Climate Letter #1935

“Carl’s theory of precipitable water’s greenhouse effect.”  For a full name that describes the theory in the fewest words this is the best I can come up with.  Now I want to get it formalized, also in the most succinct way, so one can see exactly what claims are made that have not yet been proven because of an insufficient level of evidence. Also, are the claims of a type that can eventually be proven either true or false?  Carl’s Theory is complicated because there are a number of separate and distinct claims, all related to the original claim that precipitable water (PW) has its own standardized greenhouse effect.  A full set of standards is not required, but at least one should demonstrate properties of a definitive type common to other agencies that are accepted and classified as greenhouse energy producers.  CO2 is at the top of that list.  It has a number of properties completely shared by numerous other gases, plus one gas that is only partial.

Water vapor is that other greenhouse gas, sharing many properties with CO2 and the others, but not all. The one big exception is the fact that it is not evenly distributed throughout the atmosphere. It is known to be the strongest generator energy of all the gases, per molecule, but only in places where it is present, and its presence is hugely scrambled and differentiated across the globe. Measuring its actual effect on global temperatures is made difficult because of it, but reasonable estimates can still be calculated. (In practice, because water vapor is classified as a feedback, the resulting estimate, along with those of certain other feedbacks, is commonly added to the temperature effect of a single one of the more regular gases, CO2, a practice that may need to be reviewed.)

Cloud cover is also recognized as a significant generator of greenhouse energy effects, most easily recognized by experiencing warmer temperatures at night, but getting a good measure of the total effect is considered virtually impossible. Much the same thing can also be said even for making credible estimates. As with water vapor, clouds are widely scrambled and differentiated. In addition, their aerosol particles do not have a recognized position on the radiation bands like water vapor and the other gases. Clouds also have a significant albedo effect from solar radiation, tending to make temperatures cooler. This effect is more easily estimated, but the net result of these opposing effects is still highly uncertain. It is being actively studied, with a focus on improving the estimates for clouds.

PW is largely composed of a combination of these two highly problematic greenhouse energy producers. It embodies 100% of them both. The combination, in spite of.all the scrambling and differentiation, is quite accurately measurable by total weight in relatively fine detail. Carl’s Theory employs knowledge of these fine details by comparing them with daily temperature anomalies in the same locations, after eliminating everything else known to be involved in causing each anomaly.. The method can be viewed as making an end run around all the measurement problems encountered when these two greenhouse energy producers are treated separately. The combined weight gives PW an uncanny ability to provide consistent answers when questions are raised about the cause of any anomaly, warm or cold, anywhere on the globe. It is most effective when applied to anomalies of unusual magnitude, where nothing else can even be imagined that is powerful enough to fill in an extra-large explanation gap. PW data is always there, in plain sight, and in a fixed amount (10C for each double in weight) when viewed by logarithmic principles. This particular claim, as presented by the theory, is not yet proven but there is nothing to suggest that it cannot be, or should not be given an attempt. It opens many doors that are of further interest.

Carl