Water Vapor and Global Warming

[antagon]

Water vapor of course is the most abundant greenhouse gas in the atmosphere and is responsible for the majority of greenhouse effect. It is often left out of the debate (and its accompanying charts) altogether, which I find puzzling. The explanation for brushing aside this top contributor is the fact that water vapor is seen as a 'feedback' greenhouse gas rather than a 'forcing' green house gas. That is to say that it increases in reaction to warming as well as functioning to perpetuate and exacerbate it. Indeed, CO2 can't be excluded from this characterization, either. How is it purported that the characterization of feedback and forcing negates the fact that atmospheric H2O levels have risen, and that it is the most effective contributor to greenhouse effect? Granted a warming trend, why isn't water vapor the preeminent target for climate change study?

It is also contended that water vapor remains in the atmosphere for just over a week at most, while CO2 could stay afloat for decades. Nevertheless, with water vapor levels rising on aggregate, how does this fact negate the effectiveness of atmospheric H2O as a greenhouse gas?

Where the ins and outs of CO2 and CH4 are being poured over diligently, apparently for their capacity to implicate human contribution, why is there so little earnest exploration of the role good 'ol water plays? The big role.

 

[IanC]

Because water vapour and clouds are so complex. This is one of the main problems with the computer climate models. Warmers believe water vapour and clouds are a positive feedback but many other scientists believe they are a negative feedback, and some say it depends...

 

[Old Rocks]

Water vapor of course is the most abundant greenhouse gas in the atmosphere and is responsible for the majority of greenhouse effect. It is often left out of the debate (and its accompanying charts) altogether, which I find puzzling. The explanation for brushing aside this top contributor is the fact that water vapor is seen as a 'feedback' greenhouse gas rather than a 'forcing' green house gas. That is to say that it increases in reaction to warming as well as functioning to perpetuate and exacerbate it. Indeed, CO2 can't be excluded from this characterization, either. How is it purported that the characterization of feedback and forcing negates the fact that atmospheric H2O levels have risen, and that it is the most effective contributor to greenhouse effect? Granted a warming trend, why isn't water vapor the preeminent target for climate change study?

It is also contended that water vapor remains in the atmosphere for just over a week at most, while CO2 could stay afloat for decades. Nevertheless, with water vapor levels rising on aggregate, how does this fact negate the effectiveness of atmospheric H2O as a greenhouse gas?




Where the ins and outs of CO2 and CH4 are being poured over diligently, apparently for their capacity to implicate human contribution, why is there so little earnest exploration of the role good 'ol water plays? The big role.

First, the people that study climate hardly leave out the influence of water vapor. It is definately a positive feedback. Clouds are quite another thing. Still arguements concerning whether clouds are a positive or negative feedback.

Second, as you state, the warming created by the CO2 has caused there to be more water vapor in the atmosphere, and therefore, accelerated the warming. There is no negation of the warming effect of water vapor by CO2. The two work in tandem.

Do this thought experiment. Add water vapor to the atmosphere to the capacity of the air to hold the water, 99% humidity world wide. In a little over a week, the amount of the water vapor in the air is back to where it was, and it is just a little warmer. Now double the CO2 in the air, and it will be hundreds of years before the CO2 is back to the prior level. And during that time, the warming created by the CO2 will draw more water vapor into the atmosphere, ampllfying the warming. And continue to do so.

Now let us do the opposite. Remove all the water vapor from the atmosphere. In a little over a week, the normal amount will be restored, for 2/3rds of the atmosphere is over water where it will immediatly evaporate more, according to how warm the atmosphere is.
Now remove all the CO2. In the space of a few years, there will be glaciers at the equator. We know this because mama nature has already performed this experiment for us. CO2 is the big control knob on the temperature of the atmosphere and oceans.
A23A

 

[antagon]

rocks, you've left out water vapor yourself. if water is removed from the atmosphere per your hypothetical, it would also freeze. the dependence you allude to with respect to the temp of the atmosphere in facilitating WV equilibrium presents a fallacy. how would the atmosphere be any warmer than the CO2 model you conclude with? it stands to reason that it will be much, much cooler. the role of water vapor is significantly greater in greenhouse effect than CO2, but you are swift to disproportionately attribute warming capacity to that compound.

