Yesterday I wrote about three separate ways that greenhouse energy effects are produced in Earth’s atmosphere, how they are related, and how precipitable water (PW) inhabiting the upper levels of the troposphere, historically a relative latecomer, has assumed a leadership role outside of the tropical belt in both hemispheres. I think the conclusion was within reason, but I am not happy with the presentation, which needs to be reworked. I should have paid more attention to the dynamic relationship between PW in the upper troposphere and PW close to the surface, a subject that is rarely, if ever, discussed in public literature. I think it should be, and will give it my best shot in today’s letter.
PW at the surface is practically all vapor, and undoubtedly is subject to the principles of the Clausius-Clapeyron equation governing condensation. This sets tight limits on densities, which are dependent on surface air temperatures and the associated temperatures of the surface itself. These temperatures are directly influenced by the levels of concentration of CO2, methane and other well-mixed greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, establishing a feedback relationship that is fully embraced in the sciences, recognized by way of adding a large credit to the strength of CO2.
When ocean surface temperatures get warm enough, at around 25C, streams of water vapor start being lofted by rising air currents all the way up to a level of the troposphere where air pressure changes have occurred and resulted in an entirely different wind system from the one at the surface. When vapors enter this zone I believe it is entirely possible that the Clausius-Clapeyron principles no longer hold true in the same manner as they do at the surface. This means vapor concentrations are effectively not limited by air temperatures, even when those temperatures are relatively quite cold. Condensation still occurs, but in a more diversified way, resulting primarily in myriads of tiny droplets that form into clouds. My personal—and highly limited—observations, derived from studying the U of Maine weather maps, then tell me that the transformation of vapor molecules into cloud droplets does little to alter the strength of the greenhouse effect expressed by vapor alone prior to making this transformation.
For this reason you can see many fanatical ads for different herbal medicines. order cheap cialis But before anything else, let’s take a glance at viagra store in india the main research and highlights. This action regulates the sponge-like area around the penis to relax thereby increasing blood flow to the arteries and viagra without prescription http://icks.org/n/bbs/content.php?co_id=Contact_Us veins. Simply put though, directories viagra online ordering are a solid option for those building links to long tail niche sites.Upper-level PW is different in many ways from the PW that exists at the surface directly below. It is at times much more powerful in greenhouse effects but also tends to be far more fragmented, creating a broad mixture of high and low concentrations that are constantly in motion and thus only temporary. No matter how these variables happen to line up, both bodies of PW continuously express their own unique greenhouse effects, and these effects, by observation, are at all times additive when realized at the surface. Moreover, I have found no reason to believe there is any delay in timing between the time when changes in the combined greenhouse effect reach the surface and the time when temperatures respond. When one changes swiftly, as is often the case, so will the other, with no need for any kind of air movement or other means of mediation.
Now we come to a key question. What happens to PW existing mainly in the form of water vapor near the surface when a strong concentration of high-level PW moves over head and starts warming the land and air at that surface? (Deep water surfaces, while similar, are a separate issue.) I believe the surface evaporation rate will increase from any available resources as a feedback, causing an increase in total PW value on the spot, and with it a further amplification of temperatures. Conversely, a below-average “dose” of daily PW input will by itself result in a relative cooling of surface temperatures, leading to a withdrawal of surface water vapor through condensation. This activity translates into a net loss of total PW in the local atmosphere, and a corresponding loss of its net greenhouse effect. Should the overhead supply of PW for the day constitute a truly substantial shortfall from average, as we saw in Texas just recently, the takedown in surface water vapor could be further aggravated by losses of large amounts of everyday evaporation that has been stopped by a rapid onset of surface freezing. Taking all such effects into account is a real challenge!
Carl