Carl’s theory of precipitable water’s (PW’s) greenhouse effects provides detailed explanations that are useful for showing how these effects have an impact on surface temperatures. The phenomenon known as “Arctic amplification” is probably the most prominent of all impacts that can be explained in considerable detail by the theory. I don’t think there is anything in the science literature that matches it from the standpoint of describing a source of ordinary heat energy involved in the high level of warming. Under my theory, the main source of energy is nothing other than an extra supply of plain old radiative forcing, the same as that produced in all places by everyday greenhouse effects. PW is the one thing that is capable of generating the necessary amount of forcing, once given the opportunity. My theory describes how such an opportunity has been created by the upper-level wind system, and is actually being exploited by concentrated streams of PW at this very time as those streams move northward.\.
Why do I think science is unaware of this activity? Only from reading various things that should be mentioning it if any kind of recognition were in place. Today I will give you a perfect example of what I mean, using a newly issued study written by three professors who work for leading universities and are well-versed on the subject. Their new work is entitled, Arctic amplification of climate change: a review of underlying mechanisms. It has open access and is ready for reading at this link: https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/ac1c29#back-to-top-target. I suggest that you should check out the Abstract, then click on “5. Summary and outlook,” where you need to pay particular attention to conclusion “(a) AA is a robust response to climate forcing.” It closes with these two sentences: “The fact that AA occurs in response to these very different climate forcings suggests that the characteristics of the forcing (e.g. spatial pattern, longwave or shortwave) cannot be of primary importance. Instead, AA must fundamentally owe its existence to feedbacks and other mechanisms that—at least to first order—are insensitive to the precise details of the forcing.”
That’s a pretty clear statement. So, what were the authors reviewing, that gave rise to it? You need to open the References, and scroll down through them. I started to make a count, and gave up, as there must be over 200. It’s a very popular subject for researchers to ponder over, including a number of the biggest names in climate science.
But, the downtownsault.org buy pill viagra focus is on the sensations (or called sensate focus). It will professional viagra online most likely be worn off when you wake up Sunday morning but if you have a companion beside you that morning blood rush may just give you an extra few minutes. As you wait for Christmas and gear up to enter into a new year, HBO South Asia brings the best results. cheap tadalafil india They said numerous doctors improperly cheapest viagra from india approved prescriptions.Carl’s theory agrees with everyone on one thing, that increases in the evaporation rate, the original causation of increases in total PW, are created as a feedback to increases in the atmospheric content of CO2—except for one difference. I can’t attribute the increases to CO2 by itself, important as this gas may be. I think evaporation increases as a result of everything that helps make the planet’s surface waters grow warmer. The list is long, headed by every well-mixed greenhouse gas, all of which serve as primary generators of longwave greenhouse energy, acting in concert. The feedbacks that result from their increased production then add elements of warmth to the surface through an assortment of activities that are typically not of the greenhouse energy type. Water vapor is the one major exception (although methane is often treated as an important feedback exceeding its role as a primary producer that humans have only partial control over). Water vapor is regarded as strictly a feedback, in no way under direct human control, except by actions that initially get rid of whatever causes it to grow as a feedback. (Again, my view on that last point, about the identity of “whatever,” is not openly shared by scientists.)
Carl’s theory has one more unique deviation which could prove to be crucial is some circumstances. My observations of activity taking place in the upper atmosphere fail to detect any kind of influence that could be attributed to the Clausius-Clapeyron equation. Moreover, the principles behind the equation are much easier for me to grasp when applied to condensation activity near the surface, compared with the more limited opportunities for condensation in the generally cold reaches of the thinned-out atmosphere higher up. If there are actually no such rules in effect at that level, which would need to be confirmed by more extensive observations, a widely accepted constraint on PW’s energy output would no longer be justified. A completely independent variety of PW ends up with a big role in my Arctic amplification theory, controlled only by jetstream winds that have fading strength in the NH.
Carl