 

[westwall]

Water vapor of course is the most abundant greenhouse gas in the atmosphere and is responsible for the majority of greenhouse effect. It is often left out of the debate (and its accompanying charts) altogether, which I find puzzling. The explanation for brushing aside this top contributor is the fact that water vapor is seen as a 'feedback' greenhouse gas rather than a 'forcing' green house gas. That is to say that it increases in reaction to warming as well as functioning to perpetuate and exacerbate it. Indeed, CO2 can't be excluded from this characterization, either. How is it purported that the characterization of feedback and forcing negates the fact that atmospheric H2O levels have risen, and that it is the most effective contributor to greenhouse effect? Granted a warming trend, why isn't water vapor the preeminent target for climate change study?

It is also contended that water vapor remains in the atmosphere for just over a week at most, while CO2 could stay afloat for decades. Nevertheless, with water vapor levels rising on aggregate, how does this fact negate the effectiveness of atmospheric H2O as a greenhouse gas?




Where the ins and outs of CO2 and CH4 are being poured over diligently, apparently for their capacity to implicate human contribution, why is there so little earnest exploration of the role good 'ol water plays? The big role.

First, the people that study climate hardly leave out the influence of water vapor. It is definately a positive feedback. Clouds are quite another thing. Still arguements concerning whether clouds are a positive or negative feedback.

Second, as you state, the warming created by the CO2 has caused there to be more water vapor in the atmosphere, and therefore, accelerated the warming. There is no negation of the warming effect of water vapor by CO2. The two work in tandem.

Do this thought experiment. Add water vapor to the atmosphere to the capacity of the air to hold the water, 99% humidity world wide. In a little over a week, the amount of the water vapor in the air is back to where it was, and it is just a little warmer. Now double the CO2 in the air, and it will be hundreds of years before the CO2 is back to the prior level. And during that time, the warming created by the CO2 will draw more water vapor into the atmosphere, ampllfying the warming. And continue to do so.

Now let us do the opposite. Remove all the water vapor from the atmosphere. In a little over a week, the normal amount will be restored, for 2/3rds of the atmosphere is over water where it will immediatly evaporate more, according to how warm the atmosphere is.
Now remove all the CO2. In the space of a few years, there will be glaciers at the equator. We know this because mama nature has already performed this experiment for us. CO2 is the big control knob on the temperature of the atmosphere and oceans.
A23A

Wow, that's quite the load of horse manure you're peddling there olfraud!

1. INTRODUCTION

Global warming scenarios from CO2 increases are envisioned to bring about rainfall enhancement and resulting upper tropospheric water vapor rise. This initial water vapor enhancement has been hypothesized and programmed in climate models to develop yet additional rainfall and water vapor increase. This causes an extra blockage of IR energy to space (a positive feedback warming mechanism). This additional rainfall and IR blockage is modeled to be approximately twice as large as the additional rainfall needed to balance the increased CO2 by itself. The reality of this additional warming and extra IR blockage has been questioned by many of us. This study analyzes a wide variety of infrared (IR) radiation differences which are associated with rainfall differences on different space and time scales. Our goal is to determine the extent to which the positive rainfall feedbacks as are included in the climate model simulations are realistic.

