instant updates to projections will not be possible using actual climate models, so perhaps the idea is to use emulators informed by machine learning? If the interventions are on the impacts model side, it is perhaps easier to do, but the enormous heterogeneity of the impacts models will be the biggest challenge.
Digital Twin or Digital Evil Doppelgänger?
A digital twin for climate that allows us to skillfully try things out and have confidence that the real world will behave similarly would be a nice thing to have. A digital doppelgänger that only gives the impression of skill could be actively harmful. As always though, skill in any particular projections needs to be demonstrated, not merely assumed, so evaluations/hindcasts have to be part of any new efforts. That means that the historical observations, reanalyses and climate model projections have to be seamlessly integrated so that reasonable assessments of forecast uncertainty can be made. Again, a very tall order.
Digital Twin-kle, little star, how I wonder what you are…
I don’t know what the DestinE project will produce: there are are clearly worthwhile aspirations built in to the plan, but they range from the tractable to the heroic. As other funders start to develop their own plans a close examination of which ideas are which will likely pay dividends.
- P. Bauer, B. Stevens, and W. Hazeleger, "A digital twin of Earth for the green transition", Nature Climate Change, vol. 11, pp. 80-83, 2021. http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/s41558-021-00986-y
- M.D. Zelinka, T.A. Myers, D.T. McCoy, S. Po‐Chedley, P.M. Caldwell, P. Ceppi, S.A. Klein, and K.E. Taylor, "Causes of Higher Climate Sensitivity in CMIP6 Models", Geophysical Research Letters, vol. 47, 2020. http://dx.doi.org/10.1029/2019gl085782
- C. Deser, R. Knutti, S. Solomon, and A.S. Phillips, "Communication of the role of natural variability in future North American climate", Nature Climate Change, vol. 2, pp. 775-779, 2012. http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/nclimate1562
48 Responses to "Digital Twinge"
Leif Knutsen says
One other avenue to add to your “game” options, IMO, would be indigenous knowledge that is gaining new appreciation. For a short article to illustrate this potential, search:
with embedded links for further exploration.
For second modern take with the same implications: about-18 minutes long, also with embedded trails.
Leif Knutsen says
I see live links are not allowed. Search for bioneers. with Lila June’s forest as farm. For the second try the ted talk, by Dan Barber about how I fell in love with a fish.
Nature has just published a splendid illustration of how indigenous knowledge can improve our understanding of how climate is and ought to be modeled:
Unfortunately, the producers of Frontline are unlikely to translate it into the political vernacular anytime soon.
So they’re finally doing what I roughly sketched out in 2008? Great.
Please forward any checks….
Too bad we lost 14 years waiting….
It is severely dry here now, and I am looking after the longtime wearther forecasts as there are no halos whatsoever in the skies.
Jørungandr…. that is the serpent lying around the world Kringla Heimsins biting bitself in its tail and making meanders. The jet- stream. It has been very stable meandering now for too long.
There has been recent snow in Tyrka and Ukraina but not here.
Missing word in the text at the brackets:
“evaluations/hindcasts have to  part of any new efforts”
Looks like you meant to write “be” there.
Jeremy Grimm says
“A digital twin for climate that allows us to skillfully try things out and have confidence that the real world will behave similarly would be a nice thing to have.”
I am wary of this hope. Such a digital twin suggests uses for designing geoengineering. It could tie to assessing climate change impacts in terms of economic costs and benefits. To me, the impending climate chaos and its manifold costs should not be measured in economic terms.
macias shurly says
@Jeremy Grimm: – ” Such a digital twin suggests uses for designing geoengineering. ”
— Fraternal twins – why not?
The dramatic increases in weather forecast accuracy over the last couple of decades leads me to believe that we are already working relatively perfectly with these twins.
In connection with geoengineering, not only an improved forecast comes into consideration, but also more active measures that humanity will use to influence the earth’s energy balance, the global climate and the regional weather.
If one looks at the global energy balance, the possibilities of having an effect on the balance and the climate of the earth’s surface through cooling radiative forcings are arranged very simply and clearly.
2 warming components (solar absorbed surface & thermal down surface) must be fully compensated with their radiative forcing of ~502W/m² by the surface cooling components (thermal up surface, evaporation and sensible heat) to prevent further global warming.
In my opinion, this results in 3 different levers with which cooling and geoengineering appears possible:
1. Measures to reduce the solar radiation absorbed by the surface. (improved albedo)
2. Reduction of thermal down surface by reducing human greenhouse gas emissions and improving CO² absorption in the atmosphere.
3. Improved cooling of land surfaces through irrigation in dry periods and thus increased evaporation (water cooling) and cloud albedo.
The global energy balance as the average value of all regional energy balances does not actually need any digital twins. The measures to be taken are obvious – since even an idealized, analogous energy balance is enough to create a very useful twin. In addition to better and more regional weather observations and forecasts, I would wish for regionalized energy balances.
JG: – ” In my view, the impending climate chaos and its many costs cannot be measured economically. ”
— Any farmer who loses his crops due to drought or flooding can calculate the damage to within $1000. Likewise a forest owner who is affected by droughts or forest fires.
The costs that arise when the New York subway fills up with water can already be calculated today. Even the pollination performance of insects can be converted into $ and human labor.
Not all cost factors have been priced in by a long shot – but I think it makes sense to offset the consequential damage caused by climate change because it is an indicator of human stupidity NOT to promote the necessary climate protection in good time.
Barton Paul Levenson says
MS: Improved cooling of land surfaces through irrigation in dry periods and thus increased evaporation (water cooling) and cloud albedo.
BPL: Can’t happen. Clausius-Clapeyron relation.
macias shurly says
” Irrigation is perhaps the management practice that can
have the largest effect on climate. The addition of water
to the land surface tends to increase LE and decrease H.
This increase in evapotranspiration leads to a cooling of
the land surface. Under certain conditions, the resulting
increase in atmospheric water vapor may also enhance
cloud cover and downstream precipitation. ”
— At least read the abstract and introduction… preferably in your borehole… to understand that
– the atmosphere is not a “closed system”…
– the Clausius-Clapeyron relation is only valid in “closed systems.”..
