Support the Arctic Sea Ice Forum and Blog

Author Topic: Validation of GCM Models  (Read 47707 times)

Richard Rathbone

  • Nilas ice
  • Posts: 1738
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 388
  • Likes Given: 24
Re: Validation of GCM Models
« Reply #150 on: January 31, 2024, 04:03:39 PM »
One method of determining climate sensitivity is to use emergent constraints based on observations of past temperature variations.  This article from October 2023 evaluate temperatures over the past 1,000 years to arrive at a likely sensitivity of 2.5 to 2.7, well within the accepted range of 2 to 4.5.

https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/2023GL104126

Quote
Revisiting a Constraint on Equilibrium Climate Sensitivity From a Last Millennium Perspective
S. Cropper, C. W. Thackeray, J. Emile-Geay
First published: 26 October 2023 https://doi.org/10.1029/2023GL104126

Abstract
Despite decades of effort to constrain equilibrium climate sensitivity (ECS), current best estimates still exhibit a large spread. Past studies have sought to reduce ECS uncertainty through a variety of methods including emergent constraints. One example uses global temperature variability over the past century to constrain ECS. While this method shows promise, it has been criticized for its susceptibility to the influence of anthropogenic forcing and the limited length of the instrumental record used to compute temperature variability. Here, we investigate the emergent relationship between ECS and two metrics of global temperature variability using model simulations and paleoclimate reconstructions over the last millennium (850–1999). We find empirical evidence in support of these emergent relationships. Observational constraints suggest a central ECS estimate of 2.5–2.7 K, consistent with the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change's consensus estimate of 3K. Moreover, they suggest ECS “likely” ranges of 1.7–3.3 K and 1.9–3.5 K.
2.5  and 2.7 are central estimates from different  methods, the "likely" ranges (66% chance of being within the range) given at the bottom of the quote is much wider.

I think they will also be biassed low for reasons discussed in Annan et al (2020). The statistic they are using is skewed, and they are assuming it isn't. Their upper bound is too low in consequence, and its virtually impossible to have a strong constraint on high ECS by this method.

The Annan paper is clearly written and well worth a read if you want to know about the statistical properties of this method of constraining sensitivity.

https://esd.copernicus.org/articles/11/709/2020/

Quote
We have explored the potential for using interannual temperature variability in estimating equilibrium sensitivity. While – as Williamson et al. (2019) argued – there is generally a quasi-linear relationship between S and the expected value of Psi over a reasonable range of S in the simple energy balance model, this relationship saturates for higher S, and furthermore, sampling variability is significant and highly heteroscedastic. These properties undermine the theoretical basis for the linear regression emergent constraint approach which was presented by Cox et al. (2018a), as the ordinary least squares regression method relies on a linear relationship with homoscedastic errors


The Walrus

  • Young ice
  • Posts: 2881
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 150
  • Likes Given: 488
Re: Validation of GCM Models
« Reply #151 on: January 31, 2024, 04:20:06 PM »
Based on the likely scenario (66%), I feel that the range is reasonable.  The ECS is not confined to this range, as there is still a 33% chance that the ECS falls outside this range.

kassy

  • Moderator
  • First-year ice
  • Posts: 8344
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 2053
  • Likes Given: 1990
Re: Validation of GCM Models
« Reply #152 on: January 31, 2024, 06:58:59 PM »
Ideally we want one (bunch of) correct models.

Those tuned best to recent historical conditions might not be the best at predicting the conditions when they are warmer. The hot models perform better on recent data. Adding them would get the number a bit higher. Improving the resolution so we can do clouds properly would be interesting.

BTW: then there is details such as models not seeing the AABW trend which will also change things for the worse some decades from now.
Þetta minnismerki er til vitnis um að við vitum hvað er að gerast og hvað þarf að gera. Aðeins þú veist hvort við gerðum eitthvað.

sidd

  • First-year ice
  • Posts: 6785
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 1047
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Validation of GCM Models
« Reply #153 on: February 03, 2024, 10:14:39 AM »
I don't really know where to post this, but i do know that diurnal temperature range (DTR) variations can be extracted from model predictions. Here is a paper showing increase in night temperatures is outstripped by daytime maximum temperatures since 1990, reversing the decrease in DTR prior to 1990.

