Climate Letter #1953

Carl’s theory of precipitable water’s (PW’s) greenhouse effect generally relates to the strength of that effect.  The theory got started based on the idea that, in spite of big differences in its principal components, PW can be treated holistically, in terms of total weight, with respect to evaluating its strength.  This idea depends on three main lines of evidence.  One is the fact, which I think is indisputable, that any transformation of material state from one component of PW to another has no effect on total weight.  The only thing that does change is the physical state of widely varying portions of the same H2O molecules.  Second, the total weight of all the H2O molecules in contiguous vertical columns of air across every part of the globe, from the surface to the top of the atmosphere, is being accurately measured from satellites and reported many times every day.  Third, historical changes in the data that is gathered can be compared, in a meaningful way, with historical changes of surface air temperatures on almost any single location of the planet, using guidance derived from calculating the daily averages of each. 

Using information provided by a set of weather maps I was able to find a simple and admittedly imperfect way to make these comparisons. Observations are regularly obtained that reveal an amazing level of consistency between changes in PW weight and changes in temperature, to the effect that, subject to certain limitations, any doubling of an existing overhead PW weight will quickly add approximately 10C to surface air temperatures. The effect is fully reversible, and has so far the observations have yielded only a small margin of error. I have come to a conclusion that the energy requirement for such temperature increases could only be attributed to PW’s greenhouse effect, largely produced by a holistic combination of the otherwise separable effects of water vapor and cloud cover, and regardless of their relative proportions of total weight content.

If and when this idea is validated through more refined measuring methods it will surely be of scientific interest. We still need to learn more about putting such information to good use, knowing that the distribution by weight of PW throughout the atmosphere is extremely variable and highly erratic, in time as well as space. This is quite the opposite of the kind of regularity expressed by all of the well-mixed greenhouse gases like CO2 and methane. Scientists have learned practically practically everything there is about how these gases are controlled, which is of great help not only in making predictions but also in finding specific means of mitigation tied to practical means of control. All we really know for sure about PW is from certain rules of a more general kind, such as that whenever heat is added to water there will be more evaporation, or that a cooling of air temperatures increases the rate of condensation of vapor in the air, and more of this same type. Reducing global air temperatures is not an easy thing to accomplish, and there isn’t much else in sight by way of opportunities for mitigation.

Carl’s theory adds further perspective to this issue in part 2. The main point is that the relative strength of PW as a greenhouse energy producer is not at all dependent on how much of it is added to the atmosphere, or any grand total for the day, or the like. Its level of strength is completely dependent on how and where it is distributed, as realized in countless places and countless volumes of concentration. In the tropical zone you could add any amount you feel like, and it will hardly make a bit of difference in temperature. In Antarctica, adding just the tiniest little bit of PW to the air ccan easily cause a big jump in temperature on the same day. Everything about strength works according to scale, and the scale itself is logarithmic by nature.

Carl’s theory also throws light on the character of PW’s distribution in the atmosphere.  At or near the surface, while dependent on numerous factors such as surface temperature, time of year, elevation, availability of water resources, vegetation and so on, distribution is quite regular
and consistent.  These natural changes are slow and steady, seldom large enough to have a pronounced effect on temperature.  Up higher in the atmosphere, in places where there is a completely different wind system to go along with a total absence of familiar surface fixtures, we have an entirely new situation.  Any PW that is able to gain entry to this realm will have far more mobility than PW below, but will still be subject to certain limitations unique to the regime. The mobility that is most fully realized, when applied to occasional concentrated streams of PW and its ever-present greenhouse powers, can have dramatic implications when added to the greenhouse effect produced by lower layers that happen to have much less density. This kind of information may be of no help in finding means of mitigation control, but it could potentially be put to use through improving current predictions of future climate change.

Carl