Carl's Climate Letters

An interesting story today on the Axios daily news website under this headline:  “In summer of apocalyptic weather, concerns emerge over climate science blind spot,” which is worth reading because it includes quotations from a number of the world’s leading scientists: https://www.axios.com/extreme-weather-heat-waves-floods-climate-science-dba85d8a-215b-49a1-8a80-a6b7532bee83.html   I have been arguing right along, while constructing Carl’s theory, that today’s climate science is crippled by what can only be referred to as a blind spot, by completely overlooking the true story of precipitable waters’ (PW”s) greenhouse energy effects.  Scientists have failed to evaluate its power, which is not a difficult thing to do, and they have failed to recognize the unique mechanism that enables this power to be amplified.  These are precisely the things that Carl’s theory is all about, that it hopes to see corrected.  The theory even goes on to describe how this amplified power interacts with another important factor involved in climate warming, the melting of Arctic sea ice, through a mutual feedback relationship. Each of them tends to reinforce and further amplify the other.

Quoting from the article: “For example, Andrew Dessler, a climate scientist at Texas A&M University, said he is no longer sure if climate models are accurately capturing how global warming is playing out when it comes to regional extremes specifically….. “If you’d asked me this three months ago, I would have said ‘models are doing fine,'” he said. “But this last string of disasters has really shaken my confidence in the models’ predictions of regional extremes,” he said.”

Michael  Mann and Stefan Rahmstorf both understand that jetstream winds may be involved, especially when they become locked in place, but do not imply, correctly, that these winds are themselves a source of heat.  “We can either assume that the [Pacific Northwest heat] event was a remarkable fluke, or that the models are still not capturing the relevant processes behind these events,” Mann told Axios. “Occam’s razor, in my assessment, supports the latter of these two possibilities.”

So what exactly are the things that science is missing, according to the claims found in Carl’s theory? Let’s look at two items that I think are most significant. They are both backed by visual evidence that is easy to spot, and both are easy to comprehend when carefully studied. There is really no excuse for not doing so. First, the effective power of greenhouse energy produced by PW, viewed holistically as the combined powers of water vapor and the tiny droplets that clouds are made of. Both of these are derived from masses of a single kind of molecule, H2O, which exists in various alternative changes of state by virtue of irregular condensation activity. The total weight of overhead masses of this molecule at any location above the planetary surface is measured each day, and with great precision. Historical averages of these weights on the same day of the year can be derived from data placed in storage for several decades and are accessible. The averages can also be estimated in several ways, allowing a rough but fair comparison to be made between current weights and baseline averages on a daily basis. Any differences can then be compared with temperature anomalies that are reported daily for every one of the locations that might be selected. Repeating this exercise many times over, preferably thousands of times, or tens of thousands, should almost inevitably lead to significant correlations. I predict that, in all regions outside of the tropical belt, any doubling of PW value for a given location on a given day will be construed as a factor accounting for about 10C in its temperature anomaly, with a margin of error no greater than +/- 2C, always bound by fractional adjustments and reversals and stripping away of all other factors known to be causing the anomaly.

Second, Climate scientists show no sign of awareness of the truly unusual way that PW is distributed in the atmosphere, with particular reference being given to PW in the upper level of the troposphere, but only beyond the tropical belt, as observed in each hemisphere.  As described here in many letters, jetstream winds are very involved in the action, and so is the unique pattern of air pressure differentials that govern the location of specific jet wind pathways and the strength of the winds they bear.  The air pressure configuration, in turn, is to a large extent determined by the way air temperatures are distributed at the surface.  One thing leads to another in this unique venue, in a series of steps that are constantly changing and evolving within seasonal limitations.  These steps have a significant influence over the movement of the limited amounts of PW that enter these upper level zones in concentrated streams and go on to provide their own regular measure of greenhouse energy as well as the bulk of Earth’s precipitation.  The concentrated energy delivered erratically from this source of supply is added to amounts delivered from PW sources closer to the surface and will usually have a disproportionate influence on surface temperatures  Actual rates of total PW delivery and its effects can then be sorted out by location and the unfolding of geographical trends, as detected by studying Today’s Weather Maps. The effects are evolving, quite rapidly, at scale, and unfavorably, before our very eyes. Today’s climate scientists are just not looking at this development.  This is their blind spot.