We have analyzed 21 years (1984-2004) of ISCCP (International Satellite Cloud Climatology Project) outgoing solar (albedo) and outgoing longwave infrared (IR) radiation (often referred to as OLR) on various distance (local to global) and time scales (1 day to decadal). We have investigated how radiation measurements change with variations in precipitation as determined from NCEP-NCAR Reanalysis data on a wide variety of space and time scales (Figure 1). We have stratified our radiation and rainfall data into three latitudinal sections and six distinctive longitudinal areas (Figure 2). Infrared and albedo changes associated with rainfall variations by month (January to December) and by yearly periods for the globe (70oN-70oS; 0-360o) as a whole and separately for the tropics (30oN-30oS; 0-360o) have been studied. This analysis shows they are not realistic.

http://climaterealists.com/attachments/ftp/AMS-Final5-10.pdf

Eco Factory - NOAA, NASA: Water Vapor Largely Responsible for Global Warming


Etc. etc. etc. Alarmists have no clue how it works so they throw up their hands and ignore it

 

[ScienceRocks]

rocks, you've left out water vapor yourself. if water is removed from the atmosphere per your hypothetical, it would also freeze. the dependence you allude to with respect to the temp of the atmosphere in facilitating WV equilibrium presents a fallacy. how would the atmosphere be any warmer than the CO2 model you conclude with? it stands to reason that it will be much, much cooler. the role of water vapor is significantly greater in greenhouse effect than CO2, but you are swift to disproportionately attribute warming capacity to that compound.

Would a warmer world have more Atmospheric water vapor. If so it would also help to warm the planet with co2, but water vapor is not equal over all surfaces of the earth being within colder area's would have less then the warm area's...But yes more Atmospheric water vapor, I'd think would cause a warmer tropical earth. I believe that global warming will cause our planet to become a tropical earth.

 

[Old Rocks]

rocks, you've left out water vapor yourself. if water is removed from the atmosphere per your hypothetical, it would also freeze. the dependence you allude to with respect to the temp of the atmosphere in facilitating WV equilibrium presents a fallacy. how would the atmosphere be any warmer than the CO2 model you conclude with? it stands to reason that it will be much, much cooler. the role of water vapor is significantly greater in greenhouse effect than CO2, but you are swift to disproportionately attribute warming capacity to that compound.

No, I did not. Note, 2/3 of the area of this planet is water. Deplete the atmosphere of water, and immediatly water will evaporate from the oceans and restore the normal amount of water vapor in the air for the temperature of the air. There might be a bit of cooling, but very little.

 

[Old Rocks]

Water vapor of course is the most abundant greenhouse gas in the atmosphere and is responsible for the majority of greenhouse effect. It is often left out of the debate (and its accompanying charts) altogether, which I find puzzling. The explanation for brushing aside this top contributor is the fact that water vapor is seen as a 'feedback' greenhouse gas rather than a 'forcing' green house gas. That is to say that it increases in reaction to warming as well as functioning to perpetuate and exacerbate it. Indeed, CO2 can't be excluded from this characterization, either. How is it purported that the characterization of feedback and forcing negates the fact that atmospheric H2O levels have risen, and that it is the most effective contributor to greenhouse effect? Granted a warming trend, why isn't water vapor the preeminent target for climate change study?

It is also contended that water vapor remains in the atmosphere for just over a week at most, while CO2 could stay afloat for decades. Nevertheless, with water vapor levels rising on aggregate, how does this fact negate the effectiveness of atmospheric H2O as a greenhouse gas?




Where the ins and outs of CO2 and CH4 are being poured over diligently, apparently for their capacity to implicate human contribution, why is there so little earnest exploration of the role good 'ol water plays? The big role.

First, the people that study climate hardly leave out the influence of water vapor. It is definately a positive feedback. Clouds are quite another thing. Still arguements concerning whether clouds are a positive or negative feedback.

Second, as you state, the warming created by the CO2 has caused there to be more water vapor in the atmosphere, and therefore, accelerated the warming. There is no negation of the warming effect of water vapor by CO2. The two work in tandem.

