The internet offers a unique platform for sharing ideas without the constraints of traditional editorial oversight. This accessibility helps clarify complex processes and fosters open discussion. It's essential to recognize that published scientific information should not be considered the definitive authority on scientific truth; rather, it is part of an ongoing conversation in the scientific community. Only if those publications openly print opposing ideas. Thanks for lifting the fog on this process as well.
I agree and possibly regardless of the extent of such validity the further discussion can help bring more clarity to complex issues of natures subtlety or more caution in the light of such complexity.
In this respect, I can be classified as a veteran. Some of our papers were under review for 4+ years. In the end, you can't but become philosophical.
As a reader commented, "though the peer review process is (obviously) imperfect, at least it exists!" Everyone can send a paper to the Journal of Atmospheric Sciences and get a free evaluation by practicing scientists. It is very valuable, if you think a moment.
I would have thought in regards to the biotic pump, an essential element is the interaction of ice nucleating particles and their effect within a cumulonimbus cloud spire of a cyclone or otherwise to internally redistribute heat not only back to the atmosphere but also vertically through ice movement between upper and lower levels of the atmosphere. This would then charge the lower areas through reduction of pressure by the cooling of the airmass as well as the reduction of pressure through precipitation (although of a smaller magnitude this would still be of importance). Forests in this regard are vitally important as they are the primary source of different nucleating pathways (both condensation and ice nucleation) and as I stated on a previous post that if we have a ladder of precipitation and ice nucleation particles each with their own temperature activation point and take out any of the steps it will be much more difficult for these cloud formations to climb the ladder and hence redistribute the freezing temperatures of the upper atmosphere vertically downwards helping drive the biotic pump.
Our atmosphere is in approximate hydrostatic equilibrium, i.e., air pressure equals the weight of atmospheric column. Therefore, one cannot reduce surface pressure by simply cooling (or warming) the air aloft. The only way to change surface pressure is via changing the amount of air in the column.
From my understanding It is the transition that changes the amount of air in the column that changes the pressure , when water vapor changes to a liquid or solid there is a slight reduction in pressure creating a vacuum, this then creates inertia in the system and feed in dynamics. In the vertical column when a warm air mass interacts with hail falling due to gravity these is increased pressure around the hail reducing overall pressure so when hail drops down a vertical air column it should induce a pressure change proportional to the temperature change and that is why some storm cells create sudden drops in surface pressure . How this then plays into the dynamics of land clearing and the reduction in different nucleation and condensation pathways I would have thought have been of utmost importance on the mechanisms that control the rate of transition. I agree that turbulence in atmospheric movement in relation to temperature would not have much effect without the transition of states but by the same account the removal of mechanisms that can clearly have massive effects on nucleation and condensation pathways clearly changes transformative temperatures.
Heavily researched does not guarantee correct. Even one erroneous assumption in common renders pages of references, papers and citations useless. CAGW’s GHE contains three such assumptions.
GHE claims without it Earth becomes 33 C cooler, a 255 K, -18 C, ball of ice.
Wrong.
Naked Earth would be much like the Moon, barren, 400 K lit side, 100 K dark.
TFK_bams09 heat balance graphic uses the same 63 twice violating GAAP and calculating out of thin air a 396 BB/333 “back”/63 net GHE radiative forcing loop violating LoT 1 & 2.
Wrong.
Likewise, the ubiquitous plethora of clones.
GHE requires Earth to radiate “extra” energy as a BB.
Wrong.
A BB requires all energy leaving the system to do so by radiation. Per TFK_bams09 60% leaves by kinetic modes, i.e. conduction, convection, advection and latent rendering BB impossible.
GHE is bogus and CAGW a scam so alarmists must resort to fear mongering, lies, lawsuits, censorship and violence.
"GHE claims without it Earth becomes 33 C cooler, a 255 K, -18 C, ball of ice.
Wrong.
Naked Earth would be much like the Moon, barren, 400 K lit side, 100 K dark."
I agree with your point about naked Earth, however, the Earth without the greenhouse effect will not be necessarily naked, it can still possess a thick atmosphere which will minimize temperature extremes.
How about the over-Iooked roIe of the impoundment of most of the major/ Iargest rivers in the Siberian Arctic and subarctic 60 years behind dams. What is this doing to gobaI/regionaI and IocaI environments and cIimate? Right up your aIIey Anastassia. The EIephant in the cIoset right in front of your nose.
For 60 years ,HydroeIectric Machinery Throughout The subarctic/ Arctic Continues to Damage
IittIe if any efforts have been made by most scientists to dig into this issue. Most remain in their siIos, rareIy exchanging ideas ,information, and grant monies often come with strings attached. It is a no wonder that there's great acceIeration of CIimate heating. Scientists battIe out differences whiIe "Rome Burns".
