Part2

Dessler, Andrew, 2010 The Chemistry and Physics of Stratospheric Ozone.

“Our knowledge of the atmosphere is often incomplete and unknown factors might not only cause the desired outcome to not occur: it might cause the opposite outcome to occur!” p 115.

Dessler, Andrew; Parson, Edward, 2010, The science and politics of global climate change.
“What is climate?
The climate of a place, a region, or the Earth as a whole, is the average over time of the meteorological condition that occurs there—the average weather. For example, in the month of November between 1971 and 2000, the average daily high temperature in
Washington, DC was 14ºC, the average daily low was 1ºC and 0.3 cm of precipitation fell. These average values, along with averages of other meteorological quantities such as humidity, wind speed, cloudiness, and snow and ice coverage, define the November
climate of Washington over this period.” p 7.
Please, pay attention: the average daily high temperature, the average daily low temperature, precipitation, averages of other meteorological quantities such as humidity, wind speed, cloudiness, and snow and ice coverage... Exactly these averages scientists are putting into computers for computation in the computer’s models.
“Feedback and climate sensitivity.
Even the simplest models, show that the Earth surface must warm, if the amount of CO2 or other infrared-absorbing gases in the atmosphere is increased.”
I have several problems with this statement. It must be explained how the amount of CO2 influence climate in model. If it only by coefficient of increasing amount of CO2 in atmosphere it is not enough to explain all processes in reality. If you will put in a computer model “the average daily high temperature, the average daily low temperature, precipitation, averages of other meteorological quantities such as humidity, wind speed, cloudiness, and snow and ice coverage…” Please show me that exactly CO2 is responsible for the claim that the Earth’s surface must warm.
Here we have another possibility. Knowing the amount of CO2 that was increased, perhaps from 280 ppm to 350 ppm, we could put the forcing factor 350/280=1.25, but it is up to the scientist who did that to say that the increasing of GHG is a forcing factor for climate change. The computer model does not show how exactly CO2 influences climate, especially if in reality other gases will diminish heating effect of carbon dioxide. If changes in the average temperature on the Earth are proportional to this forcing factor (1.25), it is not enough to blame GHG for these changes.
“As the climate warms in response to the increased CO2 , many others (sic) things change. Most importantly, as the atmosphere warms it holds more water vapor. Since water vapor is also a greenhouse gas, this caused additional warming, Such knock-on effects of increased CO2—additional changes caused by the initial change—are called
feedback, and are responsible for much of the warming caused by increasing greenhouse gases. Water vapor is the most powerful feedback, capable of doubling the warming caused by CO2 alone, but many others feedback are also...”
“As the climate warms in response to the increased CO2 , many others (sic) things change. Most importantly, as the atmosphere warms it holds more water vapor. Since water vapor is also a greenhouse gas, this caused additional warming, Such knock-on effects of increased CO2—additional changes caused by the initial change—are called
feedback, and are responsible for much of the warming caused by increasing greenhouse gases. Water vapor is the most powerful feedback, capable of doubling the warming caused by CO2 alone, but many others feedback are also important in the climate system.”
How is it good to unite water vapor and carbon dioxide in this case? Let’s imagine the Earth’s atmosphere without water vapor and methane. Greenhouse gases like carbon dioxide (CO2) and nitrous oxide (N2O) will fill the air, and because they are heavier
than oxygen and nitrogen, only a slow process of Brownian motion will mix the air together with buoyancy forces for hot air.
In this case, the theory of the influence of greenhouse gases on the climate will be without any doubt.
Only light gases like water vapor and methane change this situation simultaneously. Any parcel of air with water vapor or methane will make this parcel lighter and, like in balloon, will move that parcel UP to cloud level. It is a completely different picture, which for some reason is out of mind for scientists.
“The water-vapor feedback and the ice feedback are both examples of positive feedbacks—feedbacks that amplify an initial warming.”
This is a beginning of a huge mistake—water vapor and other properties of water are helping all gases to reach clouds level and release their energy there. They can’t create positive feedback and authors of this book even show it in next statements:
“There are also negative feedbacks, by which the initial warming causes changes that produce cooling. For example, the temperatures of the surface and upper atmosphere are linked by vertical mixing from thunderstorms: as the surface warms, so does the upper atmosphere. Since a warmer atmosphere radiates more energy into space, this effect will offset some of the warming caused by increased greenhouse gases.” pages 16–17.
It is a very interesting statement: “Since a warmer atmosphere radiates more energy into space, this effect will offset some of the warming...”
Is there no vertical mixing of atmosphere by all the vertical movements of water vapor, which during few hours we could see in clouds?
Does latent heat from the condensation of water vapor in the upper troposphere not heat the air there?
If air is heated by the heat of condensation on the cloud level, it will radiate more energy to space as suggested by the authors.
Are only clouds in thunderstorms coming to the upper atmosphere?
Will there be a movement of water vapor UP, even in the case of a blue sky?
Will this movement by condensation warm the upper atmosphere?
Will “a warmer atmosphere radiates more energy into space” in this case?
Of course thunderstorms are more powerful in transporting energy to the upper atmosphere, but even in the case of the biggest thunderstorm’s area, they cover hundreds of times less than all the surface of the Earth. The same could be said about time for thunderstorms, which is a hundred times shorter than more peaceful weather conditions, which we see all around the globe. And exactly in these ‘peaceful’ weather conditions is where the most evaporation of water occurs, and water vapor is going up all around the world. Most condensation occurs in the upper troposphere, which releases heat there and more energy will be radiated to space, according to authors. This phenomenon was discovered in the nineteenth century and authors correctly understand its meaning, unfortunately, only in the case of thunderstorms. After that, they returned to
completely forgetting about the influence of the properties of water on climate:
“As the climate warms in response to the increased CO2...”

At the same time Dessler and Parson very honestly wrote about uncertainty in the science of climate change.
“Present computing speeds limit the smallest atmospheric grid-cells to about 100 kilometers horizontally, sliced into vertical layers about one kilometer thick. Processes operating at smaller scales than this, such as clouds, cannot be represented explicitly in the models but must instead be parameterized.”
“Parameterization means representing the effects of these smaller-scale processes as function of variables the models does explicitly resolve, such as temperature and water vapor. So while GCMs cannot represent individual clouds, which are much smaller than a single grid-cell, they can estimate the average cloudiness of a cell as a function of the cell relative humidity and winds.”
This is a very interesting statement: “So while GCMs cannot represent individual clouds, which are much smaller than a single grid-cell, they can estimate the average cloudiness of a cell as a function of the cell relative humidity and winds.”
Humidity and wind help estimate average cloudiness. How does water vapor behave from ground (ocean) level to the upper troposphere? How does water vapor behave above the
upper troposphere? How does the process of cloud formation change the behavior of water vapor in the atmosphere? All of these questions are beyond the parameterization process “as evaporation of surface water, condensation of water in the atmosphere to
form clouds, and many others physical processes.”
“Parameterizations are highly diverse. Some have well-founded physical bases, while others, are ad hoc constructions that let the model produce a realistic present day climate. Consequently, parameterizations are one of the largest sources of uncertainty in GCMs.” Thank you, Mr. Dessler; you confirm that parameterizations are one of the largest sources of uncertainty in GCMs.