Climate Letter #1982

An interesting story today on the Axios daily news website under this headline:  “In summer of apocalyptic weather, concerns emerge over climate science blind spot,” which is worth reading because it includes quotations from a number of the world’s leading scientists: https://www.axios.com/extreme-weather-heat-waves-floods-climate-science-dba85d8a-215b-49a1-8a80-a6b7532bee83.html   I have been arguing right along, while constructing Carl’s theory, that today’s climate science is crippled by what can only be referred to as a blind spot, by completely overlooking the true story of precipitable waters’ (PW”s) greenhouse energy effects.  Scientists have failed to evaluate its power, which is not a difficult thing to do, and they have failed to recognize the unique mechanism that enables this power to be amplified.  These are precisely the things that Carl’s theory is all about, that it hopes to see corrected.  The theory even goes on to describe how this amplified power interacts with another important factor involved in climate warming, the melting of Arctic sea ice, through a mutual feedback relationship. Each of them tends to reinforce and further amplify the other.

Quoting from the article: “For example, Andrew Dessler, a climate scientist at Texas A&M University, said he is no longer sure if climate models are accurately capturing how global warming is playing out when it comes to regional extremes specifically….. “If you’d asked me this three months ago, I would have said ‘models are doing fine,'” he said. “But this last string of disasters has really shaken my confidence in the models’ predictions of regional extremes,” he said.”

Michael  Mann and Stefan Rahmstorf both understand that jetstream winds may be involved, especially when they become locked in place, but do not imply, correctly, that these winds are themselves a source of heat.  “We can either assume that the [Pacific Northwest heat] event was a remarkable fluke, or that the models are still not capturing the relevant processes behind these events,” Mann told Axios. “Occam’s razor, in my assessment, supports the latter of these two possibilities.”

So what exactly are the things that science is missing, according to the claims found in Carl’s theory? Let’s look at two items that I think are most significant. They are both backed by visual evidence that is easy to spot, and both are easy to comprehend when carefully studied. There is really no excuse for not doing so. First, the effective power of greenhouse energy produced by PW, viewed holistically as the combined powers of water vapor and the tiny droplets that clouds are made of. Both of these are derived from masses of a single kind of molecule, H2O, which exists in various alternative changes of state by virtue of irregular condensation activity. The total weight of overhead masses of this molecule at any location above the planetary surface is measured each day, and with great precision. Historical averages of these weights on the same day of the year can be derived from data placed in storage for several decades and are accessible. The averages can also be estimated in several ways, allowing a rough but fair comparison to be made between current weights and baseline averages on a daily basis. Any differences can then be compared with temperature anomalies that are reported daily for every one of the locations that might be selected. Repeating this exercise many times over, preferably thousands of times, or tens of thousands, should almost inevitably lead to significant correlations. I predict that, in all regions outside of the tropical belt, any doubling of PW value for a given location on a given day will be construed as a factor accounting for about 10C in its temperature anomaly, with a margin of error no greater than +/- 2C, always bound by fractional adjustments and reversals and stripping away of all other factors known to be causing the anomaly.

Second, Climate scientists show no sign of awareness of the truly unusual way that PW is distributed in the atmosphere, with particular reference being given to PW in the upper level of the troposphere, but only beyond the tropical belt, as observed in each hemisphere.  As described here in many letters, jetstream winds are very involved in the action, and so is the unique pattern of air pressure differentials that govern the location of specific jet wind pathways and the strength of the winds they bear.  The air pressure configuration, in turn, is to a large extent determined by the way air temperatures are distributed at the surface.  One thing leads to another in this unique venue, in a series of steps that are constantly changing and evolving within seasonal limitations.  These steps have a significant influence over the movement of the limited amounts of PW that enter these upper level zones in concentrated streams and go on to provide their own regular measure of greenhouse energy as well as the bulk of Earth’s precipitation.  The concentrated energy delivered erratically from this source of supply is added to amounts delivered from PW sources closer to the surface and will usually have a disproportionate influence on surface temperatures  Actual rates of total PW delivery and its effects can then be sorted out by location and the unfolding of geographical trends, as detected by studying Today’s Weather Maps. The effects are evolving, quite rapidly, at scale, and unfavorably, before our very eyes. Today’s climate scientists are just not looking at this development.  This is their blind spot.

Carl