4 ms·

> Those now attempting to figure out the mystery of the hot climate models think one factor might have caused the recent unusual results: clouds. It turns out s

> Those now attempting to figure out the mystery of the hot climate models think one factor might have caused the recent unusual results: clouds. It turns out simulated clouds often cause headaches for climate modelers. The impact of cloud cover in these models has been incorrect, and has such a large impact. Doesn't this strike anyone as a major problem? We're burning about 100 billion gallons of aviation fuel per year. > This means each gallon of jet fuel (6.5lbs) will combine with 23lbs of Oxygen and turn into twenty pounds of CO2, and just over nine pounds of water! (see: https://paullaherty.com/2015/01/10/calculating-aircraft-co2-emissions/ https://paullaherty.com/2015/01/10/calculating-aircraft-co2-...). So that's 100B gallons * 9lbs is about a half a billion metric tons of water vapor going into the dry upper troposphere annually from commercial aviation. Which, evidence would seem to suggest, has not been modeled properly (at all?) by these climate models? If I was producing these models, I would be embarassed.

jbattle 7y ago
How did you get from > It turns out simulated clouds often cause headaches for climate modelers. to > Which, evidence would seem to suggest, has not been modeled properly (at all?) by these climate models? Embarrassment may be premature
yaks_hairbrush 7y ago
So, 500 million metric tons sounds like a lot, doesn't it? But there's the fact that it's getting dumped into an already big system: the atmosphere at large. Let's check it out it percentage terms. According to wikipedia, the mean mass of water vapor in the air is 1.27 * 10^16 kg. To get the units correct, that aviation contribution is 5 * 10^11 kg. Dividing the latter by the former, we find that the annual commercial aviation water vapor represents 0.004% of the mean mass of water vapor. That's rounding error.
- pjkundert 7y ago
  FL300 is very cold and very dry, and bears almost none of the "atmospheric water". Your estimation of impact is not correct. This is not a linear system.
  - yaks_hairbrush 7y ago
    FL300 (30,000 feet) is usually within the troposphere. And that's highly relevant, because the troposphere is well-mixed. Water vapor emissions at 30,000 feet are going to come back down, for the most part.
tomaskafka 7y ago
Rough estimate: There are 1.4 × 10^17 liters of water in atmosphere (https://whyfiles.org/2010/how-much-water-is-in-the-atmosphere/index.html https://whyfiles.org/2010/how-much-water-is-in-the-atmospher...). Your number "about a half a billion metric tons" is 0.5 × 10^12 liters of water, which is 5 orders of magnitude lower number. Or, less than 1/10 000 of atmospheric water. To say in your words, "If I was quoting this number as a significant contribution, I would be embarassed."
- pjkundert 7y ago
  The atmosphere at FL300 is super cold and dry. Injecting water there has an enormous impact -- much greater than at lower altitudes, where the bulk of atmospheric water resides.
pjkundert 7y ago
Remember, before you make the obvious mistake of "well, aktually, the atmosphere contains 5 orders of magnitude more water than that" -- we're not discussing a linear system. Almost none of that atmospheric water resides at FL300. That's the point. You wildly adjust atmospheric parameters in the real world, with (apparently) not accurately accounting for them, and then claim your model is predictive? This is why modelling complex, chaotic systems is hard. I've done it, and that's why I would be embarrassed. Not because of the mistakes. Because I was so certain that my models were correct. The level of hubris displayed here is mind-boggling.
- deleted 7y ago
  [deleted]
pjkundert 7y ago
Cloud cover and insolation (solar heating) is the primary determinant of weather (short-term) temperature. Over the long term, average cloud cover and insolation is determined by ... what? Something not modeled, apparently. It's in no small part due to "solar weather" (sunspots), and long term levels of high-level water vapor: > Contrails during day cause cooling because of reflecting of sunlight back into space. During night, they trap infrared heat causing heating. So it is a balance between the two time intervals. We would like to have more CICs (contrail-induced cirrus clouds) during day and none during night.; FAA Scientist: We Want Clouds By Day, None By Night

jbattle 7y ago

How did you get from > It turns out simulated clouds often cause headaches for climate modelers. to > Which, evidence would seem to suggest, has not been modeled properly (at all?) by these climate models? Embarrassment may be premature

yaks_hairbrush 7y ago

So, 500 million metric tons sounds like a lot, doesn't it? But there's the fact that it's getting dumped into an already big system: the atmosphere at large. Let's check it out it percentage terms. According to wikipedia, the mean mass of water vapor in the air is 1.27 * 10^16 kg. To get the units correct, that aviation contribution is 5 * 10^11 kg. Dividing the latter by the former, we find that the annual commercial aviation water vapor represents 0.004% of the mean mass of water vapor. That's rounding error.

pjkundert 7y ago
FL300 is very cold and very dry, and bears almost none of the "atmospheric water". Your estimation of impact is not correct. This is not a linear system.
- yaks_hairbrush 7y ago
  FL300 (30,000 feet) is usually within the troposphere. And that's highly relevant, because the troposphere is well-mixed. Water vapor emissions at 30,000 feet are going to come back down, for the most part.

tomaskafka 7y ago

Rough estimate: There are 1.4 × 10^17 liters of water in atmosphere (https://whyfiles.org/2010/how-much-water-is-in-the-atmosphere/index.html https://whyfiles.org/2010/how-much-water-is-in-the-atmospher...). Your number "about a half a billion metric tons" is 0.5 × 10^12 liters of water, which is 5 orders of magnitude lower number. Or, less than 1/10 000 of atmospheric water. To say in your words, "If I was quoting this number as a significant contribution, I would be embarassed."

pjkundert 7y ago
The atmosphere at FL300 is super cold and dry. Injecting water there has an enormous impact -- much greater than at lower altitudes, where the bulk of atmospheric water resides.

pjkundert 7y ago

Remember, before you make the obvious mistake of "well, aktually, the atmosphere contains 5 orders of magnitude more water than that" -- we're not discussing a linear system. Almost none of that atmospheric water resides at FL300. That's the point. You wildly adjust atmospheric parameters in the real world, with (apparently) not accurately accounting for them, and then claim your model is predictive? This is why modelling complex, chaotic systems is hard. I've done it, and that's why I would be embarrassed. Not because of the mistakes. Because I was so certain that my models were correct. The level of hubris displayed here is mind-boggling.

deleted 7y ago
[deleted]

pjkundert 7y ago

Cloud cover and insolation (solar heating) is the primary determinant of weather (short-term) temperature. Over the long term, average cloud cover and insolation is determined by ... what? Something not modeled, apparently. It's in no small part due to "solar weather" (sunspots), and long term levels of high-level water vapor: > Contrails during day cause cooling because of reflecting of sunlight back into space. During night, they trap infrared heat causing heating. So it is a balance between the two time intervals. We would like to have more CICs (contrail-induced cirrus clouds) during day and none during night.; FAA Scientist: We Want Clouds By Day, None By Night