– dry regions will become even drier with climate change…
– it is no problem at all to hold back water during rainy seasons in order to use it for (vital) plant growth when it is dry.
This (d/o) is 4 further misconsceptions of yours
1, The atmosphere is really a closed system in a lot of important respects.
2 change of reaction eqvilibria by temperature is an empirical fact that follows from reaction enthalpy, specific heat capacity and concervation of energy, and is not restricted to closed systems at all. It is a widely appliciable universal principle and natural law.
3 if climate changes to the wetter, trhen dry regions may also change to the wetter, not to the even drier.
4 Humanity has struggled very hard during history for major irrigation systems.aquifersv and viaducts, .
Alltogether, your arguments above seem frappingly superfiscious and thoughtless.,
Barton Paul Levenson says
ms: the atmosphere is not a “closed system”…
– the Clausius-Clapeyron relation is only valid in “closed systems.”..
BPL: Sorry, but that’s not true. Don’t just make stuff up. It’s too easy for people to check, and then you look silly.
Hr. M. Schürle
“the Clausius Clappeyro0ns relation is only valid in “closed systems””
Das ist nicht wahr!
It rules for the hot steam vapor pressure in steam engine boilers, the dP /dT relation that crosses 1 bar at 100 celsius, and further continuously down into the dewpoint curve , Tau- punkt- kurve in the atmosphere and open air and even down into the Rauhreif- frost curve relation below zereo celsius.
It rules outdoor in open air indeed.
And not just for water. It rules also for schnapps and cognac and fusel destilleries and crude oil refineries. With heating pressures destillation percentages along withn Daltons law with conderser cooling.
Then also for the solubility of gases and liquids and solid substances in water and other liquids. For instance water in eter and eter in water, 2 phase- systems. of any kind, the solubilities of b in a and a in b. both at the same time in balance, Being conscistent further both with Daltons law and Boyles law.
So, where you have your closed systems from when it rules for the very foggy dews of any kind and for cumulus and for scirrus clouds as well and for the freeze- drying sublimation of laundries outdoor on the washing line in the winter,…….
…….. that is quite a mystery with roots in your private reliogious and uneducated consciousless etnical tribal political bloody bottoms and backgrounds.
It comes that way when you believe that such principles rules and laws are commercial patent product strong pills pepper wares , Confetti and tribal perfumes,…. available Feromones from the gangsters or from the Partry with P, that can be used and applied AD LIBITVM by dilettants when they have to claim land and revier ownerswhip and state proof for that.
Clausius Clappeyrons thoughts rule even for BRUNNMIGI
( find, and read about that important conscept. www: BRUNNMIGI,)
= the solubility of H2S, NH3 and CO2 in communal and common drinkwaters and the permanence of that under anoxic conditions. Claussius Clappeyron gives the reason for why you can “boil it out” under atmospheric pressure in the lab, and further for the champagne- cooler.
Hr Schmidt, I shall try and publish on it.
It is the common and general conscept of rotten waters dating back to 1230 by Snorri Sturlason Snorri prosa ædda. And related to the very commercial and alternative Fox news of those days.
See also the conscept of Hypo- limneon.
They took it politically and blamed the fox news and the troll for it.
Try and think of anoxic situations and sewage leaks and common pissing into the editions and websites also in our days.
macias shurly says
@BPL & Carbonito
Why do I always have to press the same link three times into your blind eyes???
” In the natural sciences an open system is one whose border is permeable to both energy and mass. By contrast, a closed system is permeable to energy but not to matter. ”
PER DEFINITION, HOWEVER, IN A ” CLOSED SYSTEM “, NO EXCHANGE OF MASS MAY TAKE PLACE.
The atmosphere can ONLY be considered TOGETHER with the lithosphere, biosphere and hydrosphere as a “closed (earth) system”, precisely because daily Gt masses of H²O, CO²,…& others are exchanged between atmosphere, lithosphere, biosphere and hydrosphere.
And anyone who happens to find or observes a meteorite may even doubt that the earth system is a closed system.
No one disputes that warmer air parcels in the atmosphere contain more H²O.
But if you e.g. in 2100 will find that the atmosphere has warmed by another 1°C since today – you will find that this future atmosphere will not automatically contain 7% more H²O, but significantly less than predicted by the Clausius-Clapeyron equation.
All the more so when self-proclaimed climate scientists and head gardeners like you don’t manage to counter the spread of deserts, water shortages and insufficient evaporation rates on the land surface with any strategy.
You stand like two motionless garden gnomes in the front yard of climate science and have no glue&idea what to do with your watering cans and little, tiny rain barrels.
@Carbonito: – ” …sewage leaks and common pissing into the editions and websites…
… It rules also for schnapps and cognac and fusel destilleries…”
— What shall we do with the Norwegian drunken sailor – here?
I believe you should dive into your own personal sewers – until you can pinpoint the location of the “closed system” clog. There you will find your spiritual knot – made out of half-knowledge, the Pope, Mickey Mouse and your anoxic gases.
If you have pfrinciples like a/ Kg divided trough b/ kg, then you get a/b. Or we can say x/ meter through y/ meter, that becomes x/y. no kg, no mass need to be discussed, and no lengthy either need tom be discussed.
The claussius clappeyron rule is staded dK / deg and no mass is defined K is a pure numeral proportion.
Your ideo9logical or tribal orv religious or injtellectual or political probglem seems to be that you ar unable or unwilling to immagine or find out under which experimentalm situations the principles are appliciable and valid and for deciding on what.
Barton Paul Levenson says
ms: Why do I always have to press the same link three times into your blind eyes??? . . . https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Closed_system . . . ” In the natural sciences an open system is one whose border is permeable to both energy and mass. By contrast, a closed system is permeable to energy but not to matter. ” . . . PER DEFINITION, HOWEVER, IN A ” CLOSED SYSTEM “, NO EXCHANGE OF MASS MAY TAKE PLACE.
BPL: No shit, Sherlock. Nobody disputed the definition of a closed system. What we disputed was your lying assertion that Clausius-Clapeyron only applied to a closed system. Respond to what people actually said, not what you’d like them to have said.