But here's the scoop that few are foIIowing the so caIIed CIimate EIephant in the room being dismissed but needs to be deaIt with before we get out from under crushing cIimate.
Of course aII egos aside do we want to take into consideration something right under our noses? Here are two items worth more time and research:
Memorandum
From: Stephen M. Kasprzak
Cc: Climate Staff Date: June 30, 2025
Subject: Arctic water emissions (AWE) from subarctic and Arctic mega hydroelectric power stations(AMPS) are the paramount greenhouse gas driving global warming
The USA EPA’s hypothesis, that human activities - particularly emissions of fossil fuel-heat-trapping greenhouse gases - are most responsible for making our planet warmer is unsound because it fails to recognize the rapid increase in manufactured (AWE).
The annual average temperature in Key West, Florida, has increased by 1.4° F and by more than 6° F since 1952 at some Arctic weather stations. The six month (Jan Apr,Nov,Dec) winter average temperatures have increased as much as 10 degress driven by step increases in precipitation (See attached table, maps and graphs).
The Canadian Arctic and Siberian Arctic are two of the fastest warming regions on Earth. If carbon and methane emissions are the major drivers, and given the minimal solar radiation available to be trapped during the sun starved winters by these fossil fuel greenhouse gases, then Arctic summers (May-Oct), with up to 24 hours of sunlight, should be warming faster or at least equal to the winters. Just the opposite is happening and the winters are warming many times faster according to the weather data in Abbreviated AWE by Stephen Kasprzak, June 24, 2025. This change is driven by extreme and abrupt increases in Arctic water vapor emissions(AWE) and churned Atlantic warmth (CAW) pumped up into estuaries propelled by huge increases of winter river discharges from the warmed, regulated, fIows introduced by Arctic mega power stations (AMPSs). This has been going on for over 55 years.
Water vapor is the most plentiful and powerful greenhouse gas and is vital for maintaining a climate habitable for life on Earth. However, AMPS and their manufactured AWE and CAW have wrecked the natural hydraulic, thermal and salinity equilibrium between the Labrador Current and Gulf Stream. AMPS have also altered the delicate estuarine balance between seasonal freshwater inflows of subarctic and Arctic rivers. The churning AMPS create is acting as a pump, drawing in relatively warmer deep saltwater from the sea in winter through deep gorges and pulling it up to the surface of the estuaries to mix with the regulated discharged waters from these AMPS furthering the heat pollution of the Arctic seas. AWE and CAW must be included in future climate change studies and model.
Cliff, I respect and share your concern about river dams that are highly ecologically disruptive. At the same time I have not seen any quantitative estimates that would convince me that dams matter for global warming and I don't think that such estimates exist but open to evaluate them if they come along my way.
"then Arctic summers (May-Oct), with up to 24 hours of sunlight, should be warming faster or at least equal to the winters" -- from my perspective, this is not so. Arctic warming involves heat transport from other regions, it's not a purely local effect from local greenhouse substances.
The concept of "water vapor emissions" is not a working one, in my view, as water vapor is a condensable gas and everything that's been "emitted" condenses in a few days. Furthermore, evaporation (flux) and atmospheric water vapor content are not necessarily positively related (i.e., there can be more evaporation on a cooler planet with less water vapor in the atmosphere). It is a complicated issue.
Send me a personal email and I will send you detailed data. To say i t' s complicated isn't going to cut the heating problem which as you have read ,we feel is the major heating machinery . Impacts associated with damming large bodies of once forever moving bodies of water, quantitatively add up to large increases of trapped radiant heat stored in the water, summer is stored in that water to be released in winter only, in both liquid and vapor states to the Arctic Oceans and the atmosphere that is in the case of the Arctic unable to condense vapor to clouds but hangs around days and months as warm fog meting Ice and snow and heating the entire regions. Eventually the jet tream graps this latent heat and transports it far enough until it encounters CCnucli. The natural balances maintained by centuries old hydrology cycles of our planet are still being permanently disrupted. You just need to look at the data
Thank You Anastassia. I am glad for your retreat, though I know you were also busy in those long sunny, green days.
I appreciate your determination and rigor.
Your explanations were clear to me all along, but including the encapsulation of the concepts earlier in the explanatory text might be helpful to the reader:
"To stress the key point again: in an intensifying hurricane, more air flows in laterally than flows out, and precipitation removes several times more mass than the net inflow. This removal is what causes the total air mass — and thus pressure — to drop. It follows that even a relatively small change in precipitation could tip the balance, turning an intensifying hurricane into a weakening one."
The internet offers a unique platform for sharing ideas without the constraints of traditional editorial oversight. This accessibility helps clarify complex processes and fosters open discussion. It's essential to recognize that published scientific information should not be considered the definitive authority on scientific truth; rather, it is part of an ongoing conversation in the scientific community. Only if those publications openly print opposing ideas. Thanks for lifting the fog on this process as well.
