Carl's Climate Letters

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

The principal motivation behind my writing of these letters, which began over eight years ago, has simply been to discover and explain whatever I could about things most likely to be true, mainly based on the current state of scientific knowledge. Once in awhile we get to know the absolute truth about something, like the way planets revolve around the sun, but it took humans thousands of years, or until the days of Copernicus and Galileo, to learn enough to enable us to confidently set aside all kinds of other theories. Even then there was fierce resistance to accepting evidence that had become ever more clearly established. Climate science is in a similar situation today, but with even more complications and more difficulties to deal with. We have found a handful of important bits of pure truth, like the solar cycles of Milankovitch and the ability of certain “greenhouse” gases to make the atmosphere warmer, but that barely scratches the surface of all the other things about Earth’s climate that we feel a need to be sure about but have not yet been able to reach the ultimate goal of certainty.

The need to predict what is going to happen in the way of possible changes in climate in years to come has grown by leaps and bounds since the middle of the last century. This particular need has accelerated noticeably in the eight years since I began writing, reaching boom proportions in just the last year. Unfortunately, we still don’t have much completely indisputable knowledge to offer. We have a wide assortment of hypotheses, and many of these have been significantly improved upon over the last few years, but absolute certainty remains elusive in practically every case. On top of that, we keep having brand new things entering the picture. My intent as a writer is to know as much as possible about these things as well as the others, even before they are openly debated. It is especially important to understand the qualifications of the sources, covering both the people and the evidence they rely on. Do they offer a tentative, yet possibly valuable, roadmark toward the gaining of a final conclusion? My college professors called this procedure the “Socratic method”—today the term “Bayesian inference” is more widely employed. Given the plethora of competing hypotheses, the initial, and highly critical, step requires good judgement in making decisions about which sources are best qualified for following.

Over the last few months I have focused most of my attention on hypotheses of a scientifically fundamental type that would lead to significant changes in the way we project future temperatures.  They all happen to be in the “obscure” category, and they all lead toward potential conclusions that temperature increases are likely to be greater than what we most often hear advertised.  One of these was James Hansen’s theory of warming tied to the effects of cleaning up the pollution caused by untreated sulfur emissions when we burn coal or oil.  (See Bob Berwyn’s alert reporting about this on September 15:  https://insideclimatenews.org/news/15092021/global-warming-james-hansen-aerosols/)  Another took shape in the form of a study by Kleinen et al, published on August 12, about the difficulty of removing methane from the atmosphere: https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/ac1814/meta. Third, and a little closer to home, we have a theory of amplified warming based on evidence that the precipitable water contained in atmospheric rivers generates powerful greenhouse energy impacts that have been overlooked by members of the science community.  This one is worth mentioning because of the quality of the evidence itself, which I consider first class, and not the qualifications of the person who made the discovery. 

Now I’m going to add a fourth entry to this list, which I previously failed to properly catch.  It’s publication, via a study released over a year old, adds greatly to our knowledge of a subject we rarely hear about in the media.  Two of the six authors, Kevin Trenberth and Michael Mann, rank at the very top of the list of well-known veteran climate experts, and once again we have the diligence of Bob Berwyn to thank for the insightful review of the study he made at the time, based on many author interviews:  https://insideclimatenews.org/news/28092020/ocean-stratification-climate-change/.  His effort is worthy of a very close reading.  Here are some of the key passages, with my boldfacing:  “Near the surface of the ocean, global warming is creating increasingly distinct layers of warm water…..The intensified layering, called ocean stratification, is happening faster than scientists expected…..that means the negative impacts will arrive faster and also be greater than expected…..The research suggests that some of the worst-case global warming scenarios outlined in major international climate reports can’t be ruled out…..If the ocean surface warms faster and less carbon is carried to the depths, those processes along with other climate feedbacks could lead atmospheric CO2 to triple and the global average temperature could increase 8 degrees Fahrenheit by 2100…..If more and more heat stays near the surface of the ocean, the warm water will heat the atmosphere above. And if the layers of warm water slow the ocean’s uptake of carbon dioxide, more heat-trapping CO2 will stay in the atmosphere…..The study also suggests that increased layering could affect El Niño-La Niña cycles in the Pacific….. the growing stratification could suppress those cycles, “leaving the Pacific in a permanent El Niño state,” Mann added…..For now, oceans take up about a quarter of the CO2 emissions from human activity, “but prospects are for less of that as time goes on,” Trenberth said…..a warm upper ocean cannot hold as much dissolved gas, whether it’s carbon dioxide or oxygen, just like a warm soda can’t hold its fizziness.”  Again, you need to read Berwyn’s full report.  This is heady stuff.  It cannot be ignored.