You are disputing and denying the fact that the freezing point and the dew point and the boiling point remains the same for any given material regardless of its mass quantity. You are instructing and teaching here that a liter of water will have another boiling point than 2 liters of water, and that 1 teaspoon of salt have another solubility and saturation point in water than 2 teaspoons of salt.
All theese ridiculous things seem to come because you give a damn to, and hardly understand what you are talking- writing about.
All this seems to be a peculiar syndrom of yours that I have seen now for a while..
@ Hr Levenson
I tok it a bit too fast in my first reply to0 Schürle. I have looked after:
Wikipedia states the Claussius Clappeyrons equation as
dP/dT = Deltavap H / Deltavol V . T
H is molar vaporation enthalpy and deltavol is molar volume change.
Then it can all be derived from the permanence of matter and conservation of energy and be understood that way.
Its further appliciability to other phase- changes and 2 phase systems regardless of aggregational state so we can apply it to dissolving and condensation and even to re- cristallisation is rather given by van t`Hoff. But it is the same basic and universal physical principle, conservation of energy and its consequenses for temperatures and pressures all over.
Thus ruling for rain and snow and clouds indeed.
Elizabeth Boulton says
The title has similarities to “Destination Safe Earth” – the “mission” of a new climate centred security strategy. (PLAN E).
Military style intelligence analysis methods (if applied in good faith, not manipulated as in case of Iraq War WMD “intelligence”) could help tease out inter linkages and implications and consequences. [As suggested in PLAN E.]
macias shurly says
@Elizabeth Boulton: – ” …the dangers of climate change and ecological collapse…”
— As far as I can see, your Plan E concept is very extensive and complicated. This is probably hard to digest for simple knit contemporaries (like me).
When considering the dangers of climate change, economical and ecological collapse, it is striking that the most dangerous and expensive consequences of climate change such as: species extinction, sea level rise, floods, drought and extreme temperatures… (this is my personal, sad hit parade) …are all associated with the presence or absence of water.
In the short and medium term, even drastic reductions in global CO2 emissions (which are not to be expected) would have little or no impact on increasing water scarcity, desertification, droughts and floods.
I miss a “military strategy” to influence water cycles both in your plan E, but also in the international agreements of e.g. IPCC (summary for policymakers).
To influence on cycles even by military means, you ought to find out what you are dealing with and teaching people about first.
We will take any method that will restore some credibility to the environmental community. Atmospheric scientists have done enough damage with their narrow viewpoints and lack of perspective.
We are now being asked to believe the 1930s dust bowl was caused by greenhouse gas emission. Once a delusion runs this deep there remains little authority left on any matters of environment.
“My own view is that the role of land use and agricultural practices is often overstated,” Dr. Michael E. Mann, a distinguished professor of atmospheric science at Penn State University, told Salon by email. “The main driver appears to have been an unusual combination of summer heat and drought. Some studies indicate that greenhouse warming was already a contributor even that point, but it likely combined with natural variability to yield those extreme conditions.”
Mann added, “That having been said, we are seeing far worse droughts today here in the western US and elsewhere, and there’s no question these have been greatly exacerbated by climate change. The only real solution is to solve the problem at its source — i.e. stop burning fossil fuels as quickly as possible.
This stuff is just so damaging to environmental policy and understanding. It’s too much to bear for a conservationist. It’s embarrassing.
Barton Paul Levenson says
JCM: Atmospheric scientists have done enough damage with their narrow viewpoints and lack of perspective.
BPL: Not nearly as much damage as has been done by global warming deniers like you.
“We are now being asked to believe the 1930s dust bowl was caused by greenhouse gas emission”
At no stage did M Mann say the 1930s dust bowl ’caused’ the dust bowl He said using your own quote (amazingly) that climate change was likely a CONTRIBUTOR. He was at pains to say that natural variability was another contributor. These do not appear to be implausible claims.
“It is the watershed process that controls climates first and foremost”
On what basis and what research study? Earths climate is controlled by sunlight, milanknovitch cycles and greenhouse gases first and foremost, in every study I’ve seen (I am just an interested lay person). . Watershed processes become significant in regional climates, but you provide no evidence they are the principal control..
Correction: At no stage did M Man claim greenhouse gases caused the dust bowl.
Hydrological droughts breed meteorological droughts. Deep soil erosion and draining any available moisture creates desert. Deserts breed more deserts. Flora and Fauna are critical to maintaining soil organics and nutrients. Soils retain next to no moisture without organics. Active drainage and deep tillage accelerates the process. Soils rendered to dust. Fewer biodigesters and fungi create conditions rife for wildfire as biological decomposition is replaced by oxidation. Wetlands are practically non-existent across the developed world. Rivers straightened and channelized. Soils compacted, water runs off rapidly followed immediately by persistent drought. High pressure domes become semi-permanent. Temperature and hydrological extremes become the norm. Continental hygroscopic precipitation nuclei say bye bye, you’re left with persistent humid hazes; IR window is slammed shut for longer periods. More solar is absorbed. Any efforts to diminish the ecosystem in favor of narrow atmospheric CO2 talking points is not taken kindly. It has gone too far. It is the watershed process that controls climates first and foremost. Let’s throw that in the digital twin, with fair representation from ecologists; with a role for optical physicists and their radiometry being but one voice among their allies of environmental professionals.
Barton Paul Levenson says
JCM: Any efforts to diminish the ecosystem in favor of narrow atmospheric CO2 talking points is not taken kindly. It has gone too far. It is the watershed process that controls climates first and foremost.
BPL: And CO2 affects the mean global annual temperature, which affects the watershed process in two major ways: 1. It increases total airborne water vapor. 2. It moves the rain so that continental interiors dry out and continental shorelines get soaked. So stop trying to say CO2 doesn’t matter, or is less important, or whatever denier talking point you’re trying to get across. There are a lot of actual scientists here, and we’re not buying what you’re selling.
JCM, I think I asked you when you first commented here to explain what you think should be done that isn’t because of science about the role of CO2 in climate change.
I’ve been reading all these articles about how (scarce) water is being used in naturally dry areas to grow crops and lawns. It’s very difficult to tell from what you just wrote whether you think this is “good” or “bad”.