Do this thought experiment. Add water vapor to the atmosphere to the capacity of the air to hold the water, 99% humidity world wide. In a little over a week, the amount of the water vapor in the air is back to where it was, and it is just a little warmer. Now double the CO2 in the air, and it will be hundreds of years before the CO2 is back to the prior level. And during that time, the warming created by the CO2 will draw more water vapor into the atmosphere, ampllfying the warming. And continue to do so.

Now let us do the opposite. Remove all the water vapor from the atmosphere. In a little over a week, the normal amount will be restored, for 2/3rds of the atmosphere is over water where it will immediatly evaporate more, according to how warm the atmosphere is.
Now remove all the CO2. In the space of a few years, there will be glaciers at the equator. We know this because mama nature has already performed this experiment for us. CO2 is the big control knob on the temperature of the atmosphere and oceans.
A23A

Wow, that's quite the load of horse manure you're peddling there olfraud!

1. INTRODUCTION

Global warming scenarios from CO2 increases are envisioned to bring about rainfall enhancement and resulting upper tropospheric water vapor rise. This initial water vapor enhancement has been hypothesized and programmed in climate models to develop yet additional rainfall and water vapor increase. This causes an extra blockage of IR energy to space (a positive feedback warming mechanism). This additional rainfall and IR blockage is modeled to be approximately twice as large as the additional rainfall needed to balance the increased CO2 by itself. The reality of this additional warming and extra IR blockage has been questioned by many of us. This study analyzes a wide variety of infrared (IR) radiation differences which are associated with rainfall differences on different space and time scales. Our goal is to determine the extent to which the positive rainfall feedbacks as are included in the climate model simulations are realistic.

We have analyzed 21 years (1984-2004) of ISCCP (International Satellite Cloud Climatology Project) outgoing solar (albedo) and outgoing longwave infrared (IR) radiation (often referred to as OLR) on various distance (local to global) and time scales (1 day to decadal). We have investigated how radiation measurements change with variations in precipitation as determined from NCEP-NCAR Reanalysis data on a wide variety of space and time scales (Figure 1). We have stratified our radiation and rainfall data into three latitudinal sections and six distinctive longitudinal areas (Figure 2). Infrared and albedo changes associated with rainfall variations by month (January to December) and by yearly periods for the globe (70oN-70oS; 0-360o) as a whole and separately for the tropics (30oN-30oS; 0-360o) have been studied. This analysis shows they are not realistic.

http://climaterealists.com/attachments/ftp/AMS-Final5-10.pdf

Eco Factory - NOAA, NASA: Water Vapor Largely Responsible for Global Warming


Etc. etc. etc. Alarmists have no clue how it works so they throw up their hands and ignore it

Global Warming and Extreme Weather: The Science, the Forecast, and the Impacts on America - Environment America

The consequences of global warming are already beginning to be experienced in the United States, and are likely to grow in the years to come, particularly if emissions of global warming pollutants continue unabated.

Average temperature in the United States has increased by more than 2° Fahrenheit over the last 50 years. Temperatures are projected to rise by as much as an additional 7° F to 11° F on average by the end of the century, should emissions of global warming pollutants continue to increase.
The United States has experienced an increase in heavy precipitation events, with the amount of precipitation falling in the top 1 percent of rainfall events increasing by 20 percent over the course of the 20th century. The trend toward extreme precipitation is projected to continue, even as higher temperatures and drier summers increase the risk of drought in much of the country.
Snow cover has decreased over the past three decades in the Northern Hemisphere, and the volume of spring snowpack in the Mountain West and Pacific Northwest has declined significantly since the mid-20th century.
Sea level has risen by nearly 8 inches globally since 1870. Global sea level is currently projected to rise by as much as 2.5 to 6.25 feet by the end of the century if global warming pollution continues unabated. Parts of the northeastern United States could experience an additional 8 inches of sea-level rise due to changes in ocean circulation patterns.