I agree and possibly regardless of the extent of such validity the further discussion can help bring more clarity to complex issues of natures subtlety or more caution in the light of such complexity.
Sadly, I think you'll find, upon your return, that 1 year was not enough.
In this respect, I can be classified as a veteran. Some of our papers were under review for 4+ years. In the end, you can't but become philosophical.
As a reader commented, "though the peer review process is (obviously) imperfect, at least it exists!" Everyone can send a paper to the Journal of Atmospheric Sciences and get a free evaluation by practicing scientists. It is very valuable, if you think a moment.
I would have thought in regards to the biotic pump, an essential element is the interaction of ice nucleating particles and their effect within a cumulonimbus cloud spire of a cyclone or otherwise to internally redistribute heat not only back to the atmosphere but also vertically through ice movement between upper and lower levels of the atmosphere. This would then charge the lower areas through reduction of pressure by the cooling of the airmass as well as the reduction of pressure through precipitation (although of a smaller magnitude this would still be of importance). Forests in this regard are vitally important as they are the primary source of different nucleating pathways (both condensation and ice nucleation) and as I stated on a previous post that if we have a ladder of precipitation and ice nucleation particles each with their own temperature activation point and take out any of the steps it will be much more difficult for these cloud formations to climb the ladder and hence redistribute the freezing temperatures of the upper atmosphere vertically downwards helping drive the biotic pump.
Our atmosphere is in approximate hydrostatic equilibrium, i.e., air pressure equals the weight of atmospheric column. Therefore, one cannot reduce surface pressure by simply cooling (or warming) the air aloft. The only way to change surface pressure is via changing the amount of air in the column.
From my understanding It is the transition that changes the amount of air in the column that changes the pressure , when water vapor changes to a liquid or solid there is a slight reduction in pressure creating a vacuum, this then creates inertia in the system and feed in dynamics. In the vertical column when a warm air mass interacts with hail falling due to gravity these is increased pressure around the hail reducing overall pressure so when hail drops down a vertical air column it should induce a pressure change proportional to the temperature change and that is why some storm cells create sudden drops in surface pressure . How this then plays into the dynamics of land clearing and the reduction in different nucleation and condensation pathways I would have thought have been of utmost importance on the mechanisms that control the rate of transition. I agree that turbulence in atmospheric movement in relation to temperature would not have much effect without the transition of states but by the same account the removal of mechanisms that can clearly have massive effects on nucleation and condensation pathways clearly changes transformative temperatures.
Heavily researched does not guarantee correct. Even one erroneous assumption in common renders pages of references, papers and citations useless. CAGW’s GHE contains three such assumptions.
GHE claims without it Earth becomes 33 C cooler, a 255 K, -18 C, ball of ice.
Wrong.
Naked Earth would be much like the Moon, barren, 400 K lit side, 100 K dark.
TFK_bams09 heat balance graphic uses the same 63 twice violating GAAP and calculating out of thin air a 396 BB/333 “back”/63 net GHE radiative forcing loop violating LoT 1 & 2.
Wrong.
Likewise, the ubiquitous plethora of clones.
GHE requires Earth to radiate “extra” energy as a BB.
Wrong.
A BB requires all energy leaving the system to do so by radiation. Per TFK_bams09 60% leaves by kinetic modes, i.e. conduction, convection, advection and latent rendering BB impossible.
GHE is bogus and CAGW a scam so alarmists must resort to fear mongering, lies, lawsuits, censorship and violence.
"GHE claims without it Earth becomes 33 C cooler, a 255 K, -18 C, ball of ice.
Wrong.
Naked Earth would be much like the Moon, barren, 400 K lit side, 100 K dark."
I agree with your point about naked Earth, however, the Earth without the greenhouse effect will not be necessarily naked, it can still possess a thick atmosphere which will minimize temperature extremes.
It’s the latent properties of water that provide the thermal inertia to moderate the diurnal temperature swing.
Not just any old atmosphere that can do that.
Molecules are gone by 32 km, 20 miles.
That’s not “thick” by any means.
How about the over-Iooked roIe of the impoundment of most of the major/ Iargest rivers in the Siberian Arctic and subarctic 60 years behind dams. What is this doing to gobaI/regionaI and IocaI environments and cIimate? Right up your aIIey Anastassia. The EIephant in the cIoset right in front of your nose.
For 60 years ,HydroeIectric Machinery Throughout The subarctic/ Arctic Continues to Damage
IittIe if any efforts have been made by most scientists to dig into this issue. Most remain in their siIos, rareIy exchanging ideas ,information, and grant monies often come with strings attached. It is a no wonder that there's great acceIeration of CIimate heating. Scientists battIe out differences whiIe "Rome Burns".
