I
can tell the WORLD over and over again that Water Vapor is the MAJOR
GREENHOUSE GAS. Unfortunately, most of the public has only heard
about Carbon Dioxide and can not name the other Greenhouse Gases. The
one that is most deadly is Water Vapor because it is 75% of Global
Heating. CO2 is about ten percent. CO2 is famous because it upset a
beautiful balance in nature that had allowed humans to develop on
this planet and create civilizations in the past 10,000 years of the
five Billion years this planet has been going around the sun.
Ha!
Imagine that! Planet Earth has been here 5 Billion Years and in just
the last 10 Thousand years man has set out to destroy it. Makes you
wonder if our species is worthy of life?
As
we approach 16 C Global Average Surface Temperature (GAST), all HELL
is going to break loose. We can clearly see it in all of the
Interglacials. What happens in those Abrupt Peaks and Crashes is
totally independent of the Milankovich Cycles that do not cause
Abrupt Heating and Abrupt Cooling, as those cycles do things
gradually over a thousand years or more.
As
we know now, the "Cooling Cycle" of the Milankovitch Cycle
should have us deep in an Ice Age. Unfortunately, the Greenhouse
gases have held off the Global Ice Age Cooling and are now commanding
Abrupt Global Heating.
What
we have seen happen in the middle of the past four large
Interglacials is exactly what we are going to see in the near future
for our civilization. A sudden rise and a sudden fall are going to be
driven by the effects of a rapid increase in water vapor and cloud
cover in the atmosphere.
WE
have between ZERO and FOUR PERCENT Water Vapor in our atmosphere
right now. The average is about 2 percent. As the planet continues to
warm that can go up to above 3% or more for total water vapor in the
atmosphere and that addition of water vapor will be sudden and
consistent with a sudden heat rise.
ONE
DRIVES THE OTHER AND THE OTHER DRIVES THE ONE.
That
will kill most of us on the planet from Heat Stroke and Starvation as
you can NOT grow crops above 104 degrees Fahrenheit and with the
recent warming, most of our farmland is already seeing 104 degrees
and higher. Higher temperatures result in crop death. Most of them
just lay down in the fields and die.
The
oceans are way overheated already and they are warming the atmosphere
and as the atmosphere warms it accepts more water vapor that will
cause an abrupt heating transient that will take Global Average
Surface Temperature (GAST) up to 17 degrees C or 18 degrees C on the
chart below. That is just 2 to 3 degrees Celsius warmer than we are
right now (15 C GAST) but those first two degrees are going to cause
a lot of death.
When
the condensing Water Vapor gets too heavy in the atmosphere, cumulus
clouds will start to block out the sun and we will have abrupt Global
Cooling that will take down to 4 C or 5 C GAST
After almost 30 years of looking at climate change I am more than confident that I understand what is happening and roughly where it is taking us - far, far faster than anyone expected. So much so that I am able to identify where many mainstream scientists are telling us only half the truth about exactly how dire it all is.
The change has become so rapid that I have been able to monitor it almost in real time. That is what I have been doing over the summer melt period in the Arctic, along with Margo.
Much of what I have picked up has given me a very troubled heart - partially because the actual data has reinforced just how bad things are. It has also made me realise that there is a lot that we are not being told.
In fact, we are being lied to.
In recent months I have been observing the skies above us and noticing strange phenomena that in 62 years I have never seen before.
For example this:
However, it is this that has given me source for thought.
This photo was taken in another hemisphere yesterday and looks uncannily like what I have been seeing here in New Zealand.
Except that they have had this for a long time, while this is new in this part of the planet - at least in my eyes.
And then there is this photo taken above Reno Nevada yesterday by NASA satellite. What are those thin lines running horizontally across the picture?
And again, here is a picture from here.
We are seeing a lot of clouds that are wispy cirrus cloud but also clouds that are running like tramslines across the sky.
Ask anyone to explain these phenomena and one will oftentimes get the lazy response that "for every degree C rise in temperature we will see 10% more water vapour."
What I get from all this is that there is very little understanding of clouds and their importance.
