Climate Letter #1691

Putting yesterday’s letter into a larger perspective.

For some time now I have been dishing out ideas mostly based on observations derived from the U of Maine’s Climate Weather Maps.  The ideas center on finding explanations behind the formation of major temperature anomalies that are constantly coming and going over all parts of the globe.  One of them found an important role for large streams of water vapor that continually arise from particular types of tropical ocean water and are then lofted high into the atmosphere, where they typically head off toward one of the poles. The streams, including different products of condensation, are always carried along by wind currents which from time to time intersect with other winds that may or may not be of assistance in advancing the course of any stream so encountered. The vapors in these streams, as with any other kind of gas, are always seeking to escape confinement and fully diffuse if and when they are able to do so.  Meanwhile, from their aerial position, they are at all times capable of generating a strong greenhouse warming effect on air temperatures below. (I believe this effect due to vapor alone is augmented by various products of condensation within the streams, subject to many uncertainties.)

Another set of ideas found an important role in the construction and behavior of jetsteam winds, seen tracing out pathways that normally encircle the globe while regularly shifting in position and exhibiting intermittent outbursts of accelerated speed.  These winds from time to time encounter the same winds that are bearing water vapor streams, sometimes in a friendly way and at other times forcing a change of course or blocking passage entirely.  These interactions are always reflected as modifications to the distribution of greenhouse effects on the air below.  In the very recent past, note has been taken of the apparent weakening of the ability of jetstream winds over the Northern Hemisphere to obstruct the advances of the water vapor streams, allowing consistent penetration of more vapor and its warming power deep into the heart of the Arctic polar region.

One more idea that is critical to the formation of large temperature anomalies involves calculations of the true strength of the greenhouse effect of water vapor. This gains importance because the ambient amount of water vapor close to the planetary surface declines by as much as two orders of magnitude between the equator and the poles. Any addition of overhead vapor, regardless of its altitude, could thus have tremendous leverage in the driest locations if there is enough of it. Weather map information commonly leads to observations of additions great enough to provide as much as a full doubling (or two) of vapor at one time. Further, it can be seen from multiple map images that any one doubling of total overhead water content, as long as it persists, leads to anomalous warming of about 10 degrees C for the surface-level air over any land or ice-covered surface (but much less for ocean surfaces) having a seasonally maximum amount of sunlight.

Yesterday’s letter added an important element to this combined set of ideas because it offered an explanation for the apparent weakening of the regular jetstream “shield” in the north and its ability to resist invasive water streams. (The streams themselves could at the same time conceivably be growing stronger in terms of total volume of water in transit because of a higher evaporation rate from warming oceans, but I know of no source for that kind of data.) Changes in the density of air in different parts of the atmosphere can now be viewed—at least tentatively—as a key factor of control over changes in the structure and behavior of jetstream winds. These changes in density, in turn, can easily be perceived as a product of sustained increases in temperature anomalies. Altogether, at this point we are left with the image of a feedback loop of uncertain durability, and also with a number of questions about the implications for many traditional studies of global climate conditions, of pertinence to the past as well as the future.

This morning it occurred to me that these ideas, depending on their accuracy and acceptance, could be incorporated into any broad field of study that is concerned with evolutionary changes in the construction of the atmosphere that may lead to large-scale deformation. A good name for such studies in their entirety would be “aerial tectonic theory.” The term is descriptive in its own right, and also draws attention to parallels with the study of deformation of the Earth’s crust, which have been advancing over the past century.with so many implications of revolutionary character. (The whole idea of tectonic deformation apparently originated a number of centuries ago in relation to studies of load-bearing architecture.) Today, whenever you take a close look at the 500hPa maps you are getting a good view of aerial deformation of possibly historic proportions, not to be shrugged off as an inconsequential temporary blip.

There are implications here for the field of climate science that many climate scientists may find disturbing.  In particular, they challenge the iconic belief that the power of water vapor to cause changes in air temperature, as great as it may be, is not only strictly limited but also under complete control via the relative content of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere.  I’ll save that story for another day.

Carl