 

[Old Rocks]

Early Warning Signs of Global Warming: Downpours, Heavy Snowfalls, and Flooding | Union of Concerned Scientists

Early Warning Signs of Global Warming: Downpours, Heavy Snowfalls, and Flooding
An increase in global temperatures will lead to an intensification of the hydrological cycle. This is because an increase in surface air temperature causes an increase in evaporation and generally higher levels of water vapor in the atmosphere. In addition, a warmer atmosphere is capable of holding more water vapor. The excess water vapor will in turn lead to more frequent heavy precipitation when atmospheric instability is sufficient to trigger precipitation events. Intense precipitation can result in flooding, soil erosion, landslides, and damage to structures and crops.

Parallel to the likely increase in heavy precipitation events in winter, increased temperatures will also amplify the drying out of soils and vegetation due to increased evaporation in the summer. This is likely to result in more severe and widespread droughts where and when atmospheric conditions do not favor precipitation (see Droughts and Wildfires).

The largest changes in precipitation are expected at mid- to- high latitudes (Kattenberg et al., 1996). Climate models predict an increase in average precipitation in winter at high latitudes due to poleward transport of evaporated moisture from lower latitudes. There is also an increase in the expected frequency and areal extent of intense precipitation over the continents. Predictions for soil moisture changes are less certain; however, models show an increase in soil moisture in high northern latitudes in winter.

 

[Old Rocks]

Extreme Weather Events Signal Global Warming to World's Meteorologists

GENEVA, Switzerland, August 17, 2010 (ENS) - Fires across Russia, record floods in Pakistan, a huge Greenland iceberg - this current unprecedented sequence of extreme weather events "matches" scientific projections of more frequent and intense extreme weather events due to global warming, says an organization of meteorologists from 189 countries.

"Several diverse extreme weather events are occurring concurrently around the world, giving rise to an unprecedented loss of human life and property. They include the record heatwave and wildfires in the Russian Federation, monsoonal flooding in Pakistan, rain-induced landslides in China, and calving of a large iceberg from the Greenland ice sheet," said the World Meteorological Organization in a statement August 11.


A chunk of ice, roughly 251 square kilometers (97 square miles) in size, broke off the Petermann Glacier along the northwestern coast of Greenland, August 5, 2010. (Photo courtesy NASA JPL)
"These should be added to the extensive list of extreme weather-related events, such as droughts and fires in Australia and a record number of high-temperature days in the eastern United States of America, as well as other events that occurred earlier in the year," said the WMO, a specialized agency of the United Nations.

 

[ScienceRocks]

First, the people that study climate hardly leave out the influence of water vapor. It is definately a positive feedback. Clouds are quite another thing. Still arguements concerning whether clouds are a positive or negative feedback.

Second, as you state, the warming created by the CO2 has caused there to be more water vapor in the atmosphere, and therefore, accelerated the warming. There is no negation of the warming effect of water vapor by CO2. The two work in tandem.

Do this thought experiment. Add water vapor to the atmosphere to the capacity of the air to hold the water, 99% humidity world wide. In a little over a week, the amount of the water vapor in the air is back to where it was, and it is just a little warmer. Now double the CO2 in the air, and it will be hundreds of years before the CO2 is back to the prior level. And during that time, the warming created by the CO2 will draw more water vapor into the atmosphere, ampllfying the warming. And continue to do so.

Now let us do the opposite. Remove all the water vapor from the atmosphere. In a little over a week, the normal amount will be restored, for 2/3rds of the atmosphere is over water where it will immediatly evaporate more, according to how warm the atmosphere is.
Now remove all the CO2. In the space of a few years, there will be glaciers at the equator. We know this because mama nature has already performed this experiment for us. CO2 is the big control knob on the temperature of the atmosphere and oceans.
A23A

Wow, that's quite the load of horse manure you're peddling there olfraud!