Carl

More map reading today. We want to know everything we can possibly learn about the formation and life cycle of atmospheric rivers (ARs). We know for sure that they originate as water vapor coming off the planetary surface in certain places where there is an abundance of water in place, with temperatures well above average (by that I mean water with surface temperatures around 25C and up). The rivers are formed as vapors collect into constantly moving flows which at first are sharply ascending, then level off and continue on horizontally at altitudes several miles above the surface. At this point the vapors have taken shape as bands of significant size but limited and well-defined width. The vapor within these bands has high concentrations, similar to the concentrations of vapor in the atmosphere above the very warmest sections of the tropical zone. Vapors that arise from evaporation of waters in the central sections of the tropical zone, which are exceedingly large in total quantity, generally do not break off as ARs. Their destiny is to collect, condense and rain out, not far from their place of birth, in a relative brief lifetime. In contrast, the vapor that does form into ARs tends to condense at lower rates after reaching a high altitude, while being transported in a direction that takes them away from the tropical zone and out over the middle latitudes of each hemisphere. Because of the relatively slow rate of condensation this vapor tends to maintain a level of concentration that is well in excess of the concentration of water vapor that is created below them from local waters of a cooler type. Ambient vapor is subject to relative humidity variations and normally remains in place in the atmosphere close to the surface of origination. It can be very dry.

Many of the ARs, before leveling off, reach altitudes that bring them into contact with wind patterns found at the altitude of jetstream winds. Doing so facilitates the possibility for a river to continue flowing many thousands of miles before its final disintegration. Along the way it will regularly lose some amount of vapor off the side as bits, and other amounts as smaller concentrations that separate from the main river and continue on. (My letter yesterday was based on the outcome of a breakaway riverlet of this type.) Most of the vapor in a any river will end up condensing and raining out at some point along the way. There is no uniform rate of timing for this activity, which means limited amounts of rainfall can occur at any distance from the beginning point of the journey. Since river beds can bend or slide sideways at any time when they are under the influence of powerful jetstream winds, rainfall and all other precipitation distributed in the higher latitudes can extend over an almost unlimited variety of surface locations.

For some time now my interest has been focused not on the precipitation activity of ARs but rather on the likelihood that their content, entirely composed of precipitable water (PW), should also express a greenhouse energy effect. The impact of the effect should be regulated in proportion to whatever amount of PW, measured by total weight, happened to be in place at any one time within a given river as it flowed along. At all points along the course of flow toward higher latitudes, assuming only a relatively slow rate of condensation, the amount of PW contained by the river should quite possibly remain greater than the total weight of all the PW—mostly just vapor—contained in the atmosphere directly below that portion of the river’s flow. The addition would always be temporary, but for as long as it existed the combination could very well be both additive and leveraging, as well as instantaneous. If so, we could expect to see large changes in overhead PW at a given location from one day to the next, and if the greenhouse effect of the overhead PW was of sufficient magnitude we could therefore also expect to see extraordinarily large warm air anomalies at the surface.

Yesterday’s letter had an example of a relatively short and small AR and the powerful anomaly it created as far north as the pole itself. Today I have a map of two large ARs that are traveling over land in the Asian part of the world, in both cases for many thousands of miles. One of these originates in Bengal Bay on the side of Southeast Asia, is fortified by more vapor that has crossed northern India, heads north across eastern China, is further fortified in north China by a river off the Pacific, continues northward and finally curls a bit westward in northern Siberia, where it abruptly stops. The other is formed from remnants of three rivers that first crossed Europe, North Africa and Arabia, merged into one large river in western Russia, proceeded toward the east, made a sharp bend to the north, and ended up over the Arctic Ocean. Notice how the color shadings in both of these long and complex rivers keep changing as contents either gain or lose weight:

Here are the anomalies they created, both of which have long stretches in the +10C area plus extraordinary areas reaching +5C. I won’t be doing any special calculations today, but if you check on the kg weights of PW on the first map, comparing those inside the rivers with those off to the sides, you should see that getting the doubles required for +10 anomalies is not likely to be a problem. The total size of area covered by the river complex on the left is possibly the largest I have ever seen:

One final chart shows the erratic nature of precipitation from these rivers, a good part of which is in the form of snow:

Carl

Today’s Weather Maps offer a fine example of what atmospheric rivers (ARs) can do when they find a way to carry their content of concentrated precipitable water (PW) into the heart of the polar region. These images will show you exactly what I mean when I describe the extraordinary greenhouse energy powers of the PW that exists in the upper part of the troposphere. This is a perfect example of the kind of evidence I rely on, one of many that have had very similar outcomes. The evidence is obtained in a ridiculously simple and easy manner, by opening a number of different kinds of weather maps and focusing all of my attention on any one specific region that appears to be of significant interest. Today I selected a particular region after I first became interested in the massively large warm anomaly, averaging +3.8C for the day, that was showing up across the entire Arctic Circle. A quick survey called attention to one small area of particularly high anomaly, in the form of a small round shape surrounded by darker shades, located in the ocean just off the coast of Canada’s two most northwestern territories, next to Alaska. This anomaly turned out to be in the +14-16C category, which is a good four degrees higher than the very darkest shade reading on the scale at the side. (Best to view these things with some magnification, like 200%.) Here is the appropriate map—notice how the darkest shades (up to +10-12C) extend into places that reach all the way to the pole:

Next stop, the PW map. Here we see the cleat image of an undersized but well-defined AR that has branched off from a larger AR which originated farther to the south in the west-central part of the Pacific. The branch heads straight toward eastern Alaska, where it starts fragmenting and expanding. Notice how the fragmentary bits and pieces, while steadily being reduced in strength, remain visible, and thus measurable in their kg strength, all the way to the pole. The full track coincides neatly with the darker part of the above anomaly pattern, which I think is very meaningful because it is not the least bit unusual to see such a relationship:

This particular AR may be kind of a runt, but I still think it qualifies as the real thing. In case you were wondering, it even passes the precipitation test. Not just rain, but this one is dropping a little snow as well on the final leg of its approach to the North Pole:

One adjustment still had to be made. It never hurts to check out sea ice coverage in a situation like this, which I did. It turns out that the small area of very warmest anomaly exactly corresponds with a small patch of open water in the ocean, which most likely had been regularly frozen over at this time 30 years ago. The warm surface of that water could easily account for several degrees as part of the total anomaly we see, adding that amount to the warming produced by PW’s greenhouse energy. Looking at the full context of imagery, it is not hard to figure that the open water is in fact adding about four degrees to the total temperature at that spot:

A quick check of open temperatures is always relevant.  On this map, the (salty) open water is registering a degree or two below freezing.  It is more than likely surrounded by patches of broken or mushy ice that are only a few degrees colder.  Moving on, when we get to the lightest blue shading we’re at -10C, which can now be more directly attributed to the influence of the PW fragments in the AR.  Temperatures that have dropped to around -13C are visible on the PW track all the way to the pole. These are surrounded by off-track numbers that quickly move into the -20s and then the -30s in their closest to Greenland.

To wrap this up properly, we need to do some calculating, to see how well the main area of high temperature anomaly matches up with the incoming PW differential (after subtracting out the open water anomaly). For temperature, all those +10C areas, by my standards, should reflect actual PW kg readings that fully double the kg value of readings that only produce normal temperatures on this day at this location. What do we see here? Even though we do not have genuine baseline averages for PW, we can see how readings making up the inside of this river, running from 3kg to about 8kg, are probably averaging a full double over those that are currently producing much colder—yet still a little above normal—temperatures off to either side. This is not a solid proof, but the relationship is common, and can’t be too far off.

Carl

I have learned quite a bit about atmospheric rivers (ARs) in the last few days by perusing relevant studies. You have access to the same information through links in the letters. You should be able to understand the dangers that they pose for global temperatures in the near future. These rivers are uniquely positioned, within a pair of separate wind systems, which I would denominate as “secondary,” that are superimposed above the primary wind system that spreads across the entire planet from the surface upward. The upward part is variable. Within the tropical belt it just keeps going up, all the way to the stratosphere, with no particular change of wind system. Beyond the tropical belt, in each hemisphere, secondary wind systems of a durable nature have been created, built around totally separate patterns of air pressure configuration. There is just one change of configuration, occurring in each of the two transition zones, starting at altitudes of about three to four miles above sea level in each hemisphere. The new configurations are marked by a whole new set of air pressure differentials and all new shapes for the contours that mark the paths taken by differentials of consistent strength. These pathways wander in a generally circular way around the many pressure centers that serve as generally wind-free focal points. The pathway contours are signified by unbroken isobars. All of the winds in both types of system, positioned along isobars, tend to be strongest in situations where neighboring isobars are most tightly crowded together.