So it is no accident that most of us know little or nothing about the importance of water vapour and clouds so some of the climate change sceptic researchers are also unfamiliar with this.
According to the author of this article the whole connection between water vapour and clouds is a case of the "cat
is out of the bag"
However, water vapour is recognised in climate science as a major player (and has been regarded as such for some time now)
Still
from animation showing global distribution of atmospheric water vapor
The distribution of atmospheric water vapor, a significant greenhouse
gas, varies across the globe. During the summer and fall of 2005,
this visualization shows that most vapor collects at tropical
latitudes, particularly over south Asia, where monsoon thunderstorms
swept the gas some 2 miles above the land.
Water
vapor is known to be Earth’s most abundant greenhouse gas, but the
extent of its contribution to global warming has been debated. Using
recent NASA satellite data, researchers have estimated more precisely
than ever the heat-trapping effect of water in the air, validating
the role of the gas as a critical component of climate change.
Andrew
Dessler and colleagues from Texas A&M University in College
Station confirmed that the heat-amplifying effect of water vapor is
potent enough to double the climate warming caused by increased
levels of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere.
Most people are aware of solar energy management whether as a proposal or as an existing reality.
However, as the following will make clear there are psoposals to use contrails from commercila aircraft (rather than military aircraft that are putatively behind the "chemtrail" phenomenon and the spraying with toxic heavy metals such as aluminium etc
FEATHERY
cirrus clouds are beautiful, but when it comes to climate change,
they are the enemy. Found at high-altitude and made of small ice
crystals, they trap heat – so more cirrus means a warmer world. Now
it seems that, by destroying cirrus, we could reverse all the warming
Earth has experienced so far.
In
2009, David Mitchell of the Desert Research Institute in Reno,
Nevada, proposed a radical way to stop climate change: get rid of
some cirrus. Now Trude Storelvmo of Yale University and colleagues
have used a climate model to test the idea.
Storelvmo
added powdered bismuth triiodide into the model’s troposphere, the
layer of the atmosphere in which these clouds form. Ice crystals grew
around these particles and expanded, eventually falling out of the
sky, reducing cirrus coverage. Without the particles, the ice
crystals remained small and stayed up high for longer.
The
technique, done on a global scale, created a powerful cooling effect,
enough to counteract the 0.8 °C of warming caused by all the
greenhouse gases released by humans (Geophysical Research Letters,
DOI: 10.1002/grl.50122).
“A
powerful cooling effect was created – enough to counteract all the
human-induced global warming”
But
too much bismuth triiodide made the ice crystals shrink, so cirrus
clouds lasted longer. “If you get the concentrations wrong, you
could get the opposite of what you want,” says Storelvmo. And, like
other schemes for geoengineering, side effects are likely – changes
in the jet stream, say.
Different
model assumptions give different “safe” amounts of bismuth
triiodide, says Tim Lenton of the University of Exeter, UK. “Do we
really know the system well enough to be confident of being in the
safe zone?” he asks. “You wouldn’t want to touch this until you
knew.”
Mitchell
says seeding would take 140 tonnes of bismuth triiodide every year,
which by itself would cost $19 million.
"In
fact, clouds have about 10 times the impact on climate that man-made
greenhouse-gas emissions do, said Brian Toon, a researcher at the
University of Colorado at Boulder who wasn't involved in the study.
"The largest uncertainty in understanding climate change is
understanding clouds, since they are so much more important," he
said"
Does this mean that whatever they say should therefore be disregarded?
To
me that would be like rejecting scientific knowledge about abrupt
climate change because of what the likes of Michael Mann have to say.
That would clearly be presposterous.
The
author of the article does have part of the puzzle and accurately cites
the reasearch and makes his own (often fallacious) conclusions.
The following are some extracts from his article:
After
millions of concerned citizens resoundingly denounced the airline
industry for clouding their skies, after all the media mockery of the
chemtrail community, a stunning admission from the scientific
community: if climate engineers melt cirrus clouds we may never need
to do Stratospheric Aerosol Injection (SAI), a form of Geoengineering
Solar Radiation Management (SRM) to cool the planet. This
statement follows Chuck Long’s statement from NOAA’s Earth
Systems Research Lab that aircraft
are “accidentally geoengineering” the planet with ice haze.