1. INTRODUCTION

Global warming scenarios from CO2 increases are envisioned to bring about rainfall enhancement and resulting upper tropospheric water vapor rise. This initial water vapor enhancement has been hypothesized and programmed in climate models to develop yet additional rainfall and water vapor increase. This causes an extra blockage of IR energy to space (a positive feedback warming mechanism). This additional rainfall and IR blockage is modeled to be approximately twice as large as the additional rainfall needed to balance the increased CO2 by itself. The reality of this additional warming and extra IR blockage has been questioned by many of us. This study analyzes a wide variety of infrared (IR) radiation differences which are associated with rainfall differences on different space and time scales. Our goal is to determine the extent to which the positive rainfall feedbacks as are included in the climate model simulations are realistic.

We have analyzed 21 years (1984-2004) of ISCCP (International Satellite Cloud Climatology Project) outgoing solar (albedo) and outgoing longwave infrared (IR) radiation (often referred to as OLR) on various distance (local to global) and time scales (1 day to decadal). We have investigated how radiation measurements change with variations in precipitation as determined from NCEP-NCAR Reanalysis data on a wide variety of space and time scales (Figure 1). We have stratified our radiation and rainfall data into three latitudinal sections and six distinctive longitudinal areas (Figure 2). Infrared and albedo changes associated with rainfall variations by month (January to December) and by yearly periods for the globe (70oN-70oS; 0-360o) as a whole and separately for the tropics (30oN-30oS; 0-360o) have been studied. This analysis shows they are not realistic.

http://climaterealists.com/attachments/ftp/AMS-Final5-10.pdf

Eco Factory - NOAA, NASA: Water Vapor Largely Responsible for Global Warming


Etc. etc. etc. Alarmists have no clue how it works so they throw up their hands and ignore it

Global Warming and Extreme Weather: The Science, the Forecast, and the Impacts on America - Environment America

The consequences of global warming are already beginning to be experienced in the United States, and are likely to grow in the years to come, particularly if emissions of global warming pollutants continue unabated.

Average temperature in the United States has increased by more than 2° Fahrenheit over the last 50 years. Temperatures are projected to rise by as much as an additional 7° F to 11° F on average by the end of the century, should emissions of global warming pollutants continue to increase.
The United States has experienced an increase in heavy precipitation events, with the amount of precipitation falling in the top 1 percent of rainfall events increasing by 20 percent over the course of the 20th century. The trend toward extreme precipitation is projected to continue, even as higher temperatures and drier summers increase the risk of drought in much of the country.
Snow cover has decreased over the past three decades in the Northern Hemisphere, and the volume of spring snowpack in the Mountain West and Pacific Northwest has declined significantly since the mid-20th century.
Sea level has risen by nearly 8 inches globally since 1870. Global sea level is currently projected to rise by as much as 2.5 to 6.25 feet by the end of the century if global warming pollution continues unabated. Parts of the northeastern United States could experience an additional 8 inches of sea-level rise due to changes in ocean circulation patterns.

My best guess of where we're going if everything plays out to where it could play out over the next couple hundred years is earth becoming a tropical planet like it was likely around hundred million years ago. Do you agree...Such a planet is very possible and many scientist before we discovered it was a fucking oven thought Venus was this.

I believe water vapor is going to go hand and hand in making it so.

 

[Old Rocks]

Mathew, there is a danger that is involved in a very rapid change. This was written while the author was a grad student, he now has his Phd.

Methane catastrophe

Permian?Triassic extinction event - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[westwall]

Mathew, there is a danger that is involved in a very rapid change. This was written while the author was a grad student, he now has his Phd.

Methane catastrophe

Permian?Triassic extinction event - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

And it has no support in the paleo record. None. There have been many time when the CO2 levels were 20 times higher and all the predictions being made about how the world is going to end didn't occur then so what makes anyone think they will happen now?

The temps have been as much as 15 degrees higher in the past and there is ZERO evidence that methane ever caused catastrophic runaway heating.

The Permo Triassic extinctions have five main theories and the WEAKEST of those is climate change.

