Climate Letter #1704

The “temperature feedback loop” is now very much on my mind. I believe it is a real phenomenon, and quite possibly an important thing to know about, yet this particular description appears to be unrecognized by any of the sciences. This means the concept may only exist in my mind, where it is not many days old, and is thus extremely immature, to say the least. It will have to be worked over and presented more properly before any serious scientist gets interested. That is now my main job, and I will keep doing so publicly through these letters, because the letters have at least a few readers and I am hoping there are some who will take an interest and find a way to be helpful. The immediate goal is simply to gain the attention of real scientists, including some who are well-grounded in physics as well as weather and climate specialists.

Yesterday I said something about “fundamental laws of nature” being involved in some way. The loop as a whole may be subject to one peculiar law of nature, governing the behavior of this particular set of interactions, but it certainly is not a fundamental law. All of the major components of the loop may individually be subject to basic laws that have broader application. When any two of them interact there may or may not be basic laws governing the interaction, probably augmented by some peculiar laws. When they are all interacting within a complex of causes and effects there would at best be only one peculiar law capable of creating a picture of inevitability applying to the functioning of the whole system, and probably not much else. I think that is possible in this case.

Of all the sequences that make up the feedback loop there is one that should be getting more attention from scientists for reasons not related to the loop. The streams of water vapor that emerge from tropical waters and are lofted to high altitudes are thoroughly studied, with one major exception—any greenhouse effect due to the uncondensed vapor that survives throughout the journey of the stream until it comes to an end. I think this vapor has an obvious greenhouse effect, actually quite powerful, and will never shy away from talking about it. What I see can be treated as a plain fact, because the results are so visible for anyone to see on the Weather Maps. I also have some questions that I think should be debated by a consortium of scientists who have a deep understanding of physical chemistry: Are there any limits to the amount of water vapor that can be carried by these streams without being subjected to condensation? And, is air temperature in this situation a determining factor for its vapor content, per the 1834 ClausiusClapeyron equation or something like it?

Clouds are known to have a greenhouse effect of their own, but on balance much of that effect is thought to be offset by the strength of their albedo effect in reflecting sunlight.  The high temperature anomalies that appear in the north country, before there is amplification by feedbacks, require an extraordinary amount of greenhouse gas inputs, far more than anything that can be supplied by CO2 or methane.  I believe the only gas that can do this under its own power is water vapor, given amounts effectively placed and of adequate size.

Here is a story about the ongoing heatwave in Siberia that appeared on Wednesday in The Guardian: https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2020/jun/17/climate-crisis-alarm-at-record-breaking-heatwave-in-siberia There are several explanations offered regarding the source of the warming provided by scientists, none of which have any mention of water vapor:  “The freak temperatures have been linked to wildfires, a huge oil spill and a plague of tree-eating moths…..Temperatures in the polar regions are rising fastest because ocean currents carry heat towards the poles and reflective ice and snow is melting away.”  The story is otherwise very informative about a warming event of unsurpassed extremity in our time.

Carl