Carl

The cloud albedo effect on surface temperatures is stronger than I once thought it would be. Yesterday’s letter provided the kind of evidence that leads to a conclusion of great strength in the selected examole, especially well-confirmed on the map of actual temperatures in the region. The 15 degree difference in temperature compared with surrounding territory is a real stunner. It makes you wonder what the maximum possible difference might be, for clouds delivering the worst possible rainstorm event. This one might be close! I have been checking out other situations that have a similar combination of circumstances and am left with no doubt that the potential effect of cloud albedo must be accounted for when making any full analysis of the cause of a daily temperature anomaly. This is especially true for days when the sun is high overhead and the effect is maximized.

To do this accounting properly we also need to think about days like this when the sky is perfectly clear and there is no possibility of any cooling due to cloud albedo. The total effect of all factors that cause warming, like the greenhouse energy effect of precipitable water (PW), can then be expressed more clearly, with one major offset out of the way. But that’s not quite true. Based on historical averages for both, I like to compare an increase in regional PW values with any increase in temperature reported as an anomaly for the same region and same period. The trouble is that the baseline average for temperatures will include a number of days when there was cloud cover, some lighter and some heavier, as well as some when the sky was clear. This would end up by netting out the actual impact of an average amount of daily cooling, entirely because of the days of cloud coverage. That number could be significant—I am thinking of as much as two or three degrees as a possibility. Whatever the real number might be, a complete unknown, it should properly be subtracted from the current reported anomaly in order to even things up. The greenhouse energy production of PW, as described in part 1 of Carl’s theory, differs in the sense of being largely unaffected by any amount of cloud formation.

Another consideration that should be taken into account is the likelihood that the cloud albedo effect is subject to seasonal adjustments, marked by declines when the days are shorter and the sun is lower in the sky (or disappears completely). Such results can be looked for by making careful observations on the weather maps in coming months. I expect that clouds in the NH will soon begin to lose most of their current albedo power, but let’s wait and see for sure.

Carl’s theory, part 1, claims that any doubling of PW value (by weight) in the atmosphere, relative to any non-tropical location, will cause surface temperatures at that location to increase by 10C, plus or minus an allowance of no more than 2 degrees as a margin of error. The possibility of the greenhouse effect being altered by cloud formation, and larger particles that follow, cannot be dismissed, which is the main reason for having the margin of error. If anything, I would guess that the effect would be lowered a bit, especially by larger particles, but have no evidence or solid argument to offer. What’s most important about the claims made in part 1, in my mind, is that the greenhouse effect of PW is so very powerful, even if or when it is limited to only 8C when its value is doubled, along with observations of an extended sequence of actually realized short-term doublings reaching from the polar zones in mid-winter all the way to the borders of the tropical belt.

Carl

Today’s Weather Maps are absolutely loaded with information. Each map contains an amazing amount of detail, every bit of which is obtained from instrument readings of things that are happening in the real world. Whenever a detail on one of the maps gets your attention it never hurts to open other maps and look for relationships at the same location. You may learn something that may be put to good use. This happened to me today when I became curious about a large and very cold temperature anomaly sitting over the northern border of Kazakhstan:

Some unusual cold anomalies, like the one in Texas last winter, are caused by an extreme shortage of precipitable water (PW) in the atmosphere above, so that possibility needed to be checked out. No way! All I can see on the PW map is a large amount of apparent excess over that very spot. That much PW, if properly calculated, should be adding perhaps 5C of anomalous warmth from its greenhouse energy effect:

Rain cloud albedo, which is known to be quite powerful in mid-summer, although exact numbers for calculating its cooling effect are less well-known, was the next possibility, and this time I could see a connection:

What puzzled me was the apparent strength of this particular rain cloud as a cooling agent. It appeared capable of not only offsetting at least 5C worth of greenhouse warming from the PW but an additional 10C worth of registered cold anomaly—a total of 15C of cooling. In order to do so, daily average temperatures that be as high as 20C in parts of this region would need to fall all the way down to around 5C for the occasion, or a quick drop of up to 27F for the day! I don’t have any real numbers in hand, but such things do happen, and the temperature map, while allowing only a rough estimate, tells us this may actually have been the case:

A measured value of 15 degrees for a cloud’s albedo effect seems like an inordinately high number. There are a lot of rain clouds out there that have albedo values of 5-10C but this one must have something special behind it. I opened more maps to look for explanations, and right away this one caught my eye:

Our subject rain cloud fits very nicely inside the borders of the loop of a jetstream wind that came down from the north and then turned back up. This wind would not be a carrier of PW but may have somehow had an effect, worthy of further study, on an existing amount of PW that became trapped inside the loop. As more of an aside, I also found the reason for why the pathway carrying this jetstream was located in this particular spot. It was simply tracking the perimeter of an extended “thumb” of green zone air pressure in a very regular way:

One more connection is worth showing on its map, even with no explanation, just because it has formed into a pattern that fits so tightly with the location of everything else we’ve looked at, and that is sea level pressure. Weather reporters are always reminding us about how low pressure tends to show up when rainfall is heavy, like it is here. Of all the relationships we are looking at I think of surface air pressure, both high and low, as the one thing that poses the most difficulty when one attempts to understand either its direct cause or direct effects from a physical standpoint. It does get involved in different situations, and at the very least must have a role that helps to make things happen in the manner observed.

Carl

Today’s letter will be devoted to image comparisons, with a special focus on “Geopot” maps showing high-altitude air pressure configurations. I saved these in the archives a year ago in mid-July, so we do year-to-year comparisons for both hemispheres as well as how they stack up today. We’ll be thinking about whether or not these images mean anything. Here is the NH today:

Here is how it looked a year ago on July 16th. The blue zone had almost completely disappeared by then while the green zone was highly fragmented, and literally fading in color. This year both zones are holding up much better than last, a combination that favors a stronger and more compact pattern of jetstream wind activity.

Of course everything is relative. Let’s head down to the SH for a current comparison. The blue zone in particular is in eye-popping contrast with the one in today’s NH. In som places it hardly leaves any room for the green zone, the presence of which depends on 500hPa’s pressure response to upward pressures emanating from a relatively narrow range of surface temperatures (zero to about 10 or 12C).

Here is how the same view looked a year ago on July 20th. The biggest difference I can see is that this year’s green zone is a little larger in total area. I don’t have temperature maps handy to compare, but I know that cold daily anomalies in the Antarctic region have been making an unusually strong run this year. Today for example the figure is a very chilly minus 4.2C.

Same-day jetstream comparisons between the hemispheres, which can be clearly depicted on a single map, are always interesting. Last year’s maps were not nearly s well-constructed as they are today, which leaves us with nothing worth showing. Today the contrast between NH and SH is about what we expect, given that jet strength and positioning are always governed by the prevailing air pressure configurations at that altitude. Keep in mind that the stronger the winds are the more effective they will be at blocking the natural poleward movement of precipitable water (PW) concentrations at that level of the atmosphere.

The overall outcome for PW movement in the two hemispheres at this time is clearly revealed on this final map. There is no better explanation for the difference than the differences in local jetstream capabilities. Note how PW streams in the south consistently have trouble passing beyond about 45S degrees in latitude while similar streams can pass 75N in the north. These capabilities are always seasonally reduced between winter and summer. If they are reduced with regularity, to any extent, on a given string of calendar days from one year to the next, PW movement will be enhanced, most likely having an effect on temperature anomalies, leading toward the kind of result described in my letter two days ago.

Carl

“Laying the foundations for a new science of climate change.”  This is what it says in the upper right corner of every letter, and this is what Carl’s Climate Letters is all about.  The letters did not start out that way. Back in 2013 they were intended to draw attention to the oncoming dangers posed by the growth of fossil fuel emissions.  Late in life I had finally woken up to the reality and figured it would be a good thing if everyone else did the same, hoping to make it easier for something to be done about it.  In those days there were signs of change happening, but not many, and only in far-off places that were not too visible.  “Deniers” of climate change were everywhere making their voices loud and clear, saying there was nothing to worry about.  Both of these things have changed completely.  Climate disasters now making headlines all over the globe, and deniers, while many still resist knowing the truth or doing anything about it, have all but dropped out of sight.

