New Study: Satellite Data Shows Ocean Evaporation Declining, Upends Climate Models
A 2024 study published in PNAS again confirmed climate models fail to simulate what happens in the real world concerning fundamental climate change variables like water vapor, Earth’s most significant greenhouse gas (due to its alleged warmth-enhancing “feedback” capacity). [emphasis, links added]
Per state-of-the-art climate models, specific humidity (SH) should increase as a consequence of CO2-induced global warming.
But 40 years of observations (1980-) show no increasing SH trend over arid/semi-arid regions.
And per state-of-the-art climate models, relative humidity (RH) should remain relatively constant, if not decline slightly as a consequence of CO2-induced global warming.
But 40 years of observations (1980-) do not show a slight declining trend, but rather a declining trend that is “about an order of magnitude more than the models on average.”
In other words, the climate models are wrong by a factor of 10.
The authors did not understate the profundity of these climate modeling failures.
“This represents a major gap in our understanding and in climate model fidelity that must be understood and fixed as soon as possible in order to provide reliable hydroclimate projections for arid/semi-arid regions in the coming decades.”
Now, a new study has once again confirmed there has been an “unexpected” decline in ocean evaporation (which accounts for 85% of the derivation of global atmospheric water vapor) since 2008, the “turning point” (TP) year.
These robust results affirming declining ocean evaporation (Eo) or water vapor trends across two-thirds of the globe – mostly in the Southern Hemisphere – can be found in all four satellite datasets used for the study.
It should be noted that in 2020, Dr. Koutsoyiannis published a paper indicating no increasing trend in global specific humidity since 2008, 1980, or even the late 1940s as predicted by climate models.
Observations do not seem to be sufficiently cooperating with the “water vapor feedback” narrative.
See more here Climate Dispatch
Please Donate Below To Support Our Ongoing Work To Defend The Scientific Method
PRINCIPIA SCIENTIFIC INTERNATIONAL, legally registered in the UK as a company 
incorporated for charitable purposes. Head Office: 27 Old Gloucester Street, London WC1N 3AX.
Trackback from your site.
Herb Rose
| #
Evaporation is not the same as boiling. Evaporation is where something becomes a part of the atmosphere. Boiling is where something converts from a liquid state to a gas. Water boils at 100 C plus 540 calories but it evaporates even when the temperature is below 0 C.
The water in the air is not in the form of a single water molecules but as a cluster of water molecules with a negative charge that causes it to separate from other water molecules.
When it separates as a structure it contains dissolved CO2. This is why when the temperature of the air decreases below the dew point the levels of CO2 in the atmosphere increases significantly. A single water is smaller than a CO2 molecule and cannot hide it.
The reason water molecules (with their lower m0olecular weight) do not permeate the atmosphere like oxygen and nitrogen is because they condense out in the troposphere before they reach the boiling point and can convert to a gas.
This is demonstrated by a tea kettle where the water first appears as an invisible gas then condenses into visible droplets, which then evaporate as they continue to lose heat.
The problems with all the models is the people creating them know nothing about reality only the idiotic theories they have created.
Reply
James McGinn
| #
Herb,
You need to stop doing the common, dumb thing of pretending you understand water when you don’t. You have to trap yourself so that you can’t escape the realization, so that you don’t allow yourself to end up doing the same dumb thing that everybody else does–pretending you are not confused. Here is the approach that I took that put me head and shoulders above everybody else in the world on understanding water.
Consider that H2O is a polar molecule. Many of its characteristics are said to be a consequence of its polarity: Its high boiling temperature, its high density as a liquid (most substances of its small size are gases at ambient temperatures). It’s high surface tension. Explanations for these characteristics typically refer to the polarity of the H2O molecule.
Then consider that a polar molecule that has a high density in its liquid phase should have a high viscosity. But this is not true for H2O. It has low viscosity in the liquid phase. Moreover, the viscosity stays consistently low regardless of its temperature while it is in the liquid phase. Can you explain this? You can’t.
If you work at it you eventually will be able to explain this. I have. And this is the reason I consider myself the world’s number one expert on H2O.
Here is my advice for you. Do as I did. Until you can explain this, don’t move on. Trap yourself so that you can’t escape. Be honest with yourself about the fact that until you can explain this contradiction you do not understand water.
I have solved this problem. You haven’t. You are just like everybody else, you just pretend. You ignore it.