When separate wind systems are set up this way, one on top of the other, a good question is naturally raised: does this arrangement make any kine of difference in how climates are created and maintained? For a scientist this means the putting together of a solid knowledge base is the first step to be taken before expecting to find answers. Scientists who are deeply interested in precipitation activity have done this, and have found some credible answers by gaining considerable knowledge about those very strange formations called atmospheric rivers. These rivers are mostly exclusive to habitation within secondary wind systems. They do not exist in any fashion within the one-system tropical belt. The rivers are entirely composed from water vapor which has the ability to make its way from the surface of evaporation to the altitude where the secondary system begins. The quantities of vapor that accomplish this feat are limited, yet substantial enough to produce significant amounts of precipitation when they eventually have condensed and fallen back to the surface. The initial uplift is of interest because it requires a steady output of evaporation from large bodies of water of the right temperature and in the right place, yielding constant flows of vapor that can go on for days without stopping. Forces must also be present that enable these flows to maintain continuous upward transport over several miles and completed in a matter of not many minutes. Upon entry into the upper-level wind system the newborn rivers must then be picked up and redirected by winds moving horizontally within that system.

This initial part of the journey can be studied by detailed analysis of everything involved, with the goal of determining how it is maintained and whether it may grow or shrink in magnitude in the years to come. There will never be a shortage of water that can evaporate, but conditions must be just right for the entire process to unfold. Conclusions from research at this time are that conditions appear to be right with respect to growth in magnitude at possibly increasing rates, which means untold quantities of additional vapor could be inhabiting both systems in the future and following whatever rules of behavior are imposed therein. This makes good sense for those who do rainfall event forecasting. I just don’t see any comparable effort on the part of other climate scientists, who might wish to gain knowledge related to the effects these streams may have on the development of future temperature changes. The people who do AR research have laid out new information that could have powerful effects of this type, some of which are perhaps already being realized, yet not properly understood.

The map below reveals current one-day surface temperature anomalies all over the globe. The most outstanding bit of information is in the numbers at the bottom—where we learn that the Northern Hemisphere is 1.1C warmer today than it was during a baseline period averaging 30 in age. That’s a pretty high number, almost twice the global average and almost four times as great as the tropical zone by itself. Bear in mind the fact that half of the tropical zone happens to lie within the NH, helping to hold its average down. I would guess that the anomaly number for land and surface ice only, without either open ocean surfaces or the tropics, would run no less than +1.5C and probably quite a bit higher, although nowhere near the Arctic Circle alone at +2.8C. None of these regularly selected anomalies is unusual these days, and the same can be said for anomalies throughout the SH. Why are things so warm in the north, so much less so in the tropics, and literally a bit less than the average of 30 years ago in the SH below the tropical belt? I believe all of the answers can be found by examining things that are going on in the upper wind system of each hemisphere—and not going on in the case of the tropical belt—involving the formation and subsequent behavior of atmospheric rivers. These rivers must be doing things in the north, and north only, that they were not doing thirty years ago—more vapor content and more poleward movement for a good part of this content. Together, these two changes generate the power needed for us to see exactly what we are seeing with respect to temperature anomalies. All this has happened in no more than 30 years. What is in store for us in the next 30?

Carl

Readers should now be familiar with what scientists are telling us about the physical structure and content of atmospheric rivers, their origin, destination and mode of behavior in the upper part of the atmosphere.  These rivers are responsible for transporting great volumes of precipitable water (PW) over continental land masses, where it falls out almost everywhere, but unevenly, in precipitation events—things we already knew.  We are also being told some things less knowable, about how the physical content of these rivers has picked up lately, is currently growing at a rapid pace, and, based on the best current models, is expected to continue such growth in decades to come, bringing much heavier precipitation than we have today.  What scientists do not tell us is whether or not these rivers will also have an effect on global temperatures.  They have no answer for one basic reason, an attitude of complete denial toward recognition that the content of these rivers may have something worth considering to offer in the way of a greenhouse energy effect. If they do have an effect, which at best is uncertain, it has no importance because it cannot add to the total that is already locked in by a combination of well-established laws of nature and as a feedback to temperature increases generated by the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere. 

In past letters I have repeatedly made claims that are in every way contrary to this doctrine. The initial claim insists that every bit of PW, no matter where it exists in the atmosphere, generates a greenhouse effect. At minimum, the ever-present water vapor content by itself must generate an effect, even if the effect is perceived as nothing more than a part of the standard total, most of which resides in the lower part of the atmosphere. High concentrations of vapor that are normally observed within the narrow filaments of atmospheric rivers, if taken into account, have no special meaning for the final outcome in the eyes of science. On top of this bare minimum, based on a consistent showing of evidence, I have made an additional claim that the condensation of river-bound water vapor into other states of matter, meaning water drops and droplets and icy particles, has no significant affect on the greenhouse energy production of the underlying weight of H2O molecules. This is a radically new idea, one that could easily be tested for verification if there were any will to perform the necessary tests. The same tests could also verify one more claim, just as radical, that the greenhouse effect of any increase in PW can be accurately measured and is consistently expressed in the amount of 10C per double at any relevant location.