Now i seem to recall that the decrease in DTR was a strong prediction from models of CO2 increase. This paper indicates that albedo/cloud effects have reversed DTR decrease. Do any current models, especially the "hot" models show similar effects ?

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-023-43007-6

Open access. Read all about it.

sidd


Richard Rathbone

  • Nilas ice
  • Posts: 1738
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 388
  • Likes Given: 24
Re: Validation of GCM Models
« Reply #154 on: February 03, 2024, 01:19:54 PM »
I don't really know where to post this, but i do know that diurnal temperature range (DTR) variations can be extracted from model predictions. Here is a paper showing increase in night temperatures is outstripped by daytime maximum temperatures since 1990, reversing the decrease in DTR prior to 1990.

Now i seem to recall that the decrease in DTR was a strong prediction from models of CO2 increase. This paper indicates that albedo/cloud effects have reversed DTR decrease. Do any current models, especially the "hot" models show similar effects ?

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-023-43007-6

Open access. Read all about it.

sidd

They are looking and land only, and sea would be different (I'm not sure exactly how different) and would dominate the general effect.

The effect they found is not recent, but occurred over a short period in the early 1970s. They use a 30-year moving average, and their results are consistent with a huge step up in the rate of daytime maximum increase in 1972 and nothing but a bit of noise since.

Whether the DTR over land is steadily getting higher or has been effectively constant since the early 1970s depends on which of the two datasets they looked at. One of them (CRU) is no longer state of art and not surprisingly their testing shows the other (BEST) to better match station data. BEST is the one which shows average land DTR has been expanding for 50 years. The latest data they use is the 1991-2020 average, which means the changes in Earth brightness that Hansen reckons are resulting in acceleration now, are too recent to be captured by this paper, which is spotting a significant change 50 years ago.

The geographical distribution suggests to me two things are going on to cause this: acid rain controls in the industrialised world, and tropical rainforest clearance rates. They analyse cloud cover and soil moisture rather than forest cover clearance rates and industrial practice but those look like the significant drivers to me.

kassy

  • Moderator
  • First-year ice
  • Posts: 8344
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 2053
  • Likes Given: 1990
Re: Validation of GCM Models
« Reply #155 on: March 12, 2024, 06:43:09 PM »
Understanding wind and water at the equator key to more accurate future climate projections

Getting climate models to mimic real-time observations when it comes to warming is critical -- small discrepancies can lead to misunderstandings about the rate of global warming as the climate changes. A new study from North Carolina State University and Duke University finds that when modeling warming trends in the Pacific Ocean, there is still a missing piece to the modeling puzzle: the effect of wind on ocean currents in the equatorial Pacific.

"The Pacific Ocean can act like a thermostat for the global climate," says Sarah Larson, assistant professor of marine, earth and atmospheric sciences at NC State and coauthor of the study.

"If the Pacific warms quickly, for example, it can accelerate warming globally. Similarly, if it warms at a slower pace, this can slow down our rate of global warming."

Over the last several decades, scientists have noted a complicated warming pattern in the tropical Pacific, with eastern and western Pacific waters warming while a slight cooling effect was seen in the central Pacific close to the equator.

When scientists attempted to model this warming pattern by feeding historical data into the models, they found that current models could not reproduce the observed pattern.

"These models simulate the atmosphere and the ocean's response to what we call 'external forcing,' which are things like greenhouse gases and aerosols in the atmosphere," Larson says.

"We're trying to figure out what physical processes in the models we can attribute this discrepancy to, so we looked at wind," Larson says.

"If wind is important to ocean currents and ocean currents move heat around, then we could be getting the wind-driven portion of warming wrong in the models."

The researchers ran two different models that encompassed the same time period -- one in which winds changed in response to external forcing, and one 'decoupled' model, in which the winds replicated those prior to the industrial revolution and did not change in response to forcing.

In the model where winds changed, warming trends followed those observed, apart from the cooling along the equator.

In the decoupled model, these patterns did not appear.