Maybe you could clarify that in the context of “deserts breed more deserts” and “hydrological extremes become the norm…you’re left with persistent humid hazes”?
So, there are two questions you consistently fail to answer:
1. What’s your plan? Should we stop growing almonds and other crops in California and other places, and grow native plants instead of lawn grass, and let the deserts go back to being deserts? That’s what I hear from ecologists, mostly, but then you say deserts are a problem because they create more deserts…. very confusing.
2. What does any of this have to do with the fact that basic physics tells us… that increasing
CO2 in the atmosphere increases the energy in the climate system? How does that interfere with policies about agriculture?
If anything, for example, reducing fossil fuel use for transportation (to reduce CO2 consumption) would logically promote more locally suited agriculture. But again, I still don’t know if you approve of massive irrigation practices or not. You need to be more definitive in your writing.
(reduce CO2 production)
macias shurly says
It bothers me too when Dr. M. Mann considers CO2 emissions to be the ONLY anthropogenic cause of global warming. Many thousands of years before the invention of the steam engine, mankind had long since started by (burning) clearing, drainage, agriculture, sealing, canalization…etc. to intervene in the water cycles on ever-increasing areas.
You are aware of the consequences – probably also of the fact that even with a drastic reduction in CO2 emissions, no change at all in temperature-driven evaporation and water cycles is to be expected in the short and medium term.
So there is a high and increasing discrepancy between the potential evaporation volume that characterized the land areas before the above-mentioned human interventions – and the current, reduced evaporation volumes over the drained continents, which lose ~ another 100km³ of water to the sea levels every year.
JCM: – ” Let’s throw that in the digital twin, with fair representation from ecologists; with a role for optical physicists and their radiometry…”
— As mentioned above, imho a simple global energy balance for land areas is already a very helpful twin, albeit not a digital one.
The value of 38W/m² for evaporation over land corresponds to an annual evaporated water amount of ~490L/m² and always cools the land surface in a mixture together with sensible heat & thermal radiation up surface.
Although evaporation would have to increase by ~14% over many land regions due to a temperature increase of 2°C, the water required for this additional evaporation is more and more often simply not available in the soil – with corresponding effects on rising air and soil temperatures and decreased cloud cover.
If you want to improve the surface cooling (from a total of 38+32+372W/m²) by 1% – then simply provide artificial irrigation of 57L/m²/y for a corresponding reduction(-4,42W/m²) in sensible heat and thermal up surface in your region.
“It bothers me too when Dr. M. Mann considers CO2 emissions to be the ONLY anthropogenic cause of global warming.”
What in the world are you talking about?! A simple Google search will prove you wrong. For example, see:
thank you for the breath of fresh air.
“Although evaporation would have to increase by ~14% over many land regions due to a temperature increase of 2°C, the water required for this additional evaporation is more and more often simply not available in the soil – with corresponding effects on rising air and soil temperatures and decreased cloud cover.”
Bingo. Climate systems are substantially more stable with ample and consistent water availability.
From your article
“With settlement, first wells, clearing by fire and the steady increase in surface sealing, canalization of rivers, drainage of moors, expansion of agricultural and forestry areas, … etc., humanity itself is responsible for this water shortage. Water pollution, waste, overuse of natural water reservoirs and the resulting desertification exacerbate this emergency.”
It is an indisputable fact that humans are directly responsible for surface water deficits.
“We have influenced climate every day for centuries, not only through constantly increasing CO² emissions, but also long before industrialization by extensive and far-reaching interventions in the water balance of natural – as well as agricultural – and urban – land areas.”
“Where water is becoming increasingly scarce, also due to increased evaporation, less and less water can evaporate and thus severely disrupt and worsen the transport of energy from the surface into the atmosphere.”
What I see is a hen and egg problem. The shift to sensible heat flux regime.
The hydrological cycle is a significant process in all ecosystems and involves the continuous circulation of water through the system.
In my work the goal is to improve water retention in catchments. Increasing soil organics 5%, water impoundment, increasing the duration of green growth and transpiration before wilting.
Latent heat of vaporization in transpiration exceeds that of evaporation from a flat surface. Catchments that retain and infiltrate water instead of rapid loss via runoff or evaporation are more resilient.
Permits to take water for irrigation will be hard to come by. For efficiency, and to get to your value of 57mm flux dissipation via latent heat, available water must be made more effective. Transpired through the vegetation from spongy moist shaded soils over longer periods. The overwhelming part of evapotranspiration process from land is mediated by organics.
Despite the overwhelming focus on carbon in current IPCC documents, there remains substantial ambiguity in water cycle effects. For example, the formation of clouds is profoundly affected by the land cover via biotically mediated synthesis of condensation nuclei. Modern circulation models do not properly reproduce the continental water cycle.
IPCC associated scientists, for reasons that are not apparent, choose to undervalue the watershed process. It could be because these processes not yet well understood by the modeling community. However, this is not an excuse to diminish its importance. Climate policy calls for cross-disciplinary input. The issue is too important to muddled by arrogance.
Barton Paul Levenson says
JCM: IPCC associated scientists, for reasons that are not apparent, choose to undervalue the watershed process. It could be because these processes not yet well understood by the modeling community. However, this is not an excuse to diminish its importance.
BPL: Its importance measured how? Undervalue is how? Produce a measure and show how it’s been undervalued or had its importance diminished. In other words, be quantitative, and present your ideas in a testable way. Otherwise you’re just throwing out rhetoric.
I am not familiar with the quantitative methods of psychology.
My personal observation is that your pretentious use of scientism will limit advancement of your knowledge.
For it is common knowledge for rural folk that soils left bare and dry get extraordinarily hot. Up to 50 – 60C in direct sun. At or above 40 ish, or so, all biological activity ceases. Not unlike cooking a roast in the oven. The soils on a neighboring property with cover crops to the east might only reach 25C in the same hour. The forested property to the north 20C. Same for the wetland to the south.