With masterfully planned verbal ninjitsu these scientists conflate
weather modification and geoengineering, cloud seeding and cloud
thinning, and cloud condensation nuclei (CCN, aerosols, or cloud
seeds) suddenly become ice-nucleating particles (INP). I will now
clear the air on the shady nature of Cirrus Cloud Seeding and
help you understand the seriousness of Cirrus Clouds!
Here are some citations:
“Contrails
formed by aircraft can evolve into cirrus clouds indistinguishable
from those formed naturally. These ‘spreading contrails’ may be
causing more
climate warming today than all the carbon dioxide emitted by aircraft
since the start of aviation.”
[1]
and
“A
single aircraft operating in conditions favorable for persistent
contrail formation appears to exert a contrail-induced
radiative forcing some 5000 times greater than recent estimates of
the average persistent contrail radiative forcing from the entire
civil aviation fleet.” [2]
These
two research papers showed a gaping hole in computer models:
aerosols, how they form clouds, and their effects on the climate.
2013
“Aerosol-cloud interactions are one of the main uncertainties in
climate research.” [3]
Ulrich
Schumman, one of the world’s top researchers on contrail-induced
cirrus clouds made this statement in 2010 to the ICAO:
Both
aspects (soot and flight routing) offer the potential for aviation to
reduce the climate impact of aviation (less soot emissions, LESS
WARMING and MORE COOLING CONTRAILS, predictable for
OPERATIONAL PLANNING) [5]
His
statement piqued my curiosity so I asked Dr. Rangasayi Halthore, the
head of the FAA’s Aviation Climate Change Research Initiative
(ACCRI), what did Schumman mean?
Contrails
during day cause cooling because of reflecting of sunlight back
into space. During night, they trap infrared heat causing
heating. So it is a balance between the two time
intervals. We would
like to have more CICs (contrail-induced cirrus clouds)
during day and none during night. FAA
Scientist: We Want Clouds By Day, None By Night
So
imagine my lack of surprise when I read this, dated July 21, 2017:
If
the time and place of seeding is selected with care, the climate
effect of cirrus
thinning can
be enhanced. For that, only the long-wave warming effect of cirrus
clouds should be targeted, and their solar effect should be avoided.
This can be achieved if seeding
is limited to high-latitude winters or to nighttime
seeding. [6] Climate
Change and Geoengineering: Artificially Cooling Planet Earth by
Thinning Cirrus Clouds
“Cirrus
clouds frequently form through homogeneous nucleation of liquid
aerosol particles such as sulfuric or nitric acid. Alternatively,
they can form through heterogeneous nucleation with the help of solid
aerosol particles such as desert dust, pollen, or other biological
particles, which act as ice-nucleating particles (INPs). The cirrus
cloud thinning concept is based on the assumption that most cirrus
clouds in the present climate nucleate homogeneously.”
“The
cooling effect of seeded cirrus clouds has three contributions.
First, the cirrus clouds form at lower relative humidities that occur
at lower altitudes in the atmosphere (see the figure), where they
have a smaller warming effect. Second, because the number
concentration of INPs is much lower than that of solution droplets,
heterogeneously formed cirrus clouds contain fewer ice crystals.
These ice crystals can grow to larger sizes and sediment more readily
from cirrus levels, reducing the lifetime and optical thickness of
cirrus clouds and hence their warming potential. Third, sedimenting
ice crystals remove water vapor, the most important natural
greenhouse gas, from the upper troposphere.
If
cirrus thinning works, it should be preferred over methods that
target changes in solar radiation, such as stratospheric aerosol
injections,
because cirrus thinning would counteract greenhouse gas warming more
directly. Solar radiation management methods cannot simultaneously
restore temperature and precipitation at present-day levels but lead
to a reduction in global mean precipitation because of the decreased
solar radiation at the surface. This adverse effect on precipitation
is minimized for cirrus seeding because of the smaller change in
solar radiation.”