"We removed wind changes from the decoupled model to better understand its effects on how the tropical Pacific climate evolved," Larson says.

"Let's take Galápagos Islands in the eastern Pacific as an example," says Shineng Hu, assistant professor of earth and climate science at Duke University and study co-author.

"The ocean water to the north of the equator is warmer than the equatorial water there. We found that the human-induced warming triggered westerly winds to the north of Galápagos Islands, which in turn transported the warm water beneath southward. That is what we think acts as a key process through which winds affect the tropical Pacific warming pattern."

"What this tells us is that how the winds react to human-induced forcing like greenhouse gases is incredibly important to determining how quickly the tropical Pacific warms and so far, the winds are changing in ways the models didn't anticipate," Larson says.

"We know that wind is the key, but this finding points to an urgent need to better simulate equatorial oceanic processes and thermal structures to create more accurate models."

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2024/03/240306203056.htm
Þetta minnismerki er til vitnis um að við vitum hvað er að gerast og hvað þarf að gera. Aðeins þú veist hvort við gerðum eitthvað.

SeanAU

  • Young ice
  • Posts: 2871
    • View Profile
    • Meta-Crisis
  • Liked: 118
  • Likes Given: 27
Re: Validation of GCM Models
« Reply #156 on: March 21, 2024, 05:47:46 AM »
QUOTE – Leon Simons  March 2023  2024
“… these are models, climate models from Schmidt et al 2023 (Gavin Schmidt) which show — (mouse pointing) here see, you see the climate models — and how much sunlight is being absorbed in these models — and then you compare it to the satellite observation and in reality there is much more sunlight being absorbed than the models assume — which then causes much more heat accumulating in the system than the models assume.

But even the lead author (ie Gavin Schmidt) has not written about this and has not shared it with the media — so nobody knows about this right — so people are still ignorant about it. ”
[end quote]


https://youtu.be/Rq34Xn4CZnI?si=XpCWul0UJTZzEGiC&t=1325
« Last Edit: March 22, 2024, 12:35:03 AM by SeanAU »
It's wealth, constantly seeking more wealth, to better seek still more wealth. Building wealth off of destruction. That's what's consuming the world. And is driving humans crazy at the same time.

SeanAU

  • Young ice
  • Posts: 2871
    • View Profile
    • Meta-Crisis
  • Liked: 118
  • Likes Given: 27
Re: Validation of GCM Models
« Reply #157 on: March 21, 2024, 06:00:33 AM »
A follow on from above ...  https://youtu.be/Rq34Xn4CZnI?si=c4PDIkSbW-1EfNzl&t=1397

Leon Simons ... actually they're saying it themselves their research shows it right the
research shows it's not it's not me, like it's me I'm saying it, but I'm just showing
what their what their paper shows right I'm showing you what the data shows

which they are presenting but not communicating of course they're not
apologizing but with the data they show that they have been wrong and yeah
that unfortunately we and the data we present are correct
Quote

Q but I I find it quite odd that the IPCC is not uh calling attention to this when their
main objective is to alert the public of you know the warming Trend

Quote


Leon -- That's not what the IPCC do right it's uh so there's a lot of great scientists
working on it and I think there's somewhat of abusive relationship going on because they're
not being paid and the government decides the government of Representative decide what
is being communicated to the public of course people can read the 4,000 pages of all every
 single report most do not
but then and so it's it's it's it's it's not a healthy rship and then some uh
research like like James Hansen's research is not even included in the reports right so and
then now we see all
these this reaches com out for example with the about the amok about the the
heat transported by the ocean to the north from the southern hemisphere to the Northern Hemisphere by
the amok which is weakening now already and that it could collapse maybe this
Century right and that's what James Hansen has been publishing about in 2016 and it wasn't
 even considered by the
ipcc reports and of course there's big egos as well you know at the at the
morning we published our paper uh there were some ipcc
authors who couldn't even have read our paper because it was it just got published and
they didn't yeah we we had
a pre-print but they didn't communicate with us before that which they could I did
that as well when they didn't include the the shipping emissions right so they should if
they have questions they could
talk to us but then at the morning we publish it they they have all these stman argument
saying okay there
wouldn't be any warming if we would just go to Net Zero right but it's just a strawman
argument we're not going to Net
Zero we don't have an instant net Ex human extinction scenario so it's a stman argument
we have a scenario where
we stabilize greenhouse gas concentrations at what they are today which of course also
a scenario is not
happening greenhouse gas concentration are increasing but that's so you cannot
say okay your your hypothesis is incorrect because if I take a completely different
scenario you are wrong it's
like okay you if if you live on a different planet there we have different
rules apply for sure I can agree but so it's very strange what's
happening here so all these these it's really personal for some
people well we are presenting the data they don't address the data
we present they just attack us personally and I don't care like you
can attack me personally but the data the data shows what it shows
if you if you have to attack me I don't care data the data doesn't lie


