What does Carl’s theory tell us about climate change that differs from the teachings of climate scientists? This is a continuation of the past two letters, which presented a detailed review of the relevant science and its 200-year history. Climate science has never departed from the doctrine first enunciated by Swedish scientist Svante Arrhenius in the 1890s. Arrhenius taught that carbon dioxide, a greenhouse gas having long life in the atmosphere, is the dominating cause of global temperature increases—with the help of its closely associated water vapor feedback. Here is how the historian John Mason puts it (see more at https://skepticalscience.com/history-climate-science.html):
“Reasoning that, because it fluctuated daily, water vapour was continually recycling itself in and out of the atmosphere, he turned his attention to carbon dioxide, a gas resident for a long time in the atmosphere whose concentration was only (at that time) dramatically changed by major sources such as volcanoes or major drawdowns such as unusual and massive episodes of mineral weathering or the evolution of photosynthetic plants: events that occur on very long, geological timescales. Arrhenius figured out that an increase in the amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere would result in a certain amount of warming. In addition, it was already known via the Clausius-Clapeyron relation, that warmer air can hold more water vapour: the amount is about 7% more per degree Celsius of warming. And that additional water vapour would in turn cause further warming – this being a positive feedback, in which carbon dioxide acts as a direct regulator of temperature, and is then joined in that role by more water vapour as temperatures increase.” (my ital).
Employing CO2 as the direct regulator of temperature, or “control knob” as some prefer, “Arrhenius ran calculations to see what a doubling of carbon dioxide levels might do to temperatures. He came up with an answer of 5-6°C of warming as a globally-averaged figure.” His numbers are amazingly close to those of today’s researchers who follow the very same principal guidelines but have far more exacting data to work with when doing the calculations. This fact has done much to cement the CO2-based guidelines in place as a practical starting point for those who are engaged in forecasting climate change. Carl’s theory challenges this practice, by making claims that have the effect of modifying the Arrhenius approach in several ways, including one possible break, while adding a set of new perspectives to the meaning and attributes of water vapor.
1. Classifying the increased production of water vapor as nothing other than a feedback is entirely justified. Treating it as an exclusive feedback of increases in warming caused by a single agency, the level of CO2 in the atmosphere, may have seemed appropriate in 1890, but not today. All the other “well-mixed” greenhouse gases, if combined, have a total effect not far behind, and the same must specifically be true of their everyday effect on water warming in all parts of the globe and water vapor production. Cutting CO2 emissions all the way to zero would not change that fact. This is one reason why we need to know as much as possible about the true strength of water vapor as a greenhouse energy contributor, just on its own terms, realized independently.
Moreover, a lot of people are getting hesitation while explaining this to anyone even the speorder cheap cialis http://amerikabulteni.com/2019/03/11/takim-elbise-kalesinde-tisorte-yenildi/t. However if we take the President’s metaphor seriously, Obama’s energy policies seem more likely browse address viagra no consultation to continue conceding the future to other nations who are making real choices in the area of energy. Actually men usually in stock cheapest levitra need to educate them on ED and the causes for the disease. In the same way as other prescriptions, your medicinal services cialis tadalafil canada supplier may need to alter your beginning measurements on the off chance that it doesn’t create the coveted results or you’re troubled by symptoms.2. Evidence used as a basis of Carl’s theory made it possible to think of water vapor alone being approximately equivalent to a much more complex substance, precipitable water (PW), weight for weight, in greenhouse energy generation. The latter can be measured with a fair degree of accuracy, by methods often described in these letters, which finally presents us with a good idea of just how powerful water vapor really is—once the methodology has been verified. The outcome for temperature warming is identified as +10C for each double in the weight of overhead vapor (or PW) in any blend of components or irregularity of distribution by altitude, for all locations away from the tropical belt. CO2, all by itself with no feedbacks added, has been measured by different methods that yield a result of about +1C per double. The comparison with water vapor is interesting and useful as it stands, but as a practical matter the differences in distribution lead to grave difficulties for doing comparisons on a macro scale.
3. Evidence surrounding the entry of fresh water vapor into the upper part of the troposphere, all steps leading to condensation, and the ensuing behavior of PW in that unique venue should raise serious doubts about the application of the Clausius-Clapeyron equation (or “relation”) that is so well-established near the surface. A dismissal of any such rule appears justified in several ways by observations taken from the weather maps. Losing the rule not only affects volume and survival rates. It gives PW an unexpected level of potential concentration and a degree of freedom to exercise its greenhouse effect independently rather than as a simple amplifier of other agencies. PW’s ability to cause an acceleration of climate change through feedbacks and interactions of its own making can be visualized as a real possibility, one that is unrecognized in the sciences, and potentially troublesome.
Carl