Climate Letter #1950

Any new theory, of any kind, represents a challenge to current ways of understanding things and to any organized teachings that are tied to those understandings. Carl’s theory challenges the teachings of climate science on three separate fronts, all of which are related to the greenhouse energy effects of precipitable water (PW). These effects are brought into view from three distinctly different perspectives, creating a need for the overarching theory to be broken down into three parts, one of which is unfinished. What follows today is a summary of the fundamentals behind the first part:

Part 1 is based on the presumption of an unchallenged definition of the substance known as PW. It is entirely airborne, like any gas, but only partly gaseous. It is mainly distributed throughout the entire troposphere, with very little in higher strata. It is virtually entirely composed from one kind of molecule, H2O, individually or as aerosols, covering all three of the major states of matter. The two forms that dominate are water vapor and the tiny droplets that assemble into clouds. Both of these forms are well-recognized for their substantial capacity for trapping and re-emitting longwave radiation, the ultimate test required for any producer of a greenhouse energy effect. Gas molecules and aerosol particles do not necessarily complete the trapping and re-emitting action in exactly the same way. This is largely because of an understanding that aerosols of all kinds are likely to express differences in radiation trapping capacities, and also have subsurface molecules to deal with when those at the surface are presumably the ones that perform the outbound re-emitting.

Climate science has an established practice of evaluating the total greenhouse energy effect of water vapor in isolation from that of the entire assortment of cloud bodies. In each case direct measurements of any type are rendered not only impractical but impossible, and estimated totals, condensed into rigidly-stated formulae, remain open to questioning. In the case of cloud bodies the totals commonly become intertwined with offsetting estimates of albedo effects due to the reflection of incoming solar energy. Part 1 of Carl’s theory is based on the concept that the greenhouse energy production of water vapor and the actual co-existing cloud bodies at any given situation will necessarily be delivered to the surface as a unity. The two producers are in fact at all times inseparably linked, whether stationary or in a mode of travel. Moreover, they are bonded in such a way that any increase in the molecular weight of one producer will always be offset by a corresponding decrease in the molecular weight of the other. Even if the greenhouse effect of each should vary significantly by weight, the total combined weight will always be in balance, and the total output of greenhouse energy will be expressed at the surface as a unified reaction to whatever is derived from any one particular state of balance.

Carl’s theory, part 1, stems from two accidental discoveries. One is that the combined greenhouse energy effects of the two major PW producers (plus presumably much lower effects from any of the other PW components) can be measured with reasonable accuracy in any specified location at any specified time, with both location and timing being range-bound for the sake of uniformity. All of the tools needed for making such measurements are readily available and can be employed with confidence. The second discovery, an outcome of the first, found that measurements of the combined greenhouse effect produced numbers at an unexpected level of consistency, relative to the total PW weight being applied, regardless of any proportional differences in the roughly estimated weights of any allocation, howsoever noted, between the two main producers. Inconsistencies that were found in practice were always low enough to be contained within a relatively small margin of error. These two discoveries, which still need to be professionally validated, imply the prospect of PW having a far more active role, relative to those designated by any of the current sciences, in direct determination of how the planet is being warmed. According to my calculations, the primary message is that doubling the amount of PW content of the atmosphere over any location will temporarily add about 10C to the surface temperature , +/- no more than 2C, when all other factors are equalized. Part 2 of the theory will be discussed tomorrow.

Carl