Now let’s supposed that these basic claims have all been tested and found valid, aside from any other claims I have made regarding the likely amplification of water vapor’s effective powers. AR researchers are currently making claims that the total PW content of these rivers is rapidly growing and is expected to continue at a similar pace. This projection is largely based on higher temperatures and evaporation rates affecting the specific waters that serve as sources of the river contents. Two questions quickly come to mind as a consequence. First, does ordinary CO2 growth still have full control over the amount of warming of these specific waters and their evaporation rates, the same as everywhere else, or are other things of significant importance involved in creation of this feedback? So far, according to the models, which have contents that are not visible to outsiders, “other things” appear to be winning, thus effectively sharing in the role of serving as principal reasons for the unusual increases in river contents. Not just today, but in the future as well.

Second question.  Given that we see water vapor being introduced into a high and somewhat unusual region of the atmosphere, in increasing amounts, from sources of a special type, which differs from all the ordinary sources of water vapor in the lower part of the atmosphere, is it possible that a significant part of the water vapor being added to this high level may in fact be causing an increase in the total amount of water vapor in the global atmosphere?  By that I mean, does the addition made in the upper level not simply “borrow” vapor that would otherwise stay situated in the lower level? Are we looking at a whole new category of vapor creation, a category that is not limited by the rules and principles now in place?  This possibility, in and of itself, demands that measurements of verification must be made as soon as possible, using tools of the highest quality, so we will know the answer for sure, one way or the other.

Furthermore, has a preliminary measurement of this type already been made?  In yesterday’s letter I made reference to a chart in Jennifer Francis’ article about rising levels of precipitation in Scientific American magazine.  You can get a separate view of this chart by going directly to a link I have set up for easy (and expandable) viewing in a separate window:  https://static.scientificamerican.com/sciam/assets/Image/2021/saw1121Fran31_d.png.  The lower chart (a base map produced by NOAA/ESRL) is the one that requires attention, because of the unusual amount of uplift that can be observed in just the last two decades.  Finally, does this “extra layer” of vapor have more than the usual amount of vapor’s greenhouse-related impact on surface temperatures, because of its unusual location and behavior?

Carl

The November issue of Scientific American magazine contains a lengthy article about rapidly rising precipitation written by Jennifer Francis, one of the world’s most prominent atmospheric scientists.  It is available to all readers online at this link:  https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/vapor-storms-are-threatening-people-and-property/.  It’s worth a close reading, as a source of information about current changes in the climate and also about how today’s top scientists are thinking about the causes.  Her views about why we are getting so much precipitation, and why it is being distributed unequally over certain parts of the globe in such extreme ways, are generally supportive of the conclusions drawn by atmospheric river (RA) researchers that were reported in recent letters.  She goes on beyond their work with commentary about how these rivers add to temperatures in the atmosphere as well as to precipitation, which I found especially interesting—mainly because it manages to avoid any discussion of greenhouse energy effects or the pure exchanges of radiation that are fundamentally involved in greenhouse production. Dr. Francis is more interested in discussing what happens to the latent heat that is released whenever vapor condenses into a liquid state.

This is in fact a good subject to think about, and to become familiar with, because the amount of energy released in this way is relatively large and possibly unusual.  I have always thought that much of this energy was converted directly into lightning and thunder, or to the forces behind the destructive power of high winds.  Heat formation due to condensation is most certainly possible, but how and where is it stored after formation, and how long does it last?  I don’t think Dr. Francis gives us a full set of answers in this article but she does open several doors to things worth considering.  She also has quite a bit to say about the impact of abnormally high nighttime temperatures and their possible causes, but leaves open any really convincing reasons for why daytime temperatures have not warmed up just as much.  Is humidity in the specific (or absolute) sense actually greater at night than in daytime?  We know relative humidity grows as temperatures cool down, approaching the point needed for condensation into dew or fog. Is the latent heat released by this condensation great enough to have a meaningful effect at night, but not normal in daytime?  Or, does the higher evaporation rate in daytime produce enough surface cooling to counteract the high air temperatures that cause the evaporation, in a meaningful way? Are these effects great enough to cause much of the anomalous disparity that has grown between night and day, while the globe as a whole grows warmer?