It's wealth, constantly seeking more wealth, to better seek still more wealth. Building wealth off of destruction. That's what's consuming the world. And is driving humans crazy at the same time.

kassy

  • Moderator
  • First-year ice
  • Posts: 8344
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 2053
  • Likes Given: 1990
Re: Validation of GCM Models
« Reply #158 on: March 22, 2024, 07:39:50 PM »
Global climate databases work with incorrect data for the tropics, study shows


Accurate climate data is immensely important for climate change predictions and modeling. Using a unique climate data set of 170 stations, mainly from the mountains of Tanzania including Kilimanjaro, Dr. Andreas Hemp, researcher at the Chair of Plant Systematics at the University of Bayreuth, shows that the commonly used data sets are inaccurate.

Hemp shows which data is more suitable in a publication in the journal PLOS ONE.

In order to understand the distribution of species, but also ecosystem functions and services, climate data is required. The collection of such climate data is not an end in itself, but a prerequisite for other research on climate change.

For this reason, Dr. Hemp and colleagues from the Senckenberg research network Kili-SES, in which the University of Bayreuth is also involved, have set up a unique network of climate measuring stations for remote tropical mountain regions. This makes it possible to estimate more precisely which climate change will have which consequences.

Global climate data sets such as WorldClim and CHELSA, which are widely used in research, are based on interpolation, i.e. the estimation (modeling) of unknown values on the basis of known data. And they are based on little data, as weather stations in tropical mountains are rare.

As a result, not only is the maximum amount of average annual precipitation in the tropics drastically underestimated, but the altitude of the precipitation maximum also deviates greatly from the actual conditions. For example, the precipitation maximum on Kilimanjaro is 3,300 mm at 1,920 m above sea level (average value from over 10 years of measurements). The corresponding modeled values of the two climate databases deviate drastically from this with 1,900 mm and 1,500 mm at 1,400 m and 2,770 m above sea level.

Similarly high discrepancies were found on the 15 other mountains surveyed in Tanzania. This is significant for research into the causes of species distribution patterns. For example, the distribution of certain species groups on Kilimanjaro, such as ferns or epiphytes, clearly follows the measured precipitation distribution with the maximum at 1,900–2,000 m above sea level. Using the modeled data with their false maxima, this correlation is not recognizable.

...

https://phys.org/news/2024-03-global-climate-databases-incorrect-tropics.html

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0299363
Þetta minnismerki er til vitnis um að við vitum hvað er að gerast og hvað þarf að gera. Aðeins þú veist hvort við gerðum eitthvað.

kassy

  • Moderator
  • First-year ice
  • Posts: 8344
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 2053
  • Likes Given: 1990
Re: Validation of GCM Models
« Reply #159 on: April 09, 2024, 04:38:49 PM »
Much ado about acceleration


There has been a lot of commentary about perceived disagreements among climate scientists about whether climate change is, or will soon, accelerate. As with most punditry, there is less here than it might seem.

Last year, Jim Hansen and colleagues published a long paper that included a figure suggesting that they expected that global temperature trends from 2011 to increase above the recent linear trends.

This has meshed with another argument around whether an acceleration of global temperatures in recent decades can already be detected. Tamino has made a case that it can be, if some of the ‘noise’ in the record is factored out (notably the linear impacts of ENSO and volcanoes). However, it not so obvious that the recent El Niño can be so easily removed in such a way. In my recent Nature commentary, I pointed out the difficulties explaining quantitatively why 2023 was so warm. Without further clarity on that, deciding whether we have yet seen an acceleration or not is a bit ambiguous.

