{"id":362499,"date":"2025-01-17T16:39:46","date_gmt":"2025-01-17T15:39:46","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/?p=362499"},"modified":"2025-01-17T16:39:49","modified_gmt":"2025-01-17T15:39:49","slug":"cloud-reduction-global-warming-crgw-101-a-competitive-theory-to-co2-related-global-warming","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/?p=362499","title":{"rendered":"<\/font>Cloud Reduction Global Warming, CRGW 101.\u00a0 A Competitive Theory to CO2 Related Global Warming"},"content":{"rendered":"\n
\"\"<\/figure>\n\n\n\n

From Watts Up With That?<\/a><\/font><\/p>\n\n\n\n

<\/font>By Charles Blaisdell, PhD ChE  <\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Abstract<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

The Cloud Reduction Global Warming, CRGW, theory is a cascading natural process that only since about 1970 has become significant in Climate Change. The basic elements of CRGW theory have been around forever, it is the size (% of the earth affected) that has increased to the point that this natural process can be seen. The CRGW theory starts on land with the concept of a Special Parcel, SP, that has been changed from its virgin state such that less water is evaporated than the original virgin land. (SP examples: UHIs, forest to crop, or surface mining) The lower water evaporation (as indicated by lower surface air specific humidity, SH) creates higher temp and lower relative humid, RH, than the original land. How much a SP has changed the evaporation is not known since the original evaporation is not known, but if the land surrounding the SP is unchanged it can be used as a reference (the zero) for how much the SP has changed. The changed vs virgin land difference in SH remains relatively constant as the size of the SP increases with time. The SP’s lower humidity hotter air rises in a plume about 2 to 4 time larger than the land area it came from to cloud level: thus, amplifying the cloud level effect. The cloud cover is related to the Vapor Pressure Deficit, VPD, (the difference between the saturated water vapor pressure and the actual water vapor pressure). Higher VPD less clouds. The less clouds more Sun (lower global albedo). More Sun more atmospheric enthalpy, higher temperatures, and more evaporation of water (SH rising). This cascading series of natural events increase with the size of the earth’s total SPs. Simply put: if less water is put into the atmosphere from land (relative to what was evaporated previously) the global cloud fraction will decrease, and it will get HOTter.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The atmosphere fingerprint supports the CRGW theory:  Since 1970 temperatures, specific humidity, enthalpy, and VPD have been rising while relative humidity and cloud cover have been declining.  The lower evapotranspiration, ET,  (proportional to SH) in over 1500 cities has been confirmed by Mazroonei et al (8)<\/a>.  The existence of Urban Heat Island plumes has been modeled and weather balloons have confirmed their existence.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Reasonable estimates of global SP ET (or SH) change in a mathematical models suggest that CRGW could be a significant contributor to global warming and is reversable.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Introduction<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

This essay is intended to be a summary of all 7 previous essays (1)<\/a>,(2)<\/a>,(3)<\/a>,(4)<\/a>,(5)<\/a>,(6)<\/a>,(7)<\/a> with the theme of CO2 is innocent, but Clouds are Guilty (thanks WUWT).  To the reviewers of previous essays thanks for your suggestions and comments.  I hope this essay will answer some of your comments.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

In this essay ET change and SH change are used interchangeably.  Evapotranspiration, ET, is defined as the total water flux evaporated into the atmosphere from surface Evaporation and plant Transpiration.  Specific humidity, SH is the concentration of water in air.  On an annual basis ET is proportional to surface SH. CRGW theory uses %ET change = %SH change.  Change not the actual value.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Prior to about 1970 climate scientist assumed that the annual cloud cover and reflectivity of short-wave radiation of the earth were relativity constant, because there was no data to say otherwise (13)<\/a>.  With the advent of satellite data that is changing.   The \u201curban heat island effect\u201d, UHI, was known but alone was too small to be a significant climate change variable.  In this essay the UHI\u2019s possible amplifying relationship to cloud reduction and climate change is presented.  It is also suggested that other land changes could have similar UHI climate change properties.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

CO2 is innocent<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

The main points of the innocents of CO2 are:<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The IPCC\u2019s current theory (radiative forcing, RF) is that in the upper atmosphere CO2 via Planck\u2019s Law and Kirchhoff\u2019s Law will absorb long wave radiation and reflect heat back to the lower atmosphere.  To prove this theory NASA put the CERES satellite up to measure the radiation related to this theory.  RF theory should show relatively constant short wave, SW, radiation out and decreasing long wave, LW, radiation out with time See Figure 1.  Twenty years of CERES data analyzed by D\u00fcbal et al (15)<\/a>and Loeb et al (16)<\/a> show SW out decreasing and LW out radiation increasing over the 20 years, contrary to RF theory, see Figure 2.  Their papers also indicated there may be some evidence of RF but clouds were the main source of SW and LW change over the 20 years.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

In the lower atmosphere CO2 is a greenhouse gas that absorbs long wave, LW, radiation and heats the atmosphere.  The Beer-Lamber law says that this absorption is a function of distance and concentration (of CO2).  At 400 ppm, CO2 is saturated in the lover atmosphere.  Saturation means that more CO2 will not change the LW absorption in the lower atmosphere.  The IPCC agree<\/font>s…  See (1)<\/a> and (2)<\/a> for more information.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

<\/font><\/p>\n\n\n\n

\"\"<\/figure>\n\n\n\n

<\/font><\/p>\n\n\n\n

\"\"<\/figure>\n\n\n\n

<\/font>Decreasing relative humidity, RH, with time does not fit the RF theory.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Decrease in low altitude clouds and no change to high altitude clouds does not fit the RF theory.  RF theory would support decreasing all altitude clouds<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Another theory is needed to explain the CERES data and the atmospheric observations.  CRGW theory does that.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

CRGW Theory \u2013 Cascading Natural Steps.<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

    \n
  1.   The Special Parcel, SP <\/strong><\/li>\n<\/ol>\n\n\n\n

    Clausius\u2013Clapeyron law describes the atmospheric behavior in a special parcel, SP:  as the SH decreases the temperature increases at a constant enthalpy, see Figure 3.  As enthalpy increases this relationship increases.  The density decreases as the temperature increases, the decrease in SH has little effect on the density change, see Figure 4.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

    <\/font><\/p>\n\n\n\n

    \"\"<\/figure>\n\n\n\n

    <\/font><\/p>\n\n\n\n

    \"\"<\/figure>\n\n\n\n

    In a SP the SH change is not known (invisible) because the starting SH is lost to time, but can be relative to surrounding virgin land.  Clausius\u2013Clapeyron laws apply to all SPs: urban UHIs, rural structures, forest to crop, surface mining, etc.  Prior to 1970 the total area of all these SPs was not large enough to have much of an impact on climate change.  All these SPs are sources of ET change (increase of decrease) vs what was there before the SP.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

    A wide range of ET from UHIs was verified by Mazrooei et al. (2021) (8)<\/a>  and Lu Hao et al. (2021) (9)<\/a> with a creative method from satellite data.   Their data shows SPs in arid environments can have positive ETs and SPs in wet environments have negative ETs, showing a ET range of +10% to -50%.   With a -12% ET change globally.  Mazrooei et al.\u2019s work proves that the (invisible) starting step of the CRGW theory is real, significant, and negative.  See (7)<\/a> for more information.<\/p>\n\n\n\n