More generally, I am not ready to get used to the idea that heat is somehow trapped and then stored in a purely gaseous atmosphere. Gases are nothing but molecules, and molecules are not known for having an ability to store heat.  They can trap radiation, in the form of photons, in their own very limited way, and then respond by releasing a new photon, with no delay whatsoever.  The new photon may reverse the direction of the one trapped, which sensors made of solid materials will record as increased heat, but how will molecules by themselves, not densified into solids or liquids, be able to “store” their energy exchange activity in the way solids and liquids do, by means of their highly packed molecular interiors?  Maybe cloud droplets can store small amount of heat in their interiors in the way oceans do it, on a much smaller scale of course, but we need to ask some questions.  How much are they able to store when there is so much surface area on a droplet relative to the amount of interior space?  As for tiny little molecules, there is simply no interior space, or space content, suitable for any kind of storage activity.  Molecules can perform a quick energy turnover, vibrating for a split second, but then must be ready to repeat the same action at any instant.  Clear skies can be filled with radiation, which any sensor can pick up, but where do they gain the capacity to collect and store energy as heat in the way the sensor does, or any similar material?

The article contains a chart that shows something I would not have expected.  It is the lower one of the pair of charts labeled “Wetter World,” where we see the total volume of water vapor in a steadily rising trend since the beginning of this century, but not before. By contrast, the trend after 1980 was more of a downward thing.  Global temperatures have been in a steadily rising trend for over 45 years, since 1975, but apparently with no help at all from increases in the greenhouse energy produced by water vapor for the first 25 of those years—if the chart is right.  What did cause the sudden upturn after 1975, with all the greenhouse gases aside from water vapor just plodding along at their usual (relatively) slow and steady pace?  All I can think of at the moment goes back to what James Hansen says about the campaign that was starting to clean up the notorious sulfur emissions from burning coal and oil. This effort successfully cleared away a good share of the sulfate aerosols that were brightening cloud tops in a significant way and thus adding to the solar albedo.effect.  The sharp increase in water vapor could then account for the temperature acceleration in recent years, but what caused such a large shift creating the increase?  A rapidly growing volume of content held by overhead atmospheric rivers comes to mind as a possibility, but I have nothing in hand to show right now in the way of historical records. 

Carl

One thing I’ve been saying, as a minimum, is that all precipitable water (PW) has a greenhouse effect. This should be readily agreed to by every climate scientist for one simple reason: all PW is at least partially composed of plain, everyday water vapor, and every scientist knows that plain water vapor has a greenhouse effect. PW may, or may not, also contain water droplets, some very fine and others more coarse, and/or icy particles of numerous shapes and sizes. All of these are formed by condensation activities that originate with the condensing of fine droplets out of one primary source, water vapor. PW composition consists of three different states of matter made from one kind of molecule, H2O. I have insisted, again at minimum, that all three states of matter generate a regular kind of greenhouse effect. I am not sure about what climate scientists (of all types) think bout that idea because not much is said about it—the greenhouse effect is usually spoken of with reference only to gases. Clouds are widely recognized as having a warming effect on the air below them, which may vary according to the type of cloud and its altitude. This warming effect is not necessarily identified as a greenhouse effect. Doing so would require recognition of a firm link between the total molecular weight of a particular cloud and the amount of warming that it produced. This is not being done, which leaves the basic question unanswered. All other PW contents, mainly raindrops, snow and so on, are not even noted as warming producers, thereby eliminating any open consideration of their having a greenhouse effect.

The work I have done by simply comparing images on different weather maps barely qualifies as research, by professional standards, so let’s just call it work. I do have good tools to work with. Their assortment is somewhat limited, but their quality is indisputably first-rate. One key tool shows the total amount of PW in the atmosphere, broken down according to its total overhead molecular weight in the atmosphere above every locality on the surface of the globe. There is never any breakdown by component, just the total, which might seem like a handicap but turns out to be of great interest with respect to the final outcome. Because new maps are published every day I can easily see how total PW changes from one day to the next over any location of my choice and what it means. Another tool that is readily available, and also updated each day, reveals each day’s temperature anomaly for every locality compared with the “normal” average temperature of that locality on the same day of the year as derived from an extended baseline period. The latter has been determined with the help of computers and a well-managed historical database.

There is no similar tool available showing what the average PW value was for that same day of year throughout the same baseline period, as either a raw number or as a factored part of the current day’s anomaly. Such a tool would allow us to see at a glance whether there was any tendency for temperature and PW anomalies, when compared side by side for any location, to be moving up and down together in a consistent way, or precisely how much influence one—meaning PW—might be having over the other. I found ways to sidestep this missing piece of data with estimates that had to be a little less accurate but always managed to end up wih a consistent final result: it makes little difference how the composition of PW differs from day to day. Thus, whatever impact is expressed by water vapor alone results in an impact highly comparable to that of all alternative combinations of H2O molecular states. Weight for weight, PW of any make-up and plain water vapor appear to have the same greenhouse effect, and we even have a good way to express the strength of this mutual effect: any double in the total weight of overhead PW molecules, all else being equal, will cause surface temperatures to increase by about 10C. That’s my result. Scientists have even sharper tools in hand, which would enable them to either verify or discredit my claim, indeed fairly quickly, if they chose to make such an effort.