Another view of the future is given by the results of climate models. We’ve discussed some of the issues with the latest CMIP6 round of simulations many times in recent years, nonetheless, by screening the model ensemble based on the likely range of climate sensitivity, we can create projections that align closely with assessed projections from the last IPCC report. These projections are the basis of our updated comparisons of CMIP6 models to observations, and specifically this graph:

...


It is worth remembering what the CMIP6 projections are based on. These simulations used historical GHG concentrations and aerosol emissions to 2014, and a mid-range scenario (SSP2-4.5) thereafter, which has continued increases of CO2 and CH4 as well as forecast decreases in aerosol emissions. The screening uses the likely range of 1.8 to 2.2ºC of transient climate response, roughly equivalent to to a screening uses equilibrium climate sensitivity of 2.5 to 4ºC for a doubling of CO2 (Hausfather et al, 2022).

The question naturally arises as to who is correct, Hansen et al or the models?

We can assess this by extending our graph to 2050, and plotting Hansen et al’s projected range on top:

...

Remarkably, the Hansen et al projections are basically indistinguishable from what the mean of the TCR-screened CMIP6 models are projecting. Or, to put it another way, everybody is (or should be) expecting an acceleration of climate warming (in the absence of dramatic cuts in GHG emissions) (CarbonBrief has a similar analysis), even if we might differ on whether it is yet detectable.

...

https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2024/04/much-ado-about-acceleration/
Þetta minnismerki er til vitnis um að við vitum hvað er að gerast og hvað þarf að gera. Aðeins þú veist hvort við gerðum eitthvað.

kassy

  • Moderator
  • First-year ice
  • Posts: 8344
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 2053
  • Likes Given: 1990
Re: Validation of GCM Models
« Reply #160 on: April 14, 2024, 10:19:15 PM »
Climate change isn't producing expected increase in atmospheric moisture over dry regions


The laws of thermodynamics dictate that a warmer atmosphere can hold more water vapor, but new research has found that atmospheric moisture has not increased as expected over arid and semi-arid regions of the world as the climate has warmed.

The findings are particularly puzzling because climate models have been predicting that the atmosphere will become more moist, even over dry regions. If the atmosphere is drier than anticipated, arid and semi-arid regions may be even more vulnerable to future wildfires and extreme heat than projected.

The authors of the new study, led by the U.S. National Science Foundation National Center for Atmospheric Research (NSF NCAR), are uncertain what's causing the discrepancy.

"The impacts could be potentially severe," said NSF NCAR scientist Isla Simpson, lead author of the study. "This is a global problem, and it's something that is completely unexpected given our climate model results."

Simpson and her co-authors say follow-up research is needed to determine why water vapor is not increasing. The reasons could have to do with moisture not moving from Earth's surface into the atmosphere as projected or circulating around the atmosphere in unanticipated ways. It's also possible that an entirely different mechanism could be responsible.

Adding to the mystery, the new study showed that while water vapor is increasing over humid regions of the world, it is not rising as much as expected during the most arid months of the year.

The study appears this week in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. The research was funded by the National Science Foundation, NOAA, and the U.S. Department of Energy. It was co-authored by scientists from the University of California, Los Angeles; University of California, Santa Barbara; Cornell University; Polar Bears International; and Columbia University.

A surprising finding

A basic rule of climate science is that the atmosphere can hold more moisture as it warms. This is known as the Clausius-Clapeyron relationship, and it's the reason climate models consistently project that atmospheric water vapor will increase as the planet becomes warmer.

But when Simpson was working on a report for NOAA in 2020 about climate change in the southwestern United States, she realized that the atmosphere there had been drying much more than would be expected based on climate model simulations.

Intrigued, Simpson and her co-authors looked at the atmosphere globally to determine if water vapor was increasing in line with climate projections. The research team turned to multiple sources of observations from 1980 to 2020. These included networks of weather stations as well as datasets that estimate humidity based on observations from sources such as weather balloons and satellites.

