PW’s greenhouse effect—cont. Lately I have been focused on the fact (as I see it) that the airborne material commonly known as precipitable water (PW) generates a greenhouse energy effect that is physically identical to the greenhouse effect commonly attributed to a suite of greenhouse gases. PW is perceived as a mixture of material substances, one of which, water vapor, is always a gas, while the remainder may contain various mixtures of solid or liquid matter in the form of small particles or aerosols. Throughout the atmosphere, the total mass of PW in any given location, as measured by total molecular weight, is highly and erratically variable in all directions. The volume by weight of the non-gas mixture of components, relative to the weight of the gas content, is also highly and erratically variable. In places it can be as low as zero; elsewhere it can only be estimated. I think it is safe to assume that the non-gas ratio can be of significantly high numbers at times, probably much greater than 50% in areas of dark and heavy cloud cover with intense rainfall as an extreme example. What we know for sure is that every formation of non-gas material entails a corresponding loss of weight for nearby water vapor.
The research I have done, using nothing more than data found on different weather maps, indicates that PW generates greenhouse effects that change in response to variations in its total weight—which we know is accurately measured in all locations. The changes tend to be uniform, that is, apparently occurring without any adjustment because of different mixtures of components. This can only mean that the non-gas components are generating greenhouse effects comparable to those of the water vapor component they have replaced during processes of condensation. The evidence is provided by simply examining differences in temperatures that are realized at the surface whenever there is a change in total PW content of the atmosphere overhead. Temperatures always seem to make the same response to a given change of content in a manner that is indifferent to the composition of the PW. If this is consistently true, and can be consistently recognized by persons other than myself (none of which have been announced), then we will all know this to be factual—not only that PW, as such, has a greenhouse effect, but that its non-gas componentry generates roughly the same effect by weight as the gas component, no matter the ratio between the two or how the non-gas components are divided.
Why should anyone care? Why is it important for science to have this piece of knowledge in its arsenal? I can tell you why—all because of the extraordinary characteristics presented by the methodology I made use of in order to gain this knowledge. I selected a certain specific array of masses of PW to work with in making the comparisons. These are the very same masses that constitute the bodies of phenomena recognized by scientists under the descriptive name of “atmospheric rivers” (ARs). They are quite real, are quite extraordinary in makeup and behavior, and have effects that are not only extraordinary but surprisingly high in magnitude. Science knows this is so with respect to precipitation, but has yet to recognize their tremendous influence on surface temperatures. Once this has been recognized we can expect to see some changes in the future prospects for climate change.
Science already knows the bodily make-up of ARs is entirely composed of PW, every bit of which originated as freshly-evaporated water vapor. Massive quantities of this vapor is quickly and continuously uplifted to high altitudes in river-like formations having extraordinarily high levels of concentration, followed by progressive but irregular transformation into non-gas components while these “rivers” kept flowing. The concentrations keep diminishing, running the gamut from 40 to 50kg per square meter in a total column of air to less than one. At the same time, the ratio of components, non-gas to gas, runs the gamut in a more erratic way, from the lowest possible, which is zero, to whatever the possible maximum may be, probably well over 50% non-gas at times, prior to losses by precipitation.
Nerve damage after surgery, stroke, trauma and accidents also cause cialis no prescription uk ED. It has a big impact on a cheap cialis prices man’s life at any point of time. Another thing you must do is take a canadian pharmacy viagra 100mg pill man hour before sexual intercourse. This cipla generic viagra anti-impotence drug supports man to get fabulous erection for longer time during an intercourse activity.The specific contents of these rivers never stop moving, which anyone can see at once on the animated website, and I find it easy to believe that the rates of movement can reach speeds as high as somewhere in the vicinity of a thousand miles a day when progress is unobstructed. As these highly varied masses of PW concentration move they pass over surfaces that are enveloped by mostly plain water vapor that is much more stable in prevailing concentration at any given location. If no river content is passing over this “ambient” vapor concentration, which keeps thinning out with altitude in an absolute sense, it will serve as the complete local source of water vapor’s greenhouse energy. If a river containing a highly concentrated mass of PW is passing over, and is in fact able to generate greenhouse energy of its own while it passes, we should want to know as much as possible about how that extra generating capacity is expressed (or perhaps not expressed?) with respect to heating the surface below. From what I can see on the maps, it is expressed in full, and with no delay whatsoever. Which means surface temperatures respond immediately. Greenhouse energy is delivered as radiation, and radiation moves at the speed of light, visible or not.
If atmospheric rivers did not exist over two-thirds of the planet everything would be different. Precipitation would certainly be different over all that very large surface area. If the PW content of those rivers actually does have a greenhouse effect like the one I keep seeing, then wherever rivers exist they must have a bearing on surface temperatures. The magnitude of effects should momentarily correspond to the physical details of those rivers as they flow. What controls the content of those rivers? What controls the way they flow, or how far they flow? What controls the timing of precipitation that reduces their mass? Are any or all of these controls subject to change, and how would the changes happen? And so on.
Carl