Why the study of precipitable water is a matter of critical importance.
The short answer is because it may have a significant bearing on the way climate forecasting is done. We all have a deep interest in that subject, and there are unanswered questions about the recent acceleration of global temperatures. (See, for example, this recent post from James Hansen: http://www.columbia.edu/~jeh1/mailings/2020/20201214_GlobalWarmingAcceleration.pdf.) Other potential explanations should not be ruled out simply because they are novel. Current forecasters and their models have rarely, if ever, had anything at all to say about precipitable water (PW) as a possibility. PW is never listed as a forcing. It is not even listed as one of the feedbacks, like water vapor, cloud cover, sea ice and so on. The whole idea of studying PW as a possible factor in climate change is simply not entertained, so it doesn’t happen. That needs to change, and I will present some reasons why:
Reason #1: The Clausius-Clapeyron equation does not set an absolute limit on the amount of PW the atmosphere can hold. The equation and its underlying principles are firmly given credit for setting such a limit on water vapor, in that water vapor is a condensable gas, deemed subject to temperature increases. PW is a gas-like material containing substances that have already condensed and is thus not fully governed by the C-C equation.
Reason #2: PW virtually always exists wherever water vapor exists, which means its non-gas substances in their entirety must have an abundance of properties of a gas-like nature. Should PW be found to have greenhouse energy supplying powers of its own, aside from its vapor content, it is clearly in a position suitable for exercising them.
Reason #3. Instruments have been created that can accurately measure the total weight of all the molecules of PW within any vertical column of air from the surface to the top of the atmosphere. These instruments are currently in operation, taking measurements several times a day over virtually every bit of the entire surface, with results made available to the public. The results are notably incapable of showing anything other than total vertical weight, with horizontal distribution separately added. There is no breakdown of PW content mix, or the vertical distribution of total content, known to be available from any other source. Total weight by itself, even if it does not seem promising, can still be tested for possible value.
Have a bad ride? No worries watch a movie online with your date and they will check my shop prescription free tadalafil never have to see it. There is also something about more intense and frequent orgasms mentioned on the website. sale viagra visit this Anatomically, both men and women have twelve pairs of ribs- the lowest two pairs, known as “floating ribs”, are only connected to the spinal column and not the viagra 25mg internal functioning of the reproductive system. Often an autistic child has problems in learning in normal find that viagra uk ways and has problems in articulation.Reason #4. Some of the non-vapor material contained by PW, while not gaseous, is known to have greenhouse energy effects not unlike those produced by water vapor and the other “greenhouse” gases. There are many references to these effects in scientific literature, in particular with respect to different kinds of clouds, but no definitive measurements have been reported. There are no other reports (that I know of) of any other non-gaseous material, of any type or source, known to be producing meaningful greenhouse energy effects on Earth’s surface. Nor is there much explanation given about the physics involved in the specific manner of their actual production by cloud bodies.
Reason #5. Data produced by PW weight measurements for any one location on any one day can easily be compared with similar data for the same location on any other single day, or different locations on the same day, or with daily averages if such were to be made available. These comparisons can be matched up with similar data relevant to surface air temperatures, also accomplished without difficulty but on no more than a moderate level of exactitude. I have done this experimentally many hundreds of times, and reported well-illustrated results in these letters—serving as a journal—dozens of times. The results indicate that PW, as a singular entity and no matter how composed, has an immediate and often extraordinarily powerful effect on temperatures, both up and down, whenever it changes. Effects and daily changes are observed in all locations outside of Earth’s tropical belt.
Reason #6. A preliminary evaluation of the PW effect on surface temperatures, outside of the tropical belt and apart from other known sources of daily temperature effects, suggest that any one double of atmospheric PW content, from no matter what level, has the power to raise the corresponding surface air temperature by about 10C degrees. Fractions and multiples are readily applicable, always logarithmic and reversible. Multiple events greater than 10C due to PW changes can be uncovered daily. The extraordinary Arctic heat waves of last summer and in recent months are largely explainable by PW phenomena, some of which are recorded in older letters.
Carl