“One
problem with cirrus seeding is overseeding, which occurs if too many
INPs are injected. In overseeding, the cirrus clouds become optically
thicker, leading to warming. … In addition, seeding needs to be
avoided in cloud-free regions with high relative humidities where no
cirrus clouds form. Here, seeding with INPs could lead to cirrus
clouds that cause a warming effect on the climate, same as that from
contrails. … Thus, if cirrus seeding is not done carefully, the
effect could be additional warming rather than the intended cooling.”
The
results from model studies of cirrus thinning suggest that the
perfect seeding INPs should be large and that seeding could be
geographically or temporally limited. Bismuth
triiodide (BiI3) has been suggested as a nontoxic and affordable
substance for cirrus seeding; other substances such as mineral
dust should work as well. [ED
NOTE: like David
Keith’s aluminum nano-particle idea?
Sounds like SAI at a different altitude to me]
However,
further research is needed to investigate which particles would be
good seeding agents. It is also important to determine whether these
INPs also influence lower-lying clouds, and if so, whether this
enhances or dampens the effect of cirrus thinning.
If
the time and place of seeding is selected with care, the climate
effect of cirrus thinning can be enhanced. For that, only the
long-wave warming effect of cirrus clouds should be targeted, and
their solar effect should be avoided. This can be achieved if seeding
is limited to high-latitude winters or to nighttime seeding. Contrary
to solar radiation management methods, cirrus seeding is more
effective at high than at low latitudes. A
small-scale deployment of cirrus seeding could therefore be
envisioned—for instance, in the Arctic to avoid further melting of
Arctic sea ice. Governance
of such local climate engineering might be easier to
achieve than
for solar radiation management, especially if substantial climate
effects outside the targeted region could be avoided. [6]
[2]
Haywood, J. M., R. P. Allan, J. Bornemann, P. Forster, P. N. Francis,
S. Milton, G. Rädel, A. Rap, K. P. Shine, and R. Thorpe (2009), A
case study of the radiative forcing of persistent contrails evolving
into contrail-induced cirrus, J. Geophys. Res., 114, D24201,
doi:10.1029/2009JD012650.
– http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/2009JD012650/abstract
[3]
Ulrike Lohmann, Miriam Kübbeler, Johannes Hendricks and Bernd
Kärcher “Dust ice nuclei effects on cirrus clouds in ECHAM5-HAM”
AIP Conf. Proc. 1527, 752 (2013); http://dx.doi.org/10.1063/1.4803380
As
part of the Paris Agreement in 2015, nearly 200 world leaders agreed
to curb greenhouse gas emissions and strive to keep temperatures at
1.5 degrees Celsius above pre-industrial levels in order to avoid
dangerous and irreversible climate change by the end of the century.
At
present, climate scientists regard warming of two degrees above
pre-industrial levels as the threshold for global warming. After this
point, extreme weather will become more likely—increasing the risks
of storms, droughts and a rise in sea levels. Consequences include
food and water scarcity, and increased migration as parts of the
planet become uninhabitable.
If
global emissions continue on their current trajectory, some
scientists estimate we will surpass the two-degree limit by 2050. And
with Donald Trump poised to pull the U.S. out of the Paris Agreement,
the chance of achieving the set target looks even less likely.
Over
recent decades, scientists from across the globe have been discussing
the potential of geoengineering—the deliberate manipulation of the
environment that could, in theory, cool the planet and help stabilize
the climate.
There
are main two types of geoengineering. The first involves removing
carbon dioxide from the atmosphere and storing it. This is already
being done on an industrial scale, but it is not effective enough at
the moment to cope with the huge levels of emissions. The other type,
solar radiation management, is more radical—an attempt to reduce
the amount of sunlight absorbed by the planet by reflecting it away.