Some other things have not changed.  One of them, regrettably, is carbon emissions growth, with CO2 and methane both setting new records for atmospheric concentrations, and both at an accelerating pace (visit https://gml.noaa.gov/ccgg/trends/monthly.html for details).  Climate science has also not changed its approach, which remains tied to an understanding that CO2 is the control knob and humans can stop its level from rising much farther if they just try hard enough.  Years ago the goal was reportedly no more than 350ppm in order to avoid disaster.  Now there is hope that the transient level can be held below 450, which must quickly be followed by a monumental effort to remove CO2 from the atmosphere—using yet unproven technology. Bringing CO2 emissions down quickly may be doable, but it largely depends on our ability to replace “dirty” sources of energy with cleaner stuff while at the same time allowing total energy usage to remain at high levels in order to accommodate the modern norm for living standards.

Meanwhile, climate science finds itself in an awkward position. Like all other sciences it faces the basic challenge of maintaining an acceptable rate of improvement in its knowledge base. Unlike most others it has taken on a responsibility for sending messages to the public about the proximity of danger and what needs to be done in order to assure public safety. The IPCC was set up for that very reason. It has pursued a messaging strategy that employs one common voice, attuned to the provision of critical information that has been established by widespread acceptance and high standards of proof. That’s not easy considering the many complexities and uncertainties involved in this branch of science. Individual scientists could still pursue research projects out on the frontiers, and report results in journals or through the media, if done judiciously without contradicting the IPCC. Every so often a new finding is made that can only be viewed as a high alert to some new level of danger, but lacks the amount of vetting needed to meet traditional standards of proof. The IPCC cannot do much about it, and in any case is reluctant to add even more substance to an already long list of established dangers. There is a growing sense of fear that the public will lose all hope of finding solutions that require a vast amount of cooperation at a global level on the part of widely disparate members.

Within this context, what are the chances that the many claims and unique explanations expressed within Carl’s theory will soon be incorporated into the bedrock of climate science? To start with, the research does not even come from a source recognized as part of any regular frontier of science, nor has it been communicated in any kind of regular way. Not to mention the qualifications of the one person involved in its creation. It contradicts several long standing dogmas held sacred by the IPCC. The conclusions it reaches fall into the “high alert” category because they offer a new explanation for why and how the known dangers of climate change are being amplified, and why we should expect to see the level of amplification accelerate beyond its current state, sooner rather than later. And there is nothing special we can do about it. That kind of message does not inspire hope. It could perhaps help to inspire a deeper sense of regret, and the deep sense of sorrow that goes with it. Maybe those feelings could be put to use in a positive way, through a common aim to do less harm, to other human beings and to the natural world.

Carl

What is the average lifetime of precipitable water (PW) molecules after they enter one of the upper level wind systems? This is possibly the most critical question of all relevant to the analysis initiated in Friday’s letter. Every molecule should continuously contribute to the greenhouse energy effect as long as it is up there. I think each one will stay up there until something causes its removal, most likely through precipitation, which means it must first become part of a chunk of matter that s heavy enough to fall. This requires condensation with other molecules in more than one step, beginning with tiny droplets followed by formation of larger particles. Condensation by itself, without precipitating, does not seem to make no significant difference in the total greenhouse effect of this assembly of molecules. Bottom line, adding 10% to the average lifetime of this PW should add something like 10% to the amount of energy transmitted, but that’s not the whole story. We still need to consider the way the molecules move.

Do these molecules ever stop moving forward?  The only conclusion I can come to is probably not, except when they run into something that either slows or stops their progress.  Simply slowing down makes it likely that precipitation processes will begin, because of the way these molecules tend to gather into concentrated streams that flow continuously from their points of origin.  You can watch this happen by visiting the animation website at http://tropic.ssec.wisc.edu/real-time/mtpw2/product.php, and then take a good look at how the entire journey of each stream unfolds.  Any matter within the stream that slows down will be in the way of bits that are coming on from behind.  Some of these should be able to pass on through while others collide.  Presumably, little bits of foreign matter are also involved, being required as nuclei for condensation, so they must be in good supply and part of the full picture.

Condensation that leads to precipitation occurs in steps, with tiny droplets coming first, followed by formation of larger particles. This is not something we are ready to study for current purposes. We are only interested in oncoming molecules that do not stop to condense, or are at least able to bypass the rest of them and keep on moving. The imagery gives us the impression that this regularly goes on, and should extend the lifetime of these molecules until another slowdown is encountered. The same kind of selection process is likely to be repeated, again reducing the number of molecules that survive and keep on moving. We must not forget that those that do keep moving always have a natural tendency to do so in the direction of the pole. The number that actually succeed in reaching the pole, or just entering the heart of the polar zone, will always be greatly reduced from those that began the journey. The ones that make it will bring with them greenhouse energy capability they began with, per molecule, but now that capability will be effectively magnified because of its relationship to the relatively small number of molecules already in place. Low-atmosphere PW molecules in the high latitudes have major supply limitations to begin with, and those that exist have little inclination to move around.

