Climate Letter #1985

“The models are underestimating the magnitude of the impact of climate change on extreme weather events.”  Those are  the words of Michael Mann, a climate scientist at the very top of the profession.  He knows what is going on in the real world and he knows everything that science thinks is true about the real world.  And he can see there is a gap.  That’s what he is telling us, and it means there are some things that science, at least as an establishment, or in a conventional sense, does not know about the real world.  Dr. Mann sees things actually happening that cannot be reduced to “noise” in the weather reports, things that science does not understand and cannot explain.  If you have not read yesterday’s letter go back and do so, and be sure to open the link to the CNN interview with Dr. Mann.  Here is the link again, and everyone is invited to read it again:  https://www.cbs58.com/news/scientists-are-worried-by-how-fast-the-climate-crisis-has-amplified-extreme-weather.  We are told that the impacts of climate change that science has been predicting would happen well off in the future are already here, affecting even the wealthiest of nations, not as freakish one-off events but as early expressions of what some would call the “new normal.”  In effect, the timetable of climate change has accelerated, for reasons unknown to science.

Yesterday I had to say something about Carl’s theory, which has lately been revised in order to incorporate a physical interconnection with Arctic sea ice that simply cannot be overlooked.  The theory, as it now stands, and if it were to be completed validated, provides a full basic explanation of the mechanism which is causing climate change to accelerate.  The theory is out there as an option, which may or may not be given serious consideration in the professional circles. Well-qualified individuals would need to spend precious time on the validation effort.  Other options like the heat dome theory will also be promoted by individual scientists who are creative and willing to speak up, and they will surely be prioritized.  Carl’s theory is not just unorthodox.  Acceptance would require the discarding of a number of orthodoxies that have been taught to generations of students and are treated as virtually inviolable.dogma. 

The worst of these is one that may discourage young scientists from taking a hard look at the greenhouse effect of precipitable water (PW), by viewing it holistically as well as independently.  Holistic study should not be a problem, because the two foremost components of PW, water vapor and cloud bodies, always work in combination.  They are both recognized as major generators of greenhouse energy power, one as molecular gas particles and the other as fine particles of liquid water.  The greenhouse effect of each, per unit of molecular weight, need not be identical, maybe not even close, but that’s not the only thing to consider. It is quite possible to investigate the actual combined greenhouse effect of the two of them, in terms of realized changes in temperature that occur when there are changes in the PW content of the atmosphere over a given location.  Changes in PW content happen all the time for all locations, and so do changes in temperature.  There are no difficulties.  Almost anyone can personally measure temperature changes if need be. The total weight of airborne PW molecules over our heads is measured by techniques that are proven to have great accuracy, and are reported daily.  Historical same-day averages for both temperature and PW weight are also available for study, at practically all locations on the surface of the planet. 

The problem is that water vapor’s greenhouse effect is already being treated in a holistic sort of way by combining the calculated value of the energy it produces with that of carbon dioxide. The value can only be calculated because there is no way to put the two gases together physically in a manner suited for this purpose. The total volume of water vapor is thought to be fully dependent on air temperature, and air temperature is thought to be governed in large part by the CO2 level. As a result of this line of reasoning CO2 ends up being given full credit for the calculated value of water vapor’s greenhouse effect, considered as nothing other than a linear combination. Stripping it away would have a profound effect on the message the climate establishment has been sending to the public, in the form of sensitivity, carbon budgets and so on, for a very long time. That message serves a useful purpose, and is unlikely to be abandoned, but we are now learning from tangible experience that it underestimates the actual danger we face.

I believe science has made a mistake by ignoring the activity of water vapor that enters the special upper-level wind systems in each hemisphere.  Once it is there all of the rules and principles that influence its behavior elsewhere are revised, and CO2 no longer participates.  Water vapor and its newly recognized holistic partner can now be perceived on a pathway of independence, and we will have to accept the consequences.  I personally do not think humanity’s response would have been any different if all of this had been predicted long ago, and I am not too sure it would do any good, in a practical sense, to change the message today, but there is always something to be said in favor of knowing the truth, whatever it may be. Science should look into every possibility for finding it.

Carl