A Paradigm Shrift the Sole Driver Climate Change— Changes in the Average Concentration of Water Vapor

Changes in average global temperature are not driven by changes in the concentration of carbon dioxide. Instead, autonomous changes in the concentration of water vapor drive changes in water vapor heating. When determined in accordance with Eqn. 3, the average accuracy is 99.86%, compared to the variable annual, 1880-2019, temperature record. Changes in the concentration of water vapor and changes in water vapor heating are not a feedback response to changes in the concentration of CO2. Rather, increases in water vapor heating and increases in the concentration of water vapor drive each other in an autonomous positive feedback loop. This feedback loop can be brought to a halt if the average global rate of precipitation can be brought into balance with the average global rate of evaporation and maintained there. The recent increases in average global temperature can be reversed, if average global precipitation can be increased sufficiently to slightly exceed the average rate of evaporation.


Introduction
Until I attended the celebration of the award of the Nobel Peace Prize to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change and Al Gore in 2007 in Oslo for their work on global warming, I was convinced that global warming was the result of the continuing increase in atmospheric CO 2 .
However, at this celebration in 2007, I came away believing that the claim that global warming was the result of the continuing increase in atmospheric CO 2 , was, at best, questionable and even if true, the proposed experiment of limiting carbon emissions, ludicrous, because, if CO 2 had the effects claimed, given its persistence in the atmosphere, (there being no practical means of reducing the concentration of CO 2 in the atmosphere (See Shaw, J. Controlling the Global Thermostat, NOVEMBER-DECEMBER 2020 Harvard Magazine-"A thousand years from now-30 human http://www.scholink.org/ojs/index.php/se Sustainability in Environment Vol. 5, No. 4, 2020 23 Published by SCHOLINK INC. generations-more than half the heat-trapping carbon-dioxide that humanity has pumped into the atmosphere since the beginning of the Industrial Revolution will still be there.") limiting the rate of growth of carbon emissions, could at best slow the rate of global warming while the ever warming seas released CO 2 at increasing rates and absorbed atmospheric CO 2 at decreasing rates and the potential for the problem to become increasingly serious, as time passed, remained.
More importantly, I have since determined that the data clearly shows that it is the increasing concentration of water vapor, not CO 2 , that is driving global warming.
Therefore, in the interest of my grandchildren, I have embarked on a journey to bring the true cause to light and urge, irrespective of the proposed and incongruous CO 2 experiment, that efforts to drive a slight increase in average precipitation be undertaken. A much, much, shorter, conclusory summary follows. The new principles of atmospheric physics underlying this work are set out and are summarized in the Appendix.

Principal Conclusions
Shown in Figure 1 are computed percentage changes, since 1880, in the average global concentration (average evaporation less average precipitation) of water vapor, TPW, the dominant greenhouse gas, the average concentration of which is seven times greater than CO 2 .  Vol. 5, No. 4, 2020 24 Published by SCHOLINK INC.
The data shows that, since 1976, the period of the recent 1ºC increase in average global temperature, the concentration of water vapor has been increasing at a rate four times greater than CO 2 .
Notwithstanding this, the current paradigm-that the increasing concentration of CO 2 is THE cause of global warming while ignoring the contribution from the primary greenhouse gas, water vapor Where else in science, when faced with multiple, possible causation factors, does one seek to find a solution by seeking to control only one, and, at that, a minor, variable, which cannot limit global warming.
The results of this experiment will take decades to determine. If the concentration of water vapor and, therefore, the average global temperature continue to increase, the world will be at an ever increasing risk. This is incogitable.
The Problem that is Global Warming-Shown in Figure 2 are the percentage changes in average global temperature, T Avg , between 1880 and 2019.

Figure 2. Percentage Changes in Average Global Temperature
In the last 40 years, the average global temperature, measured in degrees Celsius, has increased by nearly 8%, a 0.2ºC (0.36ºF) per decade increase.
That Global Warming is a transcendent and potentially ever growing, global problem, which, if unchecked, poses an existential risk and that there is real exigency in dealing with this, is beyond debate.
"Unless the Cause is Understood, a Problem Cannot be Solved." Naoto Kan The cause of this exigent problem must be understood and quickly addressed. The potential consequences of the ever increasing average global temperature are becoming increasingly dire, potentially posing an existential and, for some factors, a possibly irreversible risk. Given that year to year changes variations in annual average solar radiation are inconsequential it is clear that the temperature changes shown in Figure 2 are driven by changes in heating from the greenhouse gases, GHG and changes in average annual cloud albedo, itself a small factor. For purposes of these calculations it is assumed that the year to year average variability includable oiscaptured by changes in the concentration of water vapor.    For each year, the average global surface temperature is at the temperature the average net absorbed heating (total heating less the power driving evaporation and thermal convection) can drive.
Referring to Figure 4, a number of these "CO 2 " models calculate annual average global temperatures measurably greater than actual. For the modeled surface temperature to exceed the actual surface illustrate the failings of these models. Figure 5, is the record of changes in total heating, shown in dark blue, and the theoretical maximum change in heating that could have resulted from changes in the concentration of CO 2, shown in red, based upon the expression that changes in heating resulting from changes in the concentration of CO 2 , ΔTH CO2 ,aredetermined as:

Shown in
Where C is the atmospheric concentration of CO 2 Clearly CO 2 , itself, cannot have even theoretically driven global warming.
Moreover, the changes in heating shown as ΔTH CO2 in Figure 5is referred to as the "theoretical" maximum change, because there is no proof that, as a component of the atmosphere, this is correct and, in fact, this work shows that the heating contributed by increases in the concentration of CO 2 since 1880 is imperceptible.  Vol. 5, No. 4, 2020 28 Published by SCHOLINK INC.
If CO 2 is thought to be THE Driver of Climate Change as a forcing mechanism driving feedback changes, why is it, that, between 1880 and 2019, except for the period 1901-03, while the theoretical heating from CO 2 increased as shown in Figure 5,changes in total heating were unrelated and 40% of the changes in total heating were reductions? See Figure 6. If CO 2 were a forcing mechanism, a YOY increase in heating from CO 2 cannot drive an increase in heating as a feedback effect in one year and then in another year a reduction in heating.
Those who make the assertion that CO 2 drives global warming claim that increases in the concentration of water vapor are a feedback response to increases in heating from changes in the concentration of CO 2 and these increases in the concentration of water vapor drive global warming. Therefore, it is asserted If CO 2 were a forcing mechanism, a YOY increase in heating from CO 2 cannot drive an increase in water vapor heating as a feedback effect in one year and then in another year a reduction in water vapor heating. This is best illustrated in Figure 8 which is a plot of the YOY over year changes in water vapor heating compared to YOY changes in heating from CO 2 for the same years with YOY changes in heating from CO 2 , ΔTH CO2 ,shown increasing left to right on the horizontal axis.
A superficial examination of these changes clearly shows that there is no correlation between the theoretical changes in heating from CO 2 and changes in water vapor heating. Like changes in total heating, changes in water vapor heating are autonomous, wholly unrelated to the theoretical changes in heating from CO 2 .
While the increase in water vapor and therefore water vapor heating is solely the result of evaporation exceeding precipitation, if an additional increase in heating were required, the changes in CO 2 could not be a forcing mechanism for changes in water vapor heating.

Conclusion
The increasing concentration of CO 2 is clearly not the cause of global warming. The cause is the increasing concentration of water vapor.

Epilogue
But this paper does highlight the solution, increasing global precipitation slightly can limit global warming. In fact global warming can be reversed.
Given this, the reliance on carbon as a primary source of energy, the impact of deforestation, there being no practical means of reducing the concentration of CO 2 in the atmosphere and the fact that just attempting to control global warming by limiting carbon emissions can impose annual societal costs of the order of one to five percent of the global GDP, why would the experimental solution to global warming be premised solely on the theory that carbon emissions from anthropogenic activities drive global warming?
If, notwithstanding the total lack of correlation between changes in the concentration of CO 2 and changes in the concentration of water vapor, the belief, that by limiting CO 2 emissions this would also limit/control the water vapor heating feedback, is unchanged, why not also independently experiment with increasing precipitation and reducing the average concentration of water vapor directly?
When the Assumed Cause Is Not, the Problem Cannot be Solved Examine the data since 1976. Why would one ignore water vapor and assume that CO 2 is the cause of global warming?
If reducing the concentration of water vapor is not attempted, the final realization that the incredibly expensive experiment focused solely on CO 2 failed will require substantial increases in temperature, which will take decades. At this point, the harm done could be massive and some damage may be irreversible. This is not, in any way, cog table.
Why ever should the single minded focus on CO 2 put the world in such a position, especially when, even if, notwithstanding the science, one continued to believe that CO 2 does play a role in heating, temperature reductions would still be achieved by the same means, reducing the concentration of water vapor by increasing precipitation?
The answer may not be solely science based. "Normal Science often Suppresses Fundamental Novelties" (See, The Structure of Scientific Revolutions, in which Thomas Kuhn notes).
Please do not hesitate to share this but please understand that, even though I know that my work is sound and I have no connection to the fossil fuel industry or any agency of government, because this layman asserts, in effect, that the majority of the scientific community is wrong, most will view my work as incredible and heretical. However, I note that, before attending law school I earned a B.S. degree in Aeronautical Engineering from Penn State and while working full time for several years as a senior scientist in aerothermodynamics as part of a terrific R&D team at Avco Missile Systems Division, on the Apollo command module and the design of probes into the planet Venus for NASA and reentry vehicles and other hypersonic systems for the Air Force and the Navy I received an M.S. degree from MIT in Aeronautics and Astronautics. In short, I have a firm grasp of the science underlying global warming-thermodynamics.