The overall picture that emerges is that the average lifetime for all PW (or water vapor) molecules that enter the upper level of the atmosphere is subject to the average number of slowdown incidents they will face as they travel through the zone. The same result should occur if the typical incident is a little less potent than normal, or if the incidents that do occur are less effectively located in relation to the actual tracking positions of molecules that are on the move. Jetstream wind formations are understandably responsible for most slowdown incidents, and these winds are notorious for the great variety of ways they can position themselves. How they become organized, and what outcomes to expect as a result, could become a major subject of scientific study some day. Weak winds that are positioned just right may end up being more effective than stronger ones that are not, etc.

All this material contains some new things that are running through my mind for the first time today, and will no doubt need quite a bit of further reviewed and editing.  The ideas do have a good feel at the moment, offering possible answers to the original question. Thus: when the average lifetime of PW molecules increases, within this venue, the ones that will have caused the increase to happen will be those that have succeeded in extending their movement the longest distance, taking them all the way into places where their greenhouse energy capability will have its greatest effect, which can only mean in or around the polar zone. Couldn’t more lifetime plus more effective power be classified as a “force multiplier” with serious consequences?

Carl

How is Earth’s greenhouse energy amplified by precipitable water (PW) contents in the upper atmosphere? This is a good question, one that, if true, deserves a better answer than any I have offered so far in these letters. I want to dig more deeply into the details. Without a good answer, parts 2 and 3 of Carl’s theory may still be of interest but they become inconsequential as valid indicators of acceleration in the speed of climate change. The easiest approach to answering would be to blame an acceleration of raw supply of PW to the upper atmosphere, with more and more water vapor entering the streams that are swiftly lofted upward from points of origin at the surface. This could be true, and could make a difference, but factual evidence is lacking, and anyway it’s not what the theory says. The theory is about how fixed concentrations of PW gain leverage that adds to their warming effect when they are allowed to increase their freedom of movement. The theory and actual practice both need to be described in terms of maximum clarity and rationality.

There is a presumption, based on theories presented in part 1, that any doubling of total PW content in the atmosphere overhead, however accomplished, will quickly add about 10C to surface temperatures via additional greenhouse energy effects. That claim can be challenged elsewhere, but for this purpose acceptance can be given. Here we are saying, based on evidence from imagery, that PW stream concentrations, upon arrival in the upper atmosphere, are of considerably high strength to begin with, having densities that may account for as much as 20 or 30kg, per square meter, of the ensuing total. The lower part of the atmosphere might very well end up containing a share that is less than that, by weight, in the same square meter. The theory proceeds from this entry point based on the idea that these high-altitude concentrations are moving rapidly, and never stop moving if no barriers are encountered. Moreover, again barring any kind of interference, the direction of movement will always be toward higher and higher latitudes. PW concentrations that exist closer to the surface have no such option. They have no particular momentum or freedom of movement to begin with, no sense of direction, and may not be moving at all. Whatever is in place is largely derived from local sources, such as they are, of a widely assorted composition. There is a pronounced tendency for these totals to continuously decline with with rising latitudes. As an ultimate consequence, total PW values, as gathered from both atmospheric levels, declines from around 40-50kg near the edge of the tropics all the way down to less than 1kg in the heart of the polar zones.

If relatively high concentrations of PW in the upper atmosphere were to stay at a constant level, and have complete freedom of movement, in a direction that carries them over progressively lower and lower PW concentrations in the lower atmosphere, and if the full value of these concentrations is always added together in the making of a determination of surface temperatures, it seems unavoidable that changes from leverage must be taken into account as a result of this movement. The low ambient PW values found in upper latitudes will be more affected by the overhead passage of a constant high-altitude PW value than will higher ambient values at a lower latitude by overhead passage of this same PW concentration as the stream which carries it moves across one and then the other in quick succession. Of course nature is more complicated than this with respect to the overhead passage but the basic principle will still be there when high-altitude concentrations do not remain constant as we know to be the usual case. (To be continued.)