To their surprise, the scientists found that water vapor over arid and semi-arid regions was generally remaining constant instead of increasing by close to 7% for every 1° Celsius (1.8° Fahrenheit) of warming, as would be expected based on the Clausius-Clapeyron relationship. Water vapor actually declined over the Southwest United States, which has seen a long-term reduction in precipitation.

"This is contrary to all climate model simulations in which it rises at a rate close to theoretical expectations, even over dry regions," the authors wrote in the new paper. "Given close links between water vapor and wildfire, ecosystem functioning, and temperature extremes, this issue must be resolved in order to provide credible climate projections for arid and semi-arid regions of the world."

The study noted that the situation is leading to an increase in vapor pressure deficit, which is the difference between the amount of moisture that the atmosphere can hold and the amount that's actually in the air. When the deficit rises, it can act as a critical driver of wildfires and ecosystem stress.

"We could be facing even higher risks than what's been projected for arid and semi-arid regions like the Southwest, which has already been affected by unprecedented water shortages and extreme wildfire seasons," Simpson said.

She and her colleagues found a more complex situation in humid regions, where atmospheric water vapor increased as projected by climate models during wetter seasons. This increase leveled off somewhat during the driest months but did not flatten out as much as in arid and semi-arid regions.

Looking for the culprit

As for the question of why the water vapor in the atmosphere is not increasing over dry regions as expected, the authors broadly suggest two possibilities: the amount of moisture that is being moved from the land surface to the air may be lower than in models, or the way that the atmosphere is transporting moisture into dry regions may differ from the models.

Issues with atmospheric transport are less likely, they conclude, because that wouldn't necessarily explain the common behavior among all arid and semi-arid regions worldwide, which receive moisture from differing locations.

That leaves the land surface as the most likely culprit. The authors speculate several possible causes: the land may have less water available to the atmosphere in reality than in models, it may be drying out more than anticipated as the climate warms, or plants may be holding on to moisture more effectively and releasing less into the atmosphere.

The authors also considered the possibility that there is an error in the observations. But they concluded this was unlikely since the discrepancy is closely tied to the dryness of regions all over the world, and it is consistently found even when dividing up the record into shorter time segments to avoid errors due to instrumentation changes.

Simpson emphasized that more research is needed to determine the cause.

"It is a really tricky problem to solve, because we don't have global observations of all the processes that matter to tell us about how water is being transferred from the land surface to the atmosphere," she said. "But we absolutely need to figure out what's going wrong because the situation is not what we expected and could have very serious implications for the future."

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2024/01/240117143914.htm

Paywalled research but why oh why would you assume climate becomes wetter over dry regions?

The atmosphere can hold more water vapour but the dry regions can´t increase evaporation and most of them don´t get extra water input. The same evaporating water from the oceans gets to rise higher and move further away. It did not flow to the deserts before and atmospheric physics don´t just change.

Þetta minnismerki er til vitnis um að við vitum hvað er að gerast og hvað þarf að gera. Aðeins þú veist hvort við gerðum eitthvað.

Sciguy

  • Nilas ice
  • Posts: 1972
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 239
  • Likes Given: 188
Re: Validation of GCM Models
« Reply #161 on: April 17, 2024, 04:42:11 AM »
Quote
Paywalled research but why oh why would you assume climate becomes wetter over dry regions?

Less than 10% of the surface of the Earth is desert, and much of that desert may be smaller than a single grid cell in a climate model.  So it probably has very little impact on a global climate model.

For a regional model downwind of a desert, it might have a big impact.

As the saying goes, more research is needed.

Bruce Steele

  • Young ice
  • Posts: 2529
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 760
  • Likes Given: 42
Re: Validation of GCM Models
« Reply #162 on: April 17, 2024, 06:00:53 AM »
Sci guy, Deserts are about 33% of the earth that isn’t ocean.
https://education.seattlepi.com/percent-planet-desert-5203.html

kassy

  • Moderator
  • First-year ice
  • Posts: 8344
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 2053
  • Likes Given: 1990
Re: Validation of GCM Models
« Reply #163 on: April 17, 2024, 12:36:52 PM »
Quote
So it probably has very little impact on a global climate model.
But they model it, see the bolded line.

