Part 1 of Carl’s theory can easily be validated. In fact, simply out of respect for doing good science it should have been validated a long time ago, before such a theory even existed. What is basically required is nothing more than a systematic study of all the different kinds of surface temperature anomalies that appear every day on our familiar weather maps. Why would any scientist with a professional interest in climate and weather conditions not want to know every detail about their causation? Meteorologists certainly have good reason to be interested. Climate scientists should at the very least be curious. They can see that the anomalies are constantly changing, that new records are set every so often, and that some anomalies develop into long-lasting heatwaves, or coldwaves, or other kinds of waves that may be signals of something happening behind the scenes, perhaps as forerunners of deep changes in the climate itself over time.
A systematic study of anomalies would begin with an effort to identify everything that could possibly act as one of the causes—presuming that more than one cause is likely for each anomaly. All of the potential causes can be sorted out and classified with respect to things like regular and irregular magnitude, seasonality, timing and sustainability. That will weed out all the things that are very important but extremely rare, like a volcano eruption, or that may be very common but almost meaningless in importance. What remains could end up on a short list worthy of daily observation and study. Such a list can be modified at any time. If the answers found do not add up in explaining some of the anomalies that occur, the best response would be to go out looking for whatever may have simply been overlooked, or has previously been ruled out for the wrong reasons. Reducing the explanation gap should be an imperative, even if dogmatic teachings need to be temporarily set aside. (E.g., is the Clausius-Clapeyron equation truly a reliable guide to water vapor’s condensation rate at high altitudes?)
Today there is an area on the north coast of Siberia that is reporting an anomaly of about +20C. A similar anomaly was noted in about the same location yesterday, pictured in my letter along with some explanatory thoughts and imagery. For good measure I’ll show the same view as it looks today, including all the companion anomalies that are not quite as warm:
Why is it +20C in that one spot? Why yesterday, why again today? What makes it different? Where did so much extra heat come from? These are questions that require answers, and if you happen to be a climate scientist reading this letter, or a meteorologist, you should be equipped with possible answers. If not, what holds you back? What are you waiting for? I’ll be glad to offer some assistance. While formulating Carl’s theory I have uncovered sources of all the necessary information except for one thing. I do not know exactly what the average value of the total weight of precipitable water (PW), as usually measured, is for this location, or any other, on any one day of the year during the same or approximate baseline period used in determining the temperature anomaly. I have to do some guessing to come up with that one number. The data needed to compose those averages should be stored somewhere, and scientists should be able to get their hands on it and have someone extract the exact numbers—here and everywhere else, every day. Historical averages for things like snow cover and cloud cover (for calculating its albedo effects) would also be nice to know. Temperature changes based on additional atmospheric concentrations of CO2, methane and other well-mixed greenhouse gases are always available. Excluding feedbacks, we know they now account for a total of around +1 degree for all daily anomalies.
Carl