Carl

Part 2 of Carl’s theory describes the mechanism that facilitates the poleward movement of precipitable water (PW) in the upper level of the atmosphere. All PW enters this zone in the form of steadily flowing streams of water vapor that originate in surface waters (or by transpiration) along the borders of the tropical belt. The stream contents must stay in motion in order to survive. Being jammed up or completely stopped quickly leads to life-shortening precipitation. The motion itself has a directional bias, in the form of a pronounced tendency of poleward migration, applicable to all PW concentrations as long as they remain active. The progress of every particular act of migration is primarily determined by the nature of prevailing local wind activity, which is subject to unique trends of variability. Today’s letter will focus on images of the current status of critical factors that regularly impose their combined effect on wind patterns that unfold in the upper level of the NH atmosphere. It all begins with the actual status of surface air temperatures:

As described in previous letters, these temperatures have a direct effect on the configuration of upper-level air pressure differentials, mainly transmitted by upward pressures that are dependent on varying thermal expansion rates of the air at the surface.  The blue zone in the configuration map represents the imprint created from below by subfreezing surface temperatures; the green zone by temperatures in the range of zero to about 10C. (Land surfaces tend to be more accurate than oceans in the transmission of this effect.) Everything above 10C ends up in the red zone.

These map shadings provide us with a very helpful guide to the positioning and strength of major jetstream pathways and the winds they carry, as expressed daily in the upper atmosphere. Three such pathways demand most of our attention. The innermost of these, now nearly defunct, surrounds the perimeter of the blue zone. The next pathway is located on or near the perimeter of the green zone. On close examination, I think the most apt description of its location shows it splitting into a secondary fit with the more darkly-shaded green track that always runs just inside the lighter green perimeter. The snake-like meandering of this track gives the stream a bit of extra play-action. The third major pathway is found well to the inside of the red zone, along the line where light and dark red shades are adjacent and in sharp contrast. All three of these pathways can be traced out at any time by doing daily map comparisons. In some places the winds may disappear but isobars still reveal the location of the pathway:

What I have learned is that the blue zone and green zone pathways are the most efficient at blocking the migration of PW concentrations, setting up barriers that are difficult to cross. Wind velocities always make critical differences in their effectiveness. Jet winds on the red zone pathway, regardless of velocity, tend to function more as carriers of PW rather than barriers. Their carrying motion is mainly from west to east, which is only a minor hindrance to poleward migration. Large concentrations of PW regularly manage to cross over to the pole side of these winds and continue on in the more favored way. Today’s result has all the earmarks:

The area covered by the green zone has indeed been kept fairly clear of PW intrusions, with one exception—the mass moving directly into the polar zone from northwestern Canada.  When you look closely at the air pressure map you can easily pick out the weakness inside the green zone that is allowing this to happen.  The weakness was there in the first place because of warmer than usual surface temperatures already present in that area, as depicted by the temperature map at the top.  That warm area will be intensifying today because of its exposure to the high level of greenhouse energy now being provided by the incoming PW stream.  As it intensifies it will deepen its imprint on high-altitude air pressure differentials. That’s how self-reinforcing feedback loops extend themselves.  This rupture in the green zone could soon cause it to split into two pieces, by kinking to a smaller rupture can be seen emerging on the opposite side. Each new piece will have its own perimeter jetstream pathway, both of them more penetrable than the one we now see.

Carl

A current heat wave in western Asia can be compared with the one that just happened in the Pacific Northwest. The territory I have in mind appears on this map as a distinct feature just east of the Caspian Sea, where maximum temperatures up to 48C (115 F) are being indicated at a latitude on line with that of Oregon plus northern California. Similar heating farther south is mostly attributed to more desert-like conditions where temperatures at this level are closer to normal:

The next map has the actual anomalies for this entire region, in this case reported as daily averages, not maximums. The selected area is mostly showing +5-8C, which is very similar to those we saw in the Pacific Northwest at a high point on June 28 (see CL#1967). This gives us an opportunity to check out some of the details comparing how these high temperatures were created under the concepts stated in Carl’s theory. This latest one is especially interesting because there is a large area immediately north of the high anomaly area that has a cool type of anomaly along with extensive cloud cover and a patch of rain, which will be good for a followup review:

Let’s go directly to the cloud and rain map to gain a perspective of the full setup. The clear sky to the south is similar to conditions that prevailed in the Pac NW over the bulk of its heat wave. Referring to the previous map, note how abruptly the anomaly changed from warm to cool, with net differences ranging from about 7C up to a total of maybe 15C including the rainy area, as soon as cloud cover took effect:

This is a great piece of information, because it gives us an exceptionally clear marker that can be applied to calculations aimed at estimating the strength of cloud top albedo reflection under current seasonal conditions. To make this work properly we need to know what current precipitable water (PW) values look like across the region, so that map comes next:

Given that we don’t know what the PW historical average for the region is for this day, in this case we can simply set any estimate of that number aside. What we do know is that current PW readings around 30kg are undoubtedly on the relatively high side, as expected, and show a relatively consistent mixture across the entire area that includes clouds, no clouds, and clouds with rain. I interpret this to mean that the observed shift in temperature anomalies is practically all being caused by differences in cloud albedo and relatively little by variations in PW numbers. Will the great strength of these albedo numbers be maintained when solar factors in the NH are reduced in months to come? I have doubts, but plan to keep finding good examples of quality evidence like this one.

This same heat wave also provides climate scientists with an opportunity to test the “heat dome” theory of explanation for high temperature extremes that has been gaining popularity (see CL# 1972 on July 5). High air pressure is said to have a role in shaping the structure of the dome, in compressing the dome’s contents, and in bringing trapped heat down to the surface. I have been looking for a source of diagrams or instrumental imagery that would give us a clear visual demonstration of how this works. The air pressure readings in Today’s Weather Maps include an area of high pressure in far western Asia that does not line up well enough to be helpful for this purpose, but will keep looking for other things:

Carl

Carl’s theory is now reasonably complete as far as major claims and conclusions are concerned. I can already think about some details that need to be added and also expect the theory to need corrections or adjustments here and there. One thing I’ve learned while doing this is that for some reason precipitable water (PW), broadly speaking, is not something that people are curious about. Hardly anyone in the sciences has found any kind of reason for being interested. Water vapor by itself gets a little bit of attention but PW is only rarely mentioned in any context. This leaves me with a responsibility for doing my own critical review, which is difficult when so many things that seem obvious are not even open for debate. Can’t do much about it other than to keep on talking and reviewing.

The theory is focused on just one of PW’s features, its greenhouse energy effect.  The full effect only emerges for explanation purposes following recognition of the way PW’s presence in the atmosphere is divided, which is only to a strictly limited extent.  The great majority of all water vapor emissions remain inside the tropical region for its entire lifetime, in spaces directly above the waters where the bulk of all evaporation occurs.  My theory does not cover this portion because it is not divided into distinct upper and lower zones like those that appear on both sides, to the north or south, beyond the tropical belt. Specific activity that entirely takes place in the upper zones, once it has been recognized, is what should be able to generate a maximum level of interest in the sciences.  PW’s presence in the zones of each hemisphere is divided following the same basic principles, but the events that go on from there are of substantially different character, and so are the outcomes of these events. That means PW’s greenhouse energy effect can show wide variations on the surface temperatures of each hemisphere.  My theory tries to realistically explain how and why these events are so different, usual visual imagery as evidence, and therefore why the outcomes that hang on the course of these events do not match.  I think this is truly groundbreaking sort of effort, allowing no room for quick acceptance, but everyday curiosity should at least be aroused now and then. The theory does offer at least a partial explanation for why the NH has been warming up so fast over the past 30 years while the SH is lagging far behind, now more than ever.

The final conclusion of Carl’s theory, as drawn up in part 3, is that PW’s greenhouse effect, activated exclusively by events that take place within one level of atmospheric division, has a large share of responsibility for accelerating the pace of climate change. Complete acceleration is only happening in one hemisphere for the time being, which is of small comfort because the one continent where air temperatures are showing stability at this time is uninhabitable. PW’s greenhouse effect does have an impact over most other land regions in the SH, much like in the north, but without the same source of acceleration. The overall impact in the south is otherwise reduced by differences commonly expressed on ocean surfaces, which disproportionately favors the SH with respect to air temperatures but not to subsurface warming, which the theory cannot cover, and is troublesome in its own way.

Carl