This failure is related to the lack of resolution to resolve clouds properly but even the assumption is weird.

The findings are for arid and semi arid regions.

Anyway there is a maximum to evaporation during a day. In arid regions that is low and it won´t increase with global temperature so you have less vapor diluting whatever comes in even more. The air can hold more moisture but it won´t if it is not there.

 
Þetta minnismerki er til vitnis um að við vitum hvað er að gerast og hvað þarf að gera. Aðeins þú veist hvort við gerðum eitthvað.

SteveMDFP

  • Young ice
  • Posts: 2519
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 594
  • Likes Given: 43
Re: Validation of GCM Models
« Reply #164 on: April 17, 2024, 01:19:12 PM »
Climate change isn't producing expected increase in atmospheric moisture over dry regions
...
To their surprise, the scientists found that water vapor over arid and semi-arid regions was generally remaining constant instead of increasing by close to 7% for every 1° Celsius (1.8° Fahrenheit) of warming, as would be expected based on the Clausius-Clapeyron relationship. Water vapor actually declined over the Southwest United States, which has seen a long-term reduction in precipitation.

"This is contrary to all climate model simulations in which it rises at a rate close to theoretical expectations, even over dry regions," the authors wrote in the new paper. "Given close links between water vapor and wildfire, ecosystem functioning, and temperature extremes, this issue must be resolved in order to provide credible climate projections for arid and semi-arid regions of the world."

The study noted that the situation is leading to an increase in vapor pressure deficit, which is the difference between the amount of moisture that the atmosphere can hold and the amount that's actually in the air. When the deficit rises, it can act as a critical driver of wildfires and ecosystem stress.

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2024/01/240117143914.htm

Paywalled research but why oh why would you assume climate becomes wetter over dry regions?

The atmosphere can hold more water vapour but the dry regions can´t increase evaporation and most of them don´t get extra water input. The same evaporating water from the oceans gets to rise higher and move further away. It did not flow to the deserts before and atmospheric physics don´t just change.

There could be another dynamic to explain the failure of water vapor to increase in dry regions, not mentioned here.  In dry regions, humans pump up ground water, dropping the water table and making less water available for evaporation.  We know from satellite observations that groundwater depletion is a widespread global phenomenon. 

Yes, pumping water specifically for agricultural use might *increase* total evaporation, but other uses for water in dry regions might predominate.

John_the_Younger

  • Frazil ice
  • Posts: 424
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 63
  • Likes Given: 136
Re: Validation of GCM Models
« Reply #165 on: April 17, 2024, 05:30:21 PM »
Pumped water in arid areas has to increase evaporation. 
* alfalfa (and other crops) transpire more than desert plants (and dirt)
* people and swamp coolers sweat
* septic systems (10s of centimeters below the surface), golf courses and canals evaporate more than an aquifer will (10s or hundreds of meters down)


kassy

  • Moderator
  • First-year ice
  • Posts: 8344
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 2053
  • Likes Given: 1990
Re: Validation of GCM Models
« Reply #166 on: April 23, 2024, 12:14:31 PM »
You are looking at it from the wrong way.

Lets start in a desert area. The night is cold so maybe there is some condensation. As the sun rises this tiny top layer dries out and then there is nothing more to evaporate. The air could always contain up to 100% but it´s not there because local evaporation is not enough to come near that and there cannot be lots of water vapor coming in via the air because if that happened there would be more rain and it would not be a desert.

The assumption needs atmospheric mixing which does not occur in the real world.
The decline in SW US is probably landscape degradation over time.

Quote
Adding to the mystery, the new study showed that while water vapor is increasing over humid regions of the world, it is not rising as much as expected during the most arid months of the year
.

This is the same problem.

If only we had a 3D map of all the water vapor in the air...or climate models run on scales where they can resolve changes in clouds. 
Þetta minnismerki er til vitnis um að við vitum hvað er að gerast og hvað þarf að gera. Aðeins þú veist hvort við gerðum eitthvað.