Climate Letter #1941

Carl’s theory of precipitable water’s greenhouse effect contains a number of observations of a scientific nature that are otherwise not covered in any scientific literature, or in published reports of any kind apart from this online journal of letters during the past year. None of the observations have been reviewed or validated by persons having a necessary level of competence. The observations are mainly directed toward improving our knowledge of how nature really works, which is always a worthwhile objective if it turns out to be correct. Carl’s Theory flies in the face of a large amount of conventional thinking on practically every count. Some of this thinking is well-publicized and highly promoted, which serves as an obstacle to generating outside interest, including interest on the part of anyone who could spend time and energy on beginning a proper validation. In addition to all that, the theory is very new and no presentation of professional quality has been created, nor even anticipated

Speaking as the author, I have growing confidence that the theory has merit and could easily be validated. Both parts of the theory represent nature at work in ways that were previously hidden but are now available in clear but dispersed imagery. The information, when carefully interpreted, elevates our understanding of how the greenhouse effect of precipitable water (PW) generates real heat, in a mode that a person can feel and measure on the spot, by sometimes receiving a large amount of it on very short notice. Part 2 of the theory demonstrates how a portion of the PW that serves as the principle source of that heat can travel around in an upper layer of the atmosphere, in an unlimited variety of concentrations. While doing so it continually generates heat that in some cases can be realized in unexpected places and unexpected quantities, perhaps setting new records as a consequence. Does such a proposal have any meaning and application relative to the world we live in today?

Part 2 of Carl’s theory provides a complete description of how PW gains access to the upper atmosphere and how its freedom of movement in that venue is held in check by jetstream wind activity. One of the highlights of the description makes a strong point about observations that every bit of the PW in this odd location has a compulsion-like tendency to keep moving forward, and a similar tendency to direct its movement toward the heart of the polar zone. Unless the movement is held in check by jetstream activity we can often observe instances of some level of success in doing so. The polar zone becomes a sort of mecca, and then a final dumping ground, for these particular itinerants. It follows that instances of weakening of jetstream activity can increase the rate of such happenings. Comparisons of jetstream activity around the Arctic and Antarctic polar zones expose differences, and attendant explanations, in the form of a large scale trend of weakening for one, in the Arctic, but not the other.

As a matter of relevance, the Arctic region is currently warming at a considerably faster rate than any other part of the world.  A fully updated report bearing news of alarming new developments was issued yesterday by the Arctic Monitoring and Assessment Programme (AMAP), available for reading at https://www.amap.no/documents/download/6730/inline.  A review from Oslo contains a summary of the main points with extra commentary, which has received worldwide press coverage and is of considerable interest.  It is found at https://www.amap.no/documents/download/6730/inline.  Here is some selected content:  “In less than half a century, from 1971 to 2019, the Arctic’s average annual temperature rose by 3.1C, compared to 1C for the planet as a whole…..That’s more than previously suspected. In a 2019 report on Earth’s frozen spaces, the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) concluded that Arctic surface air temperature has likely increased by more than double the global average…..According to researchers, a turning point came in 2004 when the temperature in the Arctic surged for largely unexplained reasons (my ital)…..Since then, warming has continued at a rate 30 percent higher than in previous decades.”  I believe the “unexplained reasons” and rapid follow-up could in fact be fully explained, and perhaps even accurately timed back to 2004, by extended scientific studies of the greenhouse energy effect of PW as described in both parts of Carl’s Theory.

Carl