The most likely is extreme volcanic activity generated as the byproduct of the creation of the supercontinent Pangea. The Pangean supercontinent altered sea levels, changed the shape of the land in a hugely significant way which affected climate and glaciation patterns which in turn altered the salinity of the oceans.

Asteroid impact has also been postulated based on the work of Xu and Yang but their methodologies were called into question when Retallack and his group found that the iridium spikes were 1 meter below the defined boundary.

However recently Dr Luann Becker has reported chemical evidence for a meteorite strike 251 millions years ago at the P-T boundary. Their evidence is based on carbon mollecules called fullerenes which have extraterestrial isotopes of helium and argon trapped inside their structure. There is an unusually high concentration of the fullerenes at the P-T border in three boundary sections in China, Japan and Hungary that support their contention.


Finally we come to the least likely which is climate change. The climate would certainly have changed with all of the volcanism and indeed there is a considerable bit of evidence showing the planet COOLED during the P-T extinctions. There is little evidence supporting a rise in temperatures and in theory that would have been better than what we know occured based on the paleontological record.

 

[antagon]

rocks, you've left out water vapor yourself. if water is removed from the atmosphere per your hypothetical, it would also freeze. the dependence you allude to with respect to the temp of the atmosphere in facilitating WV equilibrium presents a fallacy. how would the atmosphere be any warmer than the CO2 model you conclude with? it stands to reason that it will be much, much cooler. the role of water vapor is significantly greater in greenhouse effect than CO2, but you are swift to disproportionately attribute warming capacity to that compound.

No, I did not. Note, 2/3 of the area of this planet is water. Deplete the atmosphere of water, and immediatly water will evaporate from the oceans and restore the normal amount of water vapor in the air for the temperature of the air. There might be a bit of cooling, but very little.

you've done it again. " Deplete the atmosphere of water", and the most substantial force contributing to the ambient temperature of the planet will be eliminated. how can you argue that the world would not instantaneously freeze over if the atmosphere where devoid of the substance acting several multiples the effect of CO2 with respect to greenhouse effect? this is a fallacy which you have endeared yourself to.

 

[antagon]

rocks, there's plenty a thread for propaganda to push the fact that the globe is warming. what can you offer about the issue of water vapor causation to substantiate your claim that this is equally understood and researched as are the energy commodities at the front of the debate.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

There's a simple answer: the EnviroMarxists that are running the ManMade Global Warming/Climate Change/It's The Great Climactic Googly Moogly, Charlie Brown! Scam cannot get control of western civilization via H2O but know they can via Cap N Trade and CO2.

What would be their rallying cry, "Stop taking hot showers, you're melting the polar ice caps!"?

 

[konradv]

rocks, you've left out water vapor yourself. if water is removed from the atmosphere per your hypothetical, it would also freeze. the dependence you allude to with respect to the temp of the atmosphere in facilitating WV equilibrium presents a fallacy. how would the atmosphere be any warmer than the CO2 model you conclude with? it stands to reason that it will be much, much cooler. the role of water vapor is significantly greater in greenhouse effect than CO2, but you are swift to disproportionately attribute warming capacity to that compound.

That's because the percentage of extra CO2 we're adding to the atmosphere is much greater than the amount of H2O we add. The ~80 ppm above historical averages of CO2 that we see today is about a 25-30% increase, very significant. An increase in 80 ppm H2O is negligible compared to its normal range, therefore not as significant. Water, therefore, is not ignored, but is not considered "forcing". While it is a greater GHG, we're not effecting its concentration, like we're doing with CO2.

 

[Old Rocks]

rocks, you've left out water vapor yourself. if water is removed from the atmosphere per your hypothetical, it would also freeze. the dependence you allude to with respect to the temp of the atmosphere in facilitating WV equilibrium presents a fallacy. how would the atmosphere be any warmer than the CO2 model you conclude with? it stands to reason that it will be much, much cooler. the role of water vapor is significantly greater in greenhouse effect than CO2, but you are swift to disproportionately attribute warming capacity to that compound.