Let’s suppose now that my claims ring true and are backed up by science. What are the implications? My claims really depend on observations that are made while taking into account the presence of all the PW that has found its way into the upper altitude regions of each hemisphere, where jet streams are active. This is the region of atmosphere where PW forms into rivers or streams composed of molecules that are surprisingly concentrated. These streams habitually flow continuously, away from their sources, much as streams of water do except that in this case the direction of flow is reversed—flow volume starts highly concentrated and then steadily diminishes as it moves along, shedding raindrops instead of collecting rainwater, and finally disappears. The streambeds themselves keep moving around, more and more so in their outer extensions, which means that all of the surfaces below on some days have high concentrations of PW cruising overhead and some days low. The differences between high and low keep changing, and may be highly variable. They can always be compiled into an average amount for any day at each location. Each new day will then be either above or below the historical average, which we think of as “the norm.” What I keep observing, here and there, is that on some days the PW flow can be as great as four and even six or (rarely) more times normal, and on other days as low as one quarter or one sixth, etc. Four times normal always seems to be associated with measured temperature anomalies in the +20C neighborhood, etc. This kind of information, if treated as real, would surely have a profound effect on the science of climate change.

Carl

I may be the only person on the face of our Earth who strongly believes that every bit of precipitable water (PW) in the atmosphere has a fairly uniform and very powerful greenhouse energy effect on surface temperatures. I don’t believe the material makeup of the PW makes a difference in the effect, nor can its power be diminished by distribution, which is highly irregular and constantly changing. In recent letters, especially yesterday, I’ve presented evidence showing the absolute lack of interest in such an idea on the part of a whole generation of meteorological scientists and researchers at the top of their profession. By extrapolation, this would hardly be the case if top professionals in the more broadly-based climate sciences were to express any real signs of interest—and I’ve never personally witnessed even a hint of a suggestion that such ideas might be lurking somewhere. How about outsiders, like scientists in other fields, or amateur science students of all stripes, including the best of journalists and writers of books, or just anybody? Nothing. I’m it, and I won’t be here much longer. (Today is my 91st birthday.) Someone else will have to take over this lonely task, which carries with it a bit of drudgery, just to keep it alive and perhaps to see if it can be publicized more effectively, but I will need to give that person some plausible reasons for doing so.

Right now you can see why I am so interested in the output of atmospheric river (AR) researchers, after belatedly discovering its existence.  It makes a real impression, with or without any admission of greenhouse energy. The methodology used and the conclusions supported by this research all make good sense.  We are given ample reasons for believing that quantities of PW in the high altitudes will be increasing at ever-faster rates as tropical ocean surfaces grow warmer.  From my viewing point these increases will surely enhance PW’s greenhouse effects by a magnitude no less than that of their enhancement of precipitation effects, since both have the very same material source.  The completely separate nature of these dual effects, and their ultimate distribution, can still remain independent of each other, just as they are today.  My interest, as usual, will always be focused on the greenhouse effects, which are the more obscure of the two.  We can easily see how precipitation impacts are already increasing in dramatic ways—here is a news report of one more example, the “bomb cyclone” effect—https://climatecrocks.com/2021/10/28/clone-cyclones-bombing-east-and-west/—and are almost sure to continue strengthening. Temperature effects, while less dramatic (think of ice slowly melting), could be just as troublesome if not more so.

When water vapor arising from surface evaporation is being elevated high enough to enter the upper-level wind system, meaning the one where jetstream winds occur, it quickly encounters a new set of forces exhibiting extraordinary powers. The streams of vapor that arrive (and can hereafter be thought of as PW) can only keep moving as influenced by these winds, mostly from east to west, with the addition of a pronounced poleward bias ascribed to coriolis forces. (AR research confirms both points.)  Only limited amounts of this PW is ever allowed to move very far past the mid-latitudes (also confirmed).  Whatever poleward progress is actually accomplished by any quantity of PW will tend to naturally amplify the greenhouse powers of that quantity since it will be physically superimposed atop lower altitude quantities that are usually smaller in volume and are constantly being further reduced in volume because of the normally cooler temperatures found closer to either pole.  No such gradient affects the PW content at altitudes high overhead, thereby establishing a leveraging effect for any quantities that are moving poleward. 