Only after you have solved this problem will you have any chance of solving the next problem of why it freezes and why it sometimes doesn’t freeze despite its temperature being well below the normal freezing temperature.
Don’t be like everybody else. Don’t be a pretender.
James McGinn / Genius / Solving Tornadoes
Reply
Herb Rose
| #
Hi James,
I am not the one who claims to be a genius.
I have tried to understand your claim that the charges of a water molecule are neutralized by four neighboring water molecules but have been unsuccessful.
I have made models of a water molecule with two negative and two positve areas of charge but no matter how I arrange the molecules with positive charges matched to negative charges I end up with two unmatched charges. In three dimensions there are 6 directions: up-down, left-right, and front back. I don’t see how all six directions can be blocked/neutralized by 4 molecules.
It is my belief that this inability to neutralize all charges is what causes the low viscosity as stable crystal formations cannot be formed and stability established in one place creates instability in another.
Herb
Reply
James Bernard McGinn
| #
I have tried to understand your claim that the charges of a water molecule are neutralized by four neighboring water molecules but have been unsuccessful.
It’s so simple. How could you possibly not understand it? What part of it is giving you trouble? The tetrahedral arrangement of electron locations (loci) on the oxygen molecule is standard Lewis structure. (Do you, maybe, not realize that the loci do not lie on a flat plane but any two of them are twisted 180 degrees relative to the other two? Just like a tetrahedron.) Do you, possibly, not comprehend that opposing electrical gradients cancel each other out? This is what Pauling missed. Or, possibly, have you failed to realize that the cause of polarity isn’t electronegativity differences of atoms, as taught by confused academics, it is each other’s electrical gradients that eminate from these atoms. If you don’t grasp this you won’t be able to recognize the significance of the fact that when H2O molecules make hydrogen bonds they bring opposing electrical gradients into play that neutralize the electrical gradients that are the cause of polarity.
I have made models of a water molecule with two negative and two positve areas of charge but no matter how I arrange the molecules with positive charges matched to negative charges I end up with two unmatched charges.
I don’t know how this is possible? Read what I wrote above about a tetrahedron.
In three dimensions there are 6 directions: up-down, left-right, and front back. I don’t see how all six directions can be blocked/neutralized by 4 molecules.
The arrangement is tetrahedral, not cubicle.
What reasons could you possibly have for wanting to impose a cube on something that is not a cube?
It is my belief that this inability to neutralize all charges is what causes the low viscosity
An inability to neutralize would cause the opposite of what you suggest. It would cause higher viscosity.
as stable crystal formations cannot be formed and stability established in one place creates instability in another.
What crystals? Don’t put the cart before the horse. Work up from fundamental principles, not down.
Reply
Herb Rose
| #
Hi James,
You don’t know what a tetrahedron is. It is a four sided solid formed from triangles. The angles of the sides add up to 180 degrees. In a regular tetrahedron all the angles are 60 degrees. Each vortex is connected to three other vortexes. If your vortex is a water molecule it has four charged areas that need to connect to four other molecules in order to neutralize the four charged areas, not three. When atoms or molecules are bound together by charges it is an ionic bond which produce a crystal structure.
Reply
James McGinn
| #
Hi James,
You don’t know what a tetrahedron is. It is a four sided solid formed from triangles. The angles of the sides add up to 180 degrees. In a regular tetrahedron all the angles are 60 degrees. Each vortex is connected to three other vortexes.
Thank you for revealing how incredibly ignorant you are about standard Lewis structure. Nobody anywhere or ever is claiming their is a literal tetrahedron. Pull your head out and do some research. What is being stated is that the location of the loci on the outer shell of certain atoms can be said to trace out the POINTS of a tetrahedron. This is true for Carbon, Nitrogen, Oxygen, Fluorine, and even Neon. The reasons for this have been thoroughly described in regard to their Steric numbers. Do some research on what this phrase, “steric number,” means and further endeavor to stop wasting people’s time with standard theory that you should have come to understand a long, long, time ago.
If your vortex is a water molecule
I have no idea how you became so completely confused as to make a statement like this? What in the world do you mean by this?
it has four charged areas that need to connect to four other molecules in order to neutralize the four charged areas, not three.
Uh, right. Four. Just like the four points of a tetrahedron. Where did you get three?
When atoms or molecules are bound together by charges it is an ionic bond which produce a crystal structure.
Nonsense. You’ve managed to confuse yourself with terminology. Focus on the charges and their effects. Don’t get overly concerned with labels like ionic and hydrogen bonds.