Many
ways of doing this have been proposed. One of the most widely
discussed (and riskiest) involves the injection of reflective
aerosols into the upper atmosphere. This plan is based on the cooling
effect of volcanoes: Sulfur dioxide emitted in an eruption causes the
formation of droplets of sulfuric acid. These reflect the sunlight
away, creating a cooling effect. But this plan could also go very
wrong. The sulfuric acid could strip away the ozone layer, leaving
Earth completely exposed to the sun’s radiation.
(There
is some evidence that this is
happening, Certainly, the much-vaunted recovery is a myth - SMR)
In
an article published in the journal Science, Ulrike Lohmann and Blaž
Gasparini, from the ETH Zurich, in Switzerland, discuss a variation
of this idea: the thinning of cirrus clouds to target the long-wave
radiation coming from Earth.
Cirrus
clouds are thin and wispy clouds that form at high altitudes and do
not reflect much solar radiation back into space, creating a
greenhouse effect. The higher the altitude at which they form, the
larger the warming effect on the climate. And in a warmer climate,
cirrus clouds form at higher altitudes.
So
what if we got rid of them? These clouds could be thinned out—leading
to a reduction in their warming effect—by seeding them with aerosol
particles like sulfuric or nitric acid, which act as “ice
nucleating particles” or INPs. If these are injected into the level
of the atmosphere where cirrus clouds form, the way they form would
be altered, resulting in thinner clouds that have less of a warming
effect.
“The
maximum cirrus seeding potential would be achieved by removing all
cirrus clouds,” they write. “If cirrus thinning works, it should
be preferred over methods that target changes in solar radiation,
such as stratospheric aerosol injections, because cirrus thinning
would counteract greenhouse gas warming more directly.”
But
Lohmann and Gasparini warn that the plan comes with major drawbacks.
It could, they say, lead to even more cirrus clouds being formed,
exacerbating global warming in the process.
The sun rises over an oil field in California’s Monterey Formation.DAVID MCNEW/GETTY IMAGES
“Unintended
cirrus formation is especially pronounced if the seeded INPs start to
nucleate ice at very low relative humidities.... If cirrus seeding is
not done carefully, the effect could be additional warming rather
than the intended cooling. If done carefully, the negative radiative
effect from cirrus seeding should be stronger in a warmer climate, in
which the overall radiative effect of cirrus clouds will be larger.”
Because
of the dangers, the scientists say any plan to thin cirrus clouds
should be limited to specific times and places, where it would be
most effective.
“Contrary to solar radiation management methods,
cirrus seeding is more effective at high than at low latitudes. A
small-scale deployment of cirrus seeding could therefore be
envisioned—for instance, in the Arctic to avoid further melting of
Arctic sea ice,” they say, but the scientists add that there are
many questions that need to be answered before cirrus thinning
can be further explored.
“It
is also important to remember that, like solar radiation management,
cirrus thinning cannot prevent the CO2 increase in the
atmosphere and the resulting ocean acidification,” they conclude.
“For the time being, cirrus cloud thinning should be viewed as a
thought experiment that is helping to understand cirrus
cloud–formation mechanisms.”
****
This
is what we are told. It’s all a concept. What if it was
already happening?
That
is where the controversy begins. In the absence of real countervailing evidence (other than scorn) and based on my own observations and limited research I would have to conclude that is highly likely that some of these ostensibly projected programs are in fact already in use. However, most of this lies in the realm of asking questions rather than being dead certain.
A
new study from scientists at the University of Miami Rosenstiel
School of Marine and Atmospheric Science and colleagues confirms
rising levels of water vapor in the upper troposphere -- a key
amplifier of global warming -- will intensify climate change impacts
over the next decades. The new study is the first to show that
increased water vapor concentrations in the atmosphere are a direct
result of human activities.
For
every 1 degree C we increase the temperature on the planet we see 7%
more moisture in the atmosphere. We are heading to and beyond
the IPCC worst
case scenario of 6C minimum which will generate another 40% of
moisture in the air. This will lead to a greater number of flooding
events and increased number of lightning strikes and Tornadoes.
This
is an enormous amount of energy and associated warming as water
vapour is in itself a green house gas.