The fallowing of fields directly results in dust and desert. These methods were common in early 20th century as it was considered advantageous to limit pests and weeds. Today it is observed that soil organics reduce markedly under such conditions. For 1 gram organics retains 10x its weight in water retention. Certainly testable if you require. It is likely covered in an introductory hydrology course if you must.
If you ever seek to purchase property you will notice by soil testing, or by experience using one’s hands, that soil organics today are typically in the range <1%. Where higher value lands are more comfortably in the 5% range. Lower organic content results in very quick drying, extreme temperature, and rapid runoff and erosion. This is a very ineffective use of available precipitation which leads to extremes in terms of climate type observables.
macias shurly says
– ” thank you for the breath of fresh air. ”
– ” In my work the goal is to improve water retention in catchments. Increasing soil organics 5%, ”
– ” Climate policy calls for cross-disciplinary input. The issue is too important to muddled by arrogance. ”
— The thanks for fresh air also goes to you. I see that we both criticize the overwhelming focus on carbon in recent IPCC documents, and would like to expand on the role of altered water cycles in global warming.
Maybe we can use the amount of fresh air to give the arrogant mob lurking around here in the forum a good run and refresh their brain cells a bit.
– “The hydrological cycle is a significant process in all ecosystems…”
– ” Modern circulation models do not properly reproduce the continental water cycle. ”
— Even in a very simple global energy balance (as linked above), all possible causes of global warming, but also all possibilities for global cooling are clearly shown with arrows pointing up and down.
Although evaporation is not easy to measure, it ultimately has to be balanced with precipitation, runoff to the oceans and fluctuations in soil moisture and groundwater levels.
For me, it is important to clarify, among other things, which global radiative forcing (W/m²) causes more – or less evaporation (m³) over land areas. Even if some older, conservative gentlemen here are anything but amused by this suggestion.
If I then go one step further and suggest holding back enough water over the land area per year to compensate for sea level rise (3.7mm = 1335km³) – some of the staff here start hyperventilating right away and get gasps.
However, as an artist and cooling master, I have so many different suggestions to offer that I’m beginning to worry about the future health of these lurkers.
JCM: “cross-disciplinary input”
And that’s what I and others like BPL are asking for from you, but you can’t seem to make a concrete statement… forget about precise quantification, just say whatever you are trying to say qualitatively. More, less, up, down?
As best as I can decipher what you are writing, you are saying that growing almonds in California is “good” because:
“available water must be made more effective. Transpired through the vegetation from spongy moist shaded soils over longer periods. The overwhelming part of evapotranspiration process from land is mediated by organics.”
So rather than leaving the water in an aquifer or reservoir from dams or allowing the river to flow through its deep channels to the sea, we use it to turn a desert into the desirable ecosystem you describe.
But I still can’t figure out how you are connecting this to IPCC and CO2-caused changes in the planet’s energy balance. You need to articulate some cause-and-effect relationship in a concrete, definitive form… again, not necessarily with numerical precision but basic qualitative relationships.
Thanks for your interest, Zebra.
California represents an excellent example, on the front lines of observed climate changes. Since settlement we have massively cleared, degraded, oxidized and desertified over half of California’s bio-systems and soils and in so doing impaired their hydrology, and climates.
90% of valley wetlands have been drained and converted to agricultural use.
By clearing and oxidizing most of its soils and creating millions of hectares of man made desert and wasteland, humans have significantly impaired the former natural transpiration rate and capacity, particularly in the Central Valley.
Similar processes have been occurring to most global terrestrial systems simultaneously at great speed for the past 100 years, but likely slowing down as new lands to clear are becoming scarce.
Close to 600 calories of heat may be needed for each gram of water to be evaporated or transpired from the surface. As this heat has to come from the environment, it naturally cools the habitat as that heat is transferred into the air via latent heat fluxes.
While the latent heat is re-released when that water vapor re-condenses to form clouds, this occurs at some height resulting in improved dissipation efficiency to space as compared to the radiating terrestrial surface. As such it has a net cooling effect at the surface. Non condensed vapor and sensible heat is returned to the surface at night as the turbulent flux tends to oppose the direction of net radiation.
The condensation at night occurs at the surface which can be observed as dew, for example. Total net flux depends on the ratio of sensible and latent heat fluxes in surface energy budgets, where a shift to a sensible heat regime in humid environments is less able to dissipate heat.
The balance between the absorption and return of heat via transpired latent heat fluxes has changed markedly on land and contributed significantly to its warming, aridification and climate extremes.
A simple, but not widely recognized idea, is to limit the excessive heating of soils to prevent killing them.
In excessive heating of soils which radiate at T^4, and the associated desertification by killing microbial action and nutrient cycling of biodigesters, humans have greatly increased the addition of micro-nuclei to the air; via the 3-5 billion tons of fine dust aerosols that are added annually due to our land degradation and desertification. Micro-nuclei such as di methyl sulphide, dust and particulate aerosols. In doing so forming haze micro-droplets that govern the ecology of the humid hazes and their contribution to the natural greenhouse warming of the planet.
These persistent humid hazes have also contributed to the aridification of large regions via humid droughts. These are caused by the inability of the charged microdroplets to coalesce and then precipitate from the air and result in the persistent high humidity but reduced rainfalls of up to 30% recorded in many regions.
Our clearing and warming of over 50% of the land surface has certainly increased the reradiation of heat into the atmosphere and impeded the formation and effectiveness of the precipitation nuclei. Our clearing of the valleyland biosystems has impaired the natural formation of the hygroscopic microbial precipitation nuclei that were critical for inducing dense clouds and rainfalls.
Human clearing of terrestrial biosystems has systemic consequences such reduced dissipation of humid hazes, the reduced formation, extent and duration of dense clouds, and their ability to reflect solar radiation back out to space. More solar is absorbed into the atmosphere observed as global ‘dimming’.
The ecology of the larger hygroscopic microbial precipitation nuclei coalesce millions of haze micro-droplets into condensing cloud droplets that cool the climate and then remove them from the air as rain. The formerly rich presence of airborne microbes has been known since Louis Pasteur.
In disturbing the ecology humans have:
1. Vastly increased the production of additional haze micro-nuclei to reinforce the warming of the air and aridification of the land surface by absorbing surface temperature increase radiating at T^4.
