The greenhouse energy effect. Of all the fundamentals that are factored into the science of climate change, this is one that stands at or near the top in importance because of its direct bearing on changes in Earth’s surface temperatures. Not just air temperatures, but temperatures of ocean water from top to bottom, of land masses to at least the depths of permafrost, and of a great many bodies of ice, wherever they are found. Varying inputs of greenhouse energy have an effect on all of them, much like the varying inputs of solar energy. Humans have an interest in maintaining the stability of all temperatures, and should therefore seek to know everything there is to know about the identification of all different kinds of effective inputs and whatever may causes changes to occur in any of them.
What I have been working toward, for the past year, is a deeper understanding of how and where greenhouse energy is actually expressed, whether it is by the hand of nature or by human activities. I am especially interested in putting a sharper focus on the peculiar way this expression is divided, as described in yesterday’s letter. There are long-term producers and short-term producers, and the impacts of each are noteworthy because of their having so many deep differences. When things are that different it is usually not a good idea to get them mixed up, or to overlook the importance of either one of them, or to think that the existing relationship between the two is not subject to change. I don’t think climate change scientists have been giving enough attention to the entire relationship, especially with respect to the origin and evaluation of short-term effects. That level of neglect is what I hope can be corrected, on the assumption that it may prove to be meaningful if short-term effects of a possibly undesirable type, heatwaves for example, appear more often or tend to accumulate.
The long-term producers of greenhouse energy effects are very well-studied and thus not of concern for this purpose. The well-mixed and stable concentrations of all greenhouse gases, with one exception, are known to be responsible for about 99% of this type of effect. The one gas exception, water vapor, then gets thrown in with the others based on theories that it is nothing more than a mindless, self-controlled feedback that merely amplifies the net warming effect of all other long-term forcings in a rigidly linear way. You will never see a specific listing for water vapor on a chart like this one, where its assumed amplifying effect is accounted for only as padding for one of the other gases, notably CO2:
Water vapor, as the leading constituent of precipitable water (PW), has in fact amplified the net warming of everything else as a feedback, but certainly not in the same long-term way that others do it and not necessarily to the extent assigned to it. The PW complex, including cloud bodies as a critical partner, can only express its greenhouse energy effect on a short-term basis, one day at a time, with significant variations in every location. All the positive and negative variations, when netted out, could possibly have followed a past warming trend not too different from that traced out by the long-term forcings, but there is no way to adequately test that assumption, and so it stands. However, it is also a possibility that the future could be different, and maybe even the present, for reasons that science has not yet considered. The key reason pertains to the dual nature of the way PW is distributed, via high-altitude routes as well as at the surface. Moreover, I think it is possible that the high-altitude aspect of PW distribution is currently undergoing major changes that are resulting in significant enhancement of short-term greenhouse energy effects, adding extra warmth to the Northern Hemisphere. Similar effects that could eventually be repeated on the southern side should not be ruled out.
The changes I have in mind have frequently been described in other letters, and will not be repeated today. My purpose today is simply to further elucidate what I believe to be an improved perspective on the nature of the greenhouse effect and its bifurcated means of functioning. I can see a real need for science to look at PW in this particular light, and a further need to closely examine PW’s own separated means of functioning, via a very special method of distributing concentrated greenhouse effects from the upper part of the troposphere. Convincing evidence in support of this need can be found by making regular studies of Today’s Weather Maps.
Carl