I am no realizing that academia has so thoroughly confused you (and many other like you) that you may never recover.
James McGinn / Genius / Solving Tornadoes
Reply
Jerry Krause
| #
Hi Herb and James,
Your problem is that the five water molecule is not a crystal and therefore not stable. It (the five water particle you both are considering) comes apart as soon as it forms. R.C. Sutcliffe correctly wrote “Weather And Climate”, page 48 that “nuclei of condensation” are required for gaseous water molecules to condense in the atmosphere.
Have a good day
Reply
James McGinn
| #
Your problem is that the five water molecule is not a crystal
What are you babbling about. Nobody ever stated there is such thing as a five water molecule cluster.
and therefore not stable. It (the five water particle you both are considering) comes apart as soon as it forms.
You are confused beyond any possibility of being unconfused.
R.C. Sutcliffe correctly wrote “Weather And Climate”, page 48 that “nuclei of condensation” are required for gaseous water molecules to condense in the atmosphere.
So what?
James McGinn / Genius / Solving Tornadoes
Reply
Jerry Krause
| #
Hi James,
You wrote to Herb “I have tried to understand your claim that the charges of a water molecule are neutralized by four neighboring water molecules but have been unsuccessful.” One and four make five.
Have a good day
Reply
James Bernard McGinn
| #
I’m not running a hand holding service, Jerry. If you can’t follow a simple thread you should stay away.
Reply
Jerry Krause
| #
Hi James,
Is it so hard for you, a genius, to admit a simple FACT.
Have a good day
Reply
Jerry Krause
| #
Hi Any other PSI Readers,
James is the only one here at PSI who recognizes the importance of the strongest attraction “hydrogen bonding” between small molecules, such as water molecules,. which Linus Pauling described (explained) in his book “The Nature of The Chemical Bond. And we, James and I, need to explore, if he is willing, what a “condensation nuclei might be.
Reply
Jerry Krause
| #
Hi James and other readers,
While I am waiting for your reply I will share our first contact. (https://principia-scientific.com/atmospheric-heat-engines-global-atmospheric-circulation/) In his first comment to me he wrote: “Ask yourself, would you yourself be aware of the pseudoscientific notions associated with climatology if not for the politics of global warming? The truth is that you wouldn’t.” In this comment he did not identify himself as being a genius; but he certainly came across as being clairvoyant.
However, James’ personally is not an issue; the topic of my article is GLOBAL ATMOSPHERIC CIRCULATION. Please read it.
Have a good day
Reply
Jerry Krause
| #
Hi PSI Readers,
While I wait for James to reply; here is another article to which I ask one to consider, (https://principia-scientific.com/history-erratic-boulders-and-science/)
Have a good day
Reply
Jerry Krause
| #
Hi PSI Readers,
More important and interesting to what I just wrote is a 1976 book tilled “The Cooling” by Lowell Ponte. On my copy’s dust cover are two questions.
Has the next ice age already begun? Can we survive it?
Have a good day
Reply
sunsettommy
| #
If you really have that book in good condition, it is worth money now as it is rare these days.
I read through it 45 years ago.
Reply
Jerry Krause
| #
Hi Sunset,
It is like new except for a very few, very brief, of my comments which are so small I cannot read them with a magnifying glass. Do you believe we are returning to the ice age?
Have a good day
Reply
sunsettommy
| #
We have been in an ice age for the last 2.8 million years now, I think you are asking about whether GLACIATION is coming or not which Earth are already sliding towards for the last 3,000 years or so.
From my forum is this post,
https://www.patriotaction.us/showthread.php?tid=23
Reply
Jerry Krause
| #
Hi Sunset,
Your comment is very interesting also. Where are you finding this information? My discarded book is from the Hibbing MN library. Are you familiar with Hibbing?
Reply
Jerry Krause
| #
Hi Sunset,
What is the difference between a GLACIATION and your ICE AGE?
Reply
Jerry Krause
| #
Hi PSI Readers,
I had totally forgotten previously beginning to read it and it appears I stopped because my brief comments stopped well before its end. A reason I was now so excited about its topic is I now regularly use an Ames IR Thermometer to measure the temperature of the directly overhead atmosphere my measurements have recently gotten as low as neg.40F near sunrise and when there are no visible cloud is below zero F. I have lazy for I know of quality nearby data for the past 10 years so I can see if the overhead temperature are normally this low.
Reply