2. Reduced the production of the hygroscopic precipitation nuclei that previously transformed these humid hazes into dense cooling clouds and rain to cool the land surface.
3. Impaired the capacity of the Earth’s residual bio-systems to regulate hydrological processes and thus the Earth’s climates.
Many regions formerly had regular storms late each day that removed most of the warming humid hazes micro-droplets from the air. In effect this rain re-opened night time radiation windows allowing infra red heat to be re-radiated back out to space instead of being absorbed by the hazes.
These regular late afternoon storms not only cooled these regions but also restored the soil water needed for our needs but more importantly for transpiration and its cooling latent heat fluxes the next day.
These late afternoon storms are now less frequent in many regions, reinforcing the systemic aridification and warming of these landscapes. This was likely observed during the dust bowl years where streams of water vapor would pass by overhead the desertified lands. In 1937, Franklin D. Roosevelt used the phrase “The Nation that destroys its soil destroys itself.” This spoken while implementing watershed restoration practices having learned the lessons from those deadly human caused dust bowl years.
From a continental perspective large areas of dry degraded land will further heat up and desiccate, re-radiating vast quantities of heat and dust into the air. We are beginning to see this on global scale today.
As these climate effects also increase the density and kinetic energy of gas molecules in the air they will mostly raise air pressure above these regions. As air normally flows from zones of high to low pressure this may result in outflows of air from above hot humid high pressure zones and block inflows of cooler moist air from zones of lower pressure.
This can block moist monsoonal inflows, progressively aridifying continental interiors.
Conversely, regions such as the Amazon basin, by creating its own low air pressure zones via its condensation of its massive latent heat fluxes may be inducing massive inflows of more cool moist marine air. Ample hygroscopic bacteria in moist ecosystems reinforces rain. The Central Valley and similar zones up the west coast of North America once had similar process.
Climatology has a rich history which borrows from many disciplines. The reductionism imposed by IPCC scientists since 30 years ago is by and large impairing practical actions and reducing students’ awareness of climate coupling to terrestrial ecosystems and hydrology.
These processes are not easy to quantify but they have been discussed since the time of Theophrastus as the Mediterranean was experiencing human caused desertification in millenia past. https://archive.org/details/theophrastusofer00theo/mode/2up
There is a view that climatology is defined by modelling CO2 emission today, but this does great disservice and disrespect to the subject. It may take the computational climate community many more decades or centuries to catch up to ecology. It is an enormously difficult task which is a worthwhile endeavor. The error is to put all of our stock in their findings. To reduce the subject and policy options to their findings when droughts, floods, and extreme heat are easily explained by hydrological disruption. Many examples of “climate effects’ in newsmedia are the result of watershed process, quantifiable as IDF curves and of hydrographs. The CO2 focus appears to have blinded us to the old knowledge.
The AR6 documents impose a paradigm of the landscape passively responding to a radiative forcing of human emission, but this is far too simple in concept. For ecologists it is second nature to understand this.
IPCC scientists, climate academia, and their cling-on climate warriors present themselves as quite disconnected from Earth System realities when they resist or diminish the input of conservationists.
My sense is that Schmidt is becoming more skeptical of drawing conclusions with certainty from CMIP6 experiments – this is a wise move. I am appreciative that the ECS & Cloud Feedback symposium sessions have been posted online to provide a window to the computational community. These experiments are but one method to advance the science and they are quite limited in scope. This, due to the unspoken fundamental assumption in current generation climate academia that humans do not impact the hydrological cycle and associated ecology. The CMIP experiments are very interesting and worthwhile, but the error has been to confuse them for reality.
JCM, thanks for your detailed reply. There is much to discuss in the physics you propose, and I expect others will offer their analysis. For the moment, however, I have to admit to some continued puzzlement about your historical claims.
I used the case of California as an example of “de-desertification”. According to this…
…it was not human intervention that created the local climate conditions. Rather, as I said previously, humans are now transferring water to existing deserts, creating the conditions you said were desirable:
“available water must be made more effective. Transpired through the vegetation from spongy moist shaded soils over longer periods. The overwhelming part of evapotranspiration process from land is mediated by organics.”
So we take water that is otherwise evaporating from Lake Mead and improve it’s latent heat process (according to your analysis). This of course happens in other parts of the world, in areas of varying aridity; obviously there are better and worse ways to do it… I understand drip irrigation to be the most efficient. (I just finished setting up my rather primitive version in our vegetable gardens, just in time for the hot weather.)
So here’s where some degree of quantitative reasoning must be applied. Obviously, for example, clear-cutting and burning the Amazon in order to create even more cow-burps would have a serious climate impact. But that really hasn’t been going on that extensively since 1850. Much of the more extreme human interventions are very localized and more recent, and often, as with the Dust Bowl, have led to improved (if far from perfect) management of the hydrology.
So you would have to support your contention of global impact with actual historical data that takes into account both positive and negative human interventions. That’s what the CO2 folks have done with considerable precision, given the complexity of the system under study.
macias shurly says
@zebra: – ” But I still can’t figure out how you are connecting this to IPCC and CO2-caused changes in the planet’s energy balance… articulate some cause-and-effect relationship…
not necessarily with numerical precision but basic qualitative relationships. ”
— What is your problem in qualitatively recognizing the “water factor” in the global energy balance and in visualizing the global volumes and energy flows?
I have already linked a global energy balance of land areas here at least 50 times.
38W/m² is the average evaporation rate with which water vapor is transported over land areas into the atmosphere. Take the 600 calories/g water mentioned by JCM and convert it to 0.68KWh/L. The annual (38Wh*24*365) evaporation energy corresponds to a water volume of 490L/m².
Combined with the 19W/m² imported via the atmosphere from the oceans onto land surfaces – we have about 735L(mm)/m² average rainfall over land. The regional, annual amounts of precipitation may vary from 1mm/y to ~20000mm/y.
Since the land surface is cooled solely by a mixture of latent evapotranspiration, sensible heat and thermal radiation up – every missing liter of water warms the air and ground temperature by 0.68KWh.
Another cause-and-effect relationship through water takes place in the atmosphere in the form of clouds.