No, I did not. Note, 2/3 of the area of this planet is water. Deplete the atmosphere of water, and immediatly water will evaporate from the oceans and restore the normal amount of water vapor in the air for the temperature of the air. There might be a bit of cooling, but very little.

you've done it again. " Deplete the atmosphere of water", and the most substantial force contributing to the ambient temperature of the planet will be eliminated. how can you argue that the world would not instantaneously freeze over if the atmosphere where devoid of the substance acting several multiples the effect of CO2 with respect to greenhouse effect? this is a fallacy which you have endeared yourself to.

If you remove the water vapor, you are not removing the heat. The water vapor does not create heat. It absorbs heat from the from the warmed ground, heat that would normally escape into space. If the water vapor were to be somehow kept out of the atmosphere, then things would freeze, but hardly instantaneously. But, considering that 2/3 of the earth's surface is water, that water would evaporate into the dry atmosphere at a rapid rate, and the normal equalibrium would be restored.

 

[antagon]

rocks, you've left out water vapor yourself. if water is removed from the atmosphere per your hypothetical, it would also freeze. the dependence you allude to with respect to the temp of the atmosphere in facilitating WV equilibrium presents a fallacy. how would the atmosphere be any warmer than the CO2 model you conclude with? it stands to reason that it will be much, much cooler. the role of water vapor is significantly greater in greenhouse effect than CO2, but you are swift to disproportionately attribute warming capacity to that compound.

That's because the percentage of extra CO2 we're adding to the atmosphere is much greater than the amount of H2O we add. The ~80 ppm above historical averages of CO2 that we see today is about a 25-30% increase, very significant. An increase in 80 ppm H2O is negligible compared to its normal range, therefore not as significant. Water, therefore, is not ignored, but is not considered "forcing". While it is a greater GHG, we're not effecting its concentration, like we're doing with CO2.

this is an argument for a few things: antho CO2 forcing and non-anthro H2O forcing. this is not supportive of the larger argument that global warming is anthropogenic because the greenhouse effect attributable to water vapor, proportionate to CO2 is vastly dominant. why hasn't the possibility of other contributors to atmospheric H20 been diligently investigated? remember the interest garnered by persistent el nino cycles and shorter, less frequent la ninas? this was the predominant curiosity prior to CO2 becoming the vogue compound.

can it really be argued that the minor variations in atmospheric temperatures can illicit commensurate variations in water? chemically this is not plausible. only the opposite is supported by heat transfer as i understand it.

what do you think?

 

[Old Rocks]

rocks, there's plenty a thread for propaganda to push the fact that the globe is warming. what can you offer about the issue of water vapor causation to substantiate your claim that this is equally understood and researched as are the energy commodities at the front of the debate.

The Carbon Dioxide Greenhouse Effect

http://www.edf.org/documents/5596_GlobalWarmingWaterVapor_onepager.pdf

Carbon Dioxide, Water Vapor and Global Warming

Some people have argued that because water vapor is a more important greenhouse gas than carbondioxide (CO2), its pointless to regulate CO2 emissions. Water vapor does trap more heat than CO2, but because of the relationships among CO2, water vapor and climate, to fight global warming nations must focus on controlling CO2.

If water vapor is so important, why don't we control its concentration instead of CO2?

Atmospheric levels of CO2 are determined by emissions (for example, from burning fossil fuels), as well as by plant growth and ocean uptake. Atmospheric levels of water vapor, on the other hand, are determined by temperatures because warmer air holds more water vapor. Humans can only control” water vapor levels by changing air temperature—and the best way to control temperature is to reduce CO2 emissions.

Water vapor accelerates warming

Water vapor is part of a vicious cycle. As humans emit greenhouse gases like CO2, the air warms and holds more water vapor, which then traps more heat and
accelerates warming. In fact, scientists calculate that changes in water vapor double the climates temperature response to increasing CO2