What does effect PW movement at this altitude is the presence of jetstream winds that may be inhabiting any potential poleward path that PW might otherwise be able to navigate without interference.  In earlier letters I described and illustrated occurrences demonstrating how any tendency for these winds to become weaker would in fact allow deeper penetration than otherwise by PW quantities, thus enhancing their leverage. In that regard, as further observed, large-scale weakening of these winds was not likely to occur unless there was a pronounced change in the upper-level air pressure configuration that constantly governed the strength and positioning of all jetstream winds. These winds can do nothing other than to follow pathways set up by air pressure differential isobars.  Still more observations (all from the weather maps) indicate the way upper-level air pressure configuration, in turn, mainly changes as a feedback response to changes made in the distribution of warm or cold temperature patterns as they actually occur down at the surface.  These patterns, in turn, are set up in response to a whole variety of influential forces, some as feedbacks from greenhouse energy and some of extraneous origin. I put all of this activity in a category that is not just interesting, but utterly fascinating. If you agree, it’s all much more fully described somewhere within the last couple of hundred letters, ready for review. I do apologize for not having an index of some sort.

Carl

Why atmospheric river (AR) research is very concerning. I have been writing these letters for over eight years now, always looking for new information coming out of the many different fields of basic climate research. I must admit that AR research has never been high on my to-do list, in part because of a scarcity of headlines in either media stories about events or the regular sources of reports about newly-issued studies in general. Now I am a little more awake to the AR work that has been going on, sort of under the radar, which means playing catch-up and at the same time trying to figure out all the implications that are introduced therein. At this point the implications—as they initially appear—loom far larger than I ever thought possible, which I will start describing today. There are two main reasons for concern. First, just as I have always suspected, the researchers doing these studies never show the slightest bit of interest in the idea that ARs may be carriers of greenhouse energy effects as well as basic sources of precipitation. The entire focus is on flooding and other precipitation impacts.

Second, I am just now learning about the depth and far-reaching extent of the research these folks have been doing. They have been setting up models that look far into the future, over many decades and under a variety of different scenarios, in search of clues about what ARs will be like in the future. The results all seem to point toward considerable expansion of “integrated water vapor transport” (IVT) for ARs in all places, plus increased frequency in some important places, but not everywhere. The projected IVT increases that I see look like they will be higher than the expected rates of CO2 increases in various scenarios, which I think is very interesting, but I have no way of evaluating the accuracy of the models. What I do know is that computerized meteorology forecasting has been remarkably improved in recent years with respect to daily, weekly and 10-day forecasts, which suggests that practitioners have some developed some real skills of a practical nature, and these skills may be extendable into the longer term. Anyway, ordinary climate scientists who build models covering a much broader range of climatory effects should not be reluctant about incorporating the results of meteorological models if they prove to be in tune with best practices elsewhere.

To help you get updated on the content of this research, I would suggest that you first open the link to a 2018 study that is firmly established as a benchmark and is completely accessible to everyone: https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/2017GL076968.  It is full of projections as well as methodology.  The references at the end probably call up practically everything of maximum value in this specialty field from earlier dates.  The 98 citations complete the picture by most likely including almost everything of value about ARs that has been published in the last 30 months.  It’s all worth spending some time on, but then save a little more time for browsing through a report from NASA.’s Jet Propulsion Laboratory, published in June of 2018, detailing the current state of research related to the formation and impacts of ARs on a global scale.  Projected increases are foreseen well into the current century, which are taken as indications of climate change, but not as climate change in the sense we are accustomed to hearing about.  There is no reference to any kind of effect on temperatures, which I think broadly substantiates the claim I made at the beginning about the absence of any link between the PW content of ARs and greenhouse energy effects.  The meteorologists appear to be leaving a determination of that possibility up to the more broad-based models of climate scientists who are not so specialized.

So where does that leave us?  What should we expect to hear from climate scientists at large?  Are they worried by the prospect that substantial amounts of PW may well be flying through the atmosphere high over our heads before long, more than ever before, in the form of rivers or streams that come and go in a mostly irregular way?  I’ve seen no indications to that effect, and I doubt that any of them have been reading my Climate Letters, or taking a close look at what the Weather Maps keep telling us.  In yesterday’s letter I showed you the basic procedure that I follow in sorting out the information contained in the maps, so occurrences of one type can be compared with occurrences of another type in any one place on any one day.  There are more things one needs to be aware of for best results, but It is never a difficult thing to do, if one has a little time and patience available plus whatever basic cognitive skills are required for map or chart reading and comparing in general. There is not much to it, and the results I’ve seen are often amazing.  Regardless of its makeup, the total amount of PW in a vertical column of air to the top of the atmosphere has a powerful greenhouse effect at the surface, expressed logarithmically in terms of relative differences in weight.  The analysis is unequivocal.  When AR content grows, so do related temperatures. There is even more to this story, adding more concerns, as fully explored in earlier letters, but this is it for today.  

Carl