Climate Letter #1936

Scientists know that precipitable water (PW), being composed mainly of water vapor and cloud body particles, must produce some amount of greenhouse energy effect wherever it has a presence. Its presence, to some extent, can be observed or measured in the atmospheres everywhere and at all times, and is marked by extremes in variability. Science also knows that all the components of PW express a high level of variability in proportionality, as measured by the total molecular weight of each component, with all molecules recognized as H2O in one or another state. Science has not claimed to have good knowledge of how uniform the greenhouse effect might be when expressed by the action of each of these different states, thus precluding the possibility of finding a way to designate a single greenhouse effect for PW in all of its various iterations.

Part 1 of Carl’s Theory, based on observations reported in these letters this past year, claims to have overcome these difficulties. The greenhouse effect of PW is claimed to be essentially uniform, within a reasonable and acceptable margin of uncertainty, meaning a margin no greater than that regularly applied to other kinds of greenhouse energy producers. The Theory claims to have found a way to properly express PW’s greenhouse effect using the same terms that are regularly applied to carbon dioxide (but for some reason not to any of the other greenhouse gases), by employing the logarithmic principle to best calculate all changes.

CO2, observed in isolation, is said to produce about 1.0C of average global temperature warming, plus or minus perhaps 0.1C, per each logarithmic doubling of atmospheric concentration. With certain feedbacks added, one of which is gaseous water vapor, the central number rises to about 3.0C per double, with a margin of uncertainty rising to more than one full degree in either direction. Carl’s theory claims that PW, regardless of how its components are mixed, with no allowance at all given to any effects from cloud albedo cooling, will raise temperatures (only those locally affected) by about 10C per logarithmic double. Offhand, I would submit a preliminary margin of uncertainty of around 10%, or one degree both up and down, and no more than 20%.

The 10C number recommended for PW, once it has been firmly established, would serve well as a basis of explanation for the extraordinary temperature anomalies that commonly are spotted in excess of 20C, both up and down. By implication these anomalies would require more than two doublings, or halvings, of overhead PW content, on some occasions making their appearance in a brief time span measured by just hours. By contrast, a single double of CO2, in the absence of an extreme event, is likely to take a million years or more. The slow deployment of CO2 and other greenhouse gases is well understood; not so for the ultra-high speed travels of PW. Part 2 of Carl’s Thesis is focused on providing a complete explanation of PW’s truly unique mode of distribution in the atmosphere. This activity is dependent on the interactions of several natural processes that are still in need of further explanation in the sciences. According to the theory, the unique combination of these interactions is found to be responsible for the extraordinary speed of PW’s deployment, utilizing spaces provided by a special field of operations. As a consequence PW is seen gaining an ability to expand the reach of its greenhouse powers to locations that are highly sensitive to these powers and would otherwise be much less affected. This may have currently-unanticipated meaning for the progress of climate change.

Carl