Climate Letter #2057

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