But here's the scoop that few are foIIowing the so caIIed CIimate EIephant in the room being dismissed but needs to be deaIt with before we get out from under crushing cIimate.
Of course aII egos aside do we want to take into consideration something right under our noses? Here are two items worth more time and research:
Memorandum
From: Stephen M. Kasprzak
Cc: Climate Staff Date: June 30, 2025
Subject: Arctic water emissions (AWE) from subarctic and Arctic mega hydroelectric power stations(AMPS) are the paramount greenhouse gas driving global warming
The USA EPA’s hypothesis, that human activities - particularly emissions of fossil fuel-heat-trapping greenhouse gases - are most responsible for making our planet warmer is unsound because it fails to recognize the rapid increase in manufactured (AWE).
The annual average temperature in Key West, Florida, has increased by 1.4° F and by more than 6° F since 1952 at some Arctic weather stations. The six month (Jan Apr,Nov,Dec) winter average temperatures have increased as much as 10 degress driven by step increases in precipitation (See attached table, maps and graphs).
The Canadian Arctic and Siberian Arctic are two of the fastest warming regions on Earth. If carbon and methane emissions are the major drivers, and given the minimal solar radiation available to be trapped during the sun starved winters by these fossil fuel greenhouse gases, then Arctic summers (May-Oct), with up to 24 hours of sunlight, should be warming faster or at least equal to the winters. Just the opposite is happening and the winters are warming many times faster according to the weather data in Abbreviated AWE by Stephen Kasprzak, June 24, 2025. This change is driven by extreme and abrupt increases in Arctic water vapor emissions(AWE) and churned Atlantic warmth (CAW) pumped up into estuaries propelled by huge increases of winter river discharges from the warmed, regulated, fIows introduced by Arctic mega power stations (AMPSs). This has been going on for over 55 years.
Water vapor is the most plentiful and powerful greenhouse gas and is vital for maintaining a climate habitable for life on Earth. However, AMPS and their manufactured AWE and CAW have wrecked the natural hydraulic, thermal and salinity equilibrium between the Labrador Current and Gulf Stream. AMPS have also altered the delicate estuarine balance between seasonal freshwater inflows of subarctic and Arctic rivers. The churning AMPS create is acting as a pump, drawing in relatively warmer deep saltwater from the sea in winter through deep gorges and pulling it up to the surface of the estuaries to mix with the regulated discharged waters from these AMPS furthering the heat pollution of the Arctic seas. AWE and CAW must be included in future climate change studies and model.
Like
Reply (1)
Cliff, I respect and share your concern about river dams that are highly ecologically disruptive. At the same time I have not seen any quantitative estimates that would convince me that dams matter for global warming and I don't think that such estimates exist but open to evaluate them if they come along my way.
"then Arctic summers (May-Oct), with up to 24 hours of sunlight, should be warming faster or at least equal to the winters" -- from my perspective, this is not so. Arctic warming involves heat transport from other regions, it's not a purely local effect from local greenhouse substances.
The concept of "water vapor emissions" is not a working one, in my view, as water vapor is a condensable gas and everything that's been "emitted" condenses in a few days. Furthermore, evaporation (flux) and atmospheric water vapor content are not necessarily positively related (i.e., there can be more evaporation on a cooler planet with less water vapor in the atmosphere). It is a complicated issue.
Send me a personal email and I will send you detailed data. To say i t' s complicated isn't going to cut the heating problem which as you have read ,we feel is the major heating machinery . Impacts associated with damming large bodies of once forever moving bodies of water, quantitatively add up to large increases of trapped radiant heat stored in the water, summer is stored in that water to be released in winter only, in both liquid and vapor states to the Arctic Oceans and the atmosphere that is in the case of the Arctic unable to condense vapor to clouds but hangs around days and months as warm fog meting Ice and snow and heating the entire regions. Eventually the jet tream graps this latent heat and transports it far enough until it encounters CCnucli. The natural balances maintained by centuries old hydrology cycles of our planet are still being permanently disrupted. You just need to look at the data
Thank You Anastassia. I am glad for your retreat, though I know you were also busy in those long sunny, green days.
I appreciate your determination and rigor.
Your explanations were clear to me all along, but including the encapsulation of the concepts earlier in the explanatory text might be helpful to the reader:
"To stress the key point again: in an intensifying hurricane, more air flows in laterally than flows out, and precipitation removes several times more mass than the net inflow. This removal is what causes the total air mass — and thus pressure — to drop. It follows that even a relatively small change in precipitation could tip the balance, turning an intensifying hurricane into a weakening one."
Thank you for this feedback, John! Where would you advise to place this explanation?
Try right after this statement, so the reader can have an "abstract" of the next part:
" Then leaving P out gives you the wrong idea about what's driving the pressure drop."