“The
impact of climate change may be worse than previously thought, a new
study suggests”: “As
world leaders hold climate talks in Paris, research shows that land
surface temperatures may rise by an average of almost 8C by 2100, if
significant efforts are not made to counteract climate change.”
Personally
I disagree with the suggestion that it will take until the magic 2100
for our locked in 8C temperature rise. Factor in the myriad of
feedback loops and we could be there in a few decades,not that humans
will survive that long to bare witness.
“The
amount of water vapor in the atmosphere exists in direct
relation to the temperature. If you increase the temperature, more
water evaporates and becomes vapor, and vice versa. So when something
else causes a temperature increase (such as extra CO2 from
fossil fuels), more water evaporates. Then, since water vapor is
a green house gas, this additional water vapor causes the
temperature to go up even further—a positive feedback.”
How
much does water vapor amplify CO2 warming? Studies show
that water vapor feed backroughly doubles the amount of warming
caused by CO2. So if there is a 1°C change caused byCO2, the
water vapor will cause the temperature to go up another 1°C. When
other feedbackloops are included, the total
warming from a potential 1°C change caused by CO2 is, in
reality, as much as 3°C.
“A
warmer atmosphere can hold more moisture, and globally water vapour
increases by 7% for every degree centigrade of warming.”
Human-caused
global warming is causing the upper troposphere to become wetter
We
have long suspected that greenhouse gases which cause the Earth to
warm would lead to a wetter atmosphere. The latest research published
by Eul-Seok Chung, Brian Soden, and colleagues provides new insight
into what was thought to be an old problem. In doing so, they
experimentally verified what climate models have been predicting. The
models got it right… again.
To
be clear, this paper does not prove that water vapor is a greenhouse
gas. We have known that for years. Nevertheless, the paper make a
very nice contribution. The authors show that the long-term increase
in water vapor in the upper troposphere cannot have resulted from
natural causes – it is clearly human caused. This conclusion is
stated in the abstract,
Our
analysis demonstrates that the upper-tropospheric moistening observed
over the period 1979–2005 cannot be explained by natural causes and
results principally from an anthropogenic warming of the climate. By
attributing the observed increase directly to human activities, this
study verifies the presence of the largest known feedback mechanism
for amplifying anthropogenic climate change.
As
stated earlier, climate models have predicted this moistening –
before observations were available. In fact, the models predicted
that the upper troposphere would moisten more than the lower
atmospheric layers. As the authors state,
Given
the importance of upper-tropospheric water vapor, a direct
verification of its feedback is critical to establishing the
credibility of model projections of anthropogenic climate change.
To
complete the experiments, the authors used satellite measurements of
radiant heat. The emissions have changed but it wasn’t clear why
they have changed. Changes could be caused by increases in
temperature or from increased water vapor. To separate the potential
effects, the authors compared the first set of experiments with
others made at a different wavelength. That comparison provided a
direct measure of the separate effect of moistening.
Next,
the authors used the world’s best climate models to test whether
the observed trends could be caused by natural changes in the Earth’s
climate or whether they require a human influence. Sure enough, only
the calculations that included human-emitted greenhouse gases matched
the observations. The authors conclude that,
Concerning
the satellite-derived moistening trend in recent decades, the
relations of trend and associated range among three experiments lead
to the conclusion that an increase in anthropogenic greenhouse gases
is the main cause of increased moistening in the upper troposphere.
The
authors then went further by showing that their computed results
encompass third-party measurements only when the impacts of
human-emitted greenhouse gases are included.
I
chuckled when I asked Dr. Andrew Dessler about this study, and he
told me,
Because
of water vapor’s importance as a greenhouse gas, the water vapor
feedback occupies a central role in the climate system. Over the
years, our understanding of this process has increased steadily, and
this paper is a very useful contribution. It nicely demonstrates that
the observations of upper tropospheric moistening are unlikely to
have arisen without the increase in carbon dioxide from human
activities. At this point, I think it would be fair to say, “stick
a fork in it, the water vapor feedback’s done.”
So
once again, observations have confirmed the models and the scientists
can check another item off their “to do” box.
Posts