The latest work report of the IPCC AR6 WG1 chapter 7.2 estimates the cooling Cloud Radiative Effect (CRE) at -19W/m² net (-47W/m² SW / +28W/m² LW).
The most obvious connection between water and CO2 is of course photosynthesis.
~ 1000L of water is needed by most crops (C3 or C4 plants) to bind 1-2kg of carbon (3.7 – 7.4kg of CO2).
While a large part of the world community sees climate change and record temperatures as being caused exclusively by CO2 emissions and of course rightly calls for a reduction in these emissions, most (climate science and the informed public) remain completely unclear or contradictory with regard to the much stronger GHG water vapor as to whether additional anthropogenic Emissions of water vapor (e.g. artificial irrigation) lead to a warming or a cooling of the climate.
Millennia-long reductions in evaporation from human intervention on land are cumulative to a vast, unknown total volume(km³)/y that should not be taken as feedback to CO2-induced warming/temperature.
“humans are now transferring water to existing deserts, creating the conditions you said were desirable”
It is difficult to judge from our own experience as the landscapes and their associated hydroclimates change over generations. Most of us have been born into a landscape having already undergone great change and we don’t think much about it.
From the perspective of wetland alone, which has been for the most part converted to agricultural use, the available moisture and ecology has been greatly disturbed.
I encourage you to look at the distribution of wetland changes, and to consider associated climate-type spatial patterns and change such as flood and drought risk, or temperature extremes. https://water.usgs.gov/nwsum/WSP2425/history.html
In my view, no amount of irrigation can simulate the former effectiveness of transpiration from wetland systems. In reality, only a very small proportion of arable lands are irrigated in the United States ~5%. Globally far less. Generally cash crops and perennials receive no water inputs. However, irrigation does have a role and it is an excellent way to kick-start an ecological restoration.
Lands rendered to desert and planted with widely spaced crops in former wetlands, and irrigated, do not resemble a wetland habitat climate. Here, for example, in the heart of the Central Valley former wetland complex. https://www.fresnobee.com/news/business/agriculture/b4bkij/picture94589017/alternates/FREE_1140/almonds
I generally do not agree that arable land has been expanded into existing deserts; it has predominately occurred where rich soils once existed. Wetlands, grasslands.
“Obviously, for example, clear-cutting and burning the Amazon in order to create even more cow-burps would have a serious climate impact. But that really hasn’t been going on that extensively since 1850. ”
Here, I believe you have conceded landscape changes would have a serious climate impact in the Amazon. Unless you are suggested the primary change is by emission from livestock replacing the existing ecology. If it is the former, we should ask why Americans, Europeans, Australians, and South Africans have not yet considered the dramatic landscape changes which have occurred prior to their births. And to then consider the ongoing desertification. Deeper into history, middle-eastern states, Mediterranean, and north Africa.
I will not get into upland and forest oxidation in this comment, for it relates to wildlife and nutrient cycling. Agricultural lands are not the only areas undergoing net desertification by human influence. Even seemingly pristine forests will oxidize once the food chain predatory system is disturbed. However, this topic is for another day.
I think I’ve pointed out to you previously that you are unclear and inconsistent in your language; perhaps it is just a matter of ESL and phrasing, I don’t know.
But we’re talking about CO2 increasing since (say) 1850, and the resulting increase in climate system energy over the last (say) 100 years. That increased energy manifests in various ways, like phase transitions of ice/water, and temperature increases in various contexts, and increase in average surface temperature globally, usw.
(I would consider my paragraph there as a good example of clearly describing a causal relationship.) But I have no idea what connection you think there is between that and “millenia-long reductions in evaporation”. The effect of increasing CO2 over the last 100 years operates on the previously existing conditions, however they have come to be.
But you haven’t even rationally proposed a condition; how do “reductions in evaporation” “accumulate”??? Are you saying that humans have lowered the water-vapor content of the atmosphere over millennia? How then would you also say that we are claiming that CO2 would be causing it, when we are claiming exactly the opposite… increased energy increases water vapor???
Perhaps you should spend some time organizing what you think/write into a clear causal narrative instead of just making lists.
Barton Paul Levenson says
ms: Millennia-long reductions in evaporation from human intervention on land are cumulative to a vast, unknown total volume(km³)/y that should not be taken as feedback to CO2-induced warming/temperature.
BPL: Stop denying known science. Just stop it.
macias shurly says
– ” how do “reductions in evaporation” “accumulate”??? ”
— Today we seal 10km² for urban areas – tomorrow we seal the next 10km².
…canalisation, burning down the forests, drainage of moors … etc.
Accumulation is 1+2+3+….. = ~50 Mio. km² of reduced evaporation area due to mankind up today.
@bpl: – ” Stop denying known science. Just stop it. ”
— No ! But it would be great if you spare me your stupid comments.
…it’s not my problem that you don’t understand the 3 most causal connections between the water cycle and the effects on the energy balance. The cooling of the earth’s surface also has only 3 components, which you apparently don’t have an overview of either.
Can you count to 3 ???
Barton Paul Levenson says
ms: It bothers me too when Dr. M. Mann considers CO2 emissions to be the ONLY anthropogenic cause of global warming.
BPL: It bothers me when you make stuff up about what Dr. Mann said. He never said CO2 was the ONLY anthropogenic cause of global warming. Nonetheless, it’s damn close, since CO2 accounts for 85% of the variance of temperature for the past 170 years.
Re. “since CO2 accounts for 85% of the variance of temperature for the past 170 years.”
I suspect some part of that 85% involves the shared correlation between the trends in methane and CO2 releases. I’d be curious to see the regression run and the underlying correlation matrix to see how much of methane’s contribution to warming is masked by it’s correlation with CO2 effects. Not that this changes anything at all globally, but I suspect there are some suppressor effects operating..
Time for PCA preanalysis???!!! Wouldn’t McIntyre just LUV that since we’re talking about Mann?!
“But, what about the clouds?”
To all andv everyone
Matthias Schürle and now also JCM are selling their ideas of water and the clouds here.
Let me sell more autentic original ideas about the same.
