Yesterday I summarized four significant reasons, all based on scientific research recently conducted but not yet recognized in climate models, for why near-term global temperatures can be expected to rise to levels considerably higher than the COP26 “goals” being talked about every day—with no way of being stopped. One of the four, which I had overlooked a year ago, was just now added. One of the others, thanks to the work of yours truly, is of completely unconventional origin, based on evidence found in a completely unexpected location, allowing it to be overlooked by conventional scientists. Today I will give you a stunning example of what this evidence looks like, where it comes from, and why I think it meets the highest standards of quality and credibility. It is all picked up from assorted imagery in the Today’s Weather Maps website (https://climatereanalyzer.org/wx/DailySummary/#t2anom), which is based on indisputably reliable measuring technology. We’ll open with the regular temperature anomaly map covering all of Asia on November 8, tied to a baseline average of 1979-2000:
The principal anomaly crossing Russia is similar to one viewed in Friday’s letter, but is even stronger and has more richness of detail. (For best results in seeing these details, use magnification of at least 150%.) On the warmest section of the anomaly, on and above the Arctic Circle line of circumference, note how many spots there are with warming in the +18-21C bracket for the day. Not far away, to the east and west, we can see two separate areas of cold anomalies, both in a range of mostly -3 to-6C, for a total difference of about 24C (43F). Now let’s look for the total precipitable water (PW) content in the atmosphere directly above each of these designated areas. You must be ready and able to transfer your gaze from one map to the other for each location with a good bit of accuracy—the more you magnify the easier it gets:
What I see in those very warmest spots, with emphasis on the ones just above the Arctic Circle line, is a reading in the 7-8kg bracket. (This is three “shade-steps” away from the small light tan area straight to the south, a vivid marker for the 10-11kg bracket depicted by the scale to the right.) In the cold anomaly directly to the east I can see a reading that goes all the way down (by six more shade-steps) to the very-dark 1-2kg bracket. I think we can narrow this actual reading down to an estimated 1.7kg or so. If you double 1.7 twice you get 6.8kg, which is still below the 7+ reading of the warm anomaly. Do you remember my basic rule, that every double in overhead PW value adds enough greenhouse energy to the surface below to cause an increase of 10C in surface temperature—no matter what the starting point value is? Does it not work to near perfection in this example? Try it on the similar cold anomaly to the west. All of these areas are relatively close to each other in distance and on about the same latitude, with the same currently minimal daylight. Let’s see if there is any difference in snow cover:
Certainly none worth mentioning. Let’s also have a look at the map showing precipitation and cloud cover, which turns out to have something of a curious nature to reveal:
There is no lack of clouds or snowfall in the warm anomaly area, which is not surprising given all the PW content of this massive atmospheric river. What I find curious is the fact that these two, and many other cold anomalies on this map, have completely clear skies. What we can learn from this is that the albedo effect of cloud cover, that cools things down so much in the summer, doesn’t appear to make any difference at all in the winter months. If anything, it’s almost the opposite effect. For another example, check out the area just to the north of Korea. It has the heaviest snowfall of any place on the map, with heavy clouds and plenty of PW in the air above, and a moderately warm anomaly. Just to the west and south everything is reversed.
One more map can be shown as a way to back up the accuracy of the warm and cold anomalies that we started out with today. The magenta shades represent average temperatures of -30 C for the day, while the darkest shade of blue/green that is not far away in distance is -5C. These figures are right in line with those comparing the anomalies. How a contrasting situation like this can develop in the first place is an interesting subject by itself, and worth looking into, but not today. Perhaps I can do so tomorrow.
Carl