It was my spontaneous first intuitive conditional reflex (psychic habit) when I first met the CO2-AGW-moovement on their stand, at the university square festival.
My spontaneous objection was “But,…….. what about the clouds?”
Because, highly above Schürle and JCM in the experienced and learnt grades I come from the fameous bathing town www. Drøbak andv went to school there above them in the grades.
and had to learn bathing and swimming off an on the rocks in 17 down to 16 deg celsius sea water. The only warmth was the sun but what about the clouds ?
Mostly coming and not going. In those nasty and short summers. I became an expert in finding the warmest niches and sites of micro-microclimate, and have prooved that later. I am the one who finds the warmest sites further south in Germania where the natives are confused and give a damn and believe in the experts and their missions and sales propaganda. They even pay entrance at the nudist shores, manners that are deeply immoral and below us in the grades.
They believe in Mammon rather than in the sun and the clouds and inn pure nature on the rocks and in the waters..
Further proof of my given expertise, : I am the only one who manages to have tomatoes and sweet edible plums and wine grapes here where I live now 150 meters higher up.
The ugly alternatives set on obscure pesticides and fertillizers and homøopatie, electromotors for dilettants and patent ware barber soaps and intime sprays and commerce.
But what about the sun and the clouds and the rain and the winds?
I once thought out how to “take the rat” (=ta rotta på) of the IPCC CO2-AGW- commerce and religion. Meaning , winning over them and simply destroy them the intelligent way by taking their achilles- heal.
My best suggestion for that is to find and show an effect that makes it cloud over during day and clear up during night. An cloud over in summer and clear up during winter. That will cool the very globe. And if you whish the opposite, think and plan and proove the same opposite in terms of clouds. Daqy and night summer and winter globally and you need only a small recent change of tendency in that if you can show and proove it, to ruin the very IPCC.
But it must be shown also theoretically and experimentally, not just statistically by “confidence” that no ones believe in, and strong enough to dominate over the Tyndall Arrhenius Revelle Hansen Brundtland Al Gore – effect.
Your best chanses will be in the clouds, that are quite nebulous
The fogs and the clouds represent a typical white area on the scientific maps. where pioneering findings and progress is normally done.
White, foggy areas on the maps, are domaines where people really get fameous and remembered, provided that they do not rather get lost there..
Henrik Svensmark tried it by Wilsons cloud chamber and “galactic” radiation, and failed. Even I could easily dismiss it by Planc Einsteins theory of normal sunshine and John William Herschels cyanotypie method for photochemical shortwave light, showing that normal daylight is severely much heavier by voltage times current to acheive the same, than “galactic” radiation.
IIf Uraniumpitchblende, Thorium and Radon do not fog the chambers and weathers worldwide, then forget the galaxies.
But there is a suggestion and theory remaining that I do not see thorroughly falsified.
The CLAW- hypothesis, an acronym of R.J Charlson, James Lovelock, M. Andreae , and S.G.Warren. Together “CLAW”!
The basic element there is di- methyl- sulphide. CH3-S-CH3, a smallest possible thio- eter. That is produced by bacteria and phytoplancton and gives the dubious smell of sea, rotten shells andv seaqweed, and oceanic atmosphere.
It is further a bio signal substance, and is produced further in the Intestinum crassum of vertebrates– giving that odeour. But too much of that is due to Salmonella in the I. crassum. I call it the sulphur disease when it comes out both ways, as evidence of Salmonella.
In any case, that di- metyl- sulphide is archaic relating to early life , global and oceanic. And further on land with onions and cabbage and rotten egs.
It decays by sharp shothwave light sunshine in common moist air into more or less H2SO4 .nH2O that is an aerosol, a nano particle that is known to whiten the clouds, and give many more but much smaller microscopic cloud drops, that do not so easily coalesque together and give rain. The tiny raindropm acidity due to H2SO4 and acid rain may even play a role for the surface tension.
All in all, Dimethys- sulphide coming and going in the sunshine may entail natural “chemtrails”. .
Sulphate- aerosols of that biological and oceanic origin may decide on the whiteness of clouds. And thus the white- cloud- Para- Sol- even Para- plui- effect that is to be taken serious.
There are 2 versions of the CLAW- hypothesis as I can find. Both as a positive and as a negative feedback to global warming.
Thus it remains in the fogs and the sulphurous smells,… under the sun on earth,….over the seas and lands….
On James Lovelock and Gaia, don`t worry. That theory seems to be not falsifiable.
But rotten kelp and shells at the shores are not falsified yet in the climate.
Further litterature Look up Aristophanes Nephelai, the clouds!, an original comedy on early cloudy ideas.
BRUNNMIGI, that is when it gets into the communal waters, editions, and websites also from early on.
Correcture Akihilles heel
macias shurly says
– ” The atmosphere is really a closed system in a lot of important respects.”
– ” my spontaneous first intuitive conditional reflex (psychic habit) ”
– ” highly above Schürle and JCM in the experienced and learnt grades I come from the fameous bathing town… ”
– ” had to learn bathing and swimming ”
– ” Further proof of my given expertise, : I am the only one who manages to have tomatoes… ”
– ” I became an expert in finding the warmest niches and sites of micro-microclimate…”
– ” …at the nudist shores, manners that are deeply immoral ”
— Are you crazy my friend ?
You will find the warmest niches in tight, white and tear-resistant jackets that have the sleeves tied and with which you can be strapped to your bed.
A fluffy white duvet over it, soft and heavy like big, white clouds…and big, white walls to look at all day long…without Hoffmann’s drops and other Lucy in the Sky Diamonds.
From your closed (but still open) atmosphere system( Vitoð ér enn, eða hvat? ),
at breathtaking speed, through your miles of rhetorical garbage and hip swing,
pants down but hands high…
—> I would very much like to accompany you directly to the closed institution
Nein Genosse, I am not crazy.
What you are up against is only one of our ways to “lure” hook and fish out, point at, label, , chlorinale sterilize and eradicate the alternatives, such as http://www.BRUNNMIGI, its origines, and its further commercialized Arbeiter und Bauernfakultät in Greifswald.
And we do dot catch and release.
For questions, try and behave.