Water Vapor and Global Warming

[CrusaderFrank]

So if we want to warm up Mars and make it habitable for humans all we have to do is add a wisp of CO2, right?

 

[IanC]

So if we want to warm up Mars and make it habitable for humans all we have to do is add a wisp of CO2, right?

CO2 is already 90% of Mars' atmosphere. The problem there is that the weaker gravity force cannot hold enough of an atmosphere.

But let's not forget that Mars has also shown global warming over the last 100 years.

 

[antagon]

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.

there's all kinds of issues with your hypothetical which we can get into if this does not penetrate: removing greenhouse capacity, allows heat to radiate away from the troposphere upwards. it does indeed 'remove the heat', consequentially. so you know, i know what water is like and what the greehouse effect is. without this greenhouse capacity afforded specifically by H2O -- many times more than all other GHGs put together -- more cooling effect (on the scale of exponents) will take place than in your no CO2 model. instantaneous is relative; the world would not be habitable. there would not be sufficient energy in the atmosphere to affect the evaporation which your model anticipates.

 

[Old Rocks]

Climate myths: Mars and Pluto are warming too - environment - 16 May 2007 - New Scientist

See all climate myths in our special feature.

There have been claims that warming on Mars and Pluto are proof that the recent warming on Earth is caused by an increase in solar activity, and not by greenhouse gases. But we can say with certainty that, even if Mars, Pluto or any other planets have warmed in recent years, it is not due to changes in solar activity.

The Sun's energy output has not increased since direct measurements began in 1978 (see Climate myth special: Global warming is down to the Sun, not humans). If increased solar output really was responsible, we should be seeing warming on all the planets and their moons, not just Mars and Pluto.

Our solar system has eight planets, three dwarf planets and quite a few moons with at least a rudimentary atmosphere, and thus a climate of sorts. Their climates will be affected by local factors such as orbital variations, changes in reflectance (albedo) and even volcanic eruptions, so it would not be surprising if several planets and moons turn out to be warming at any one time.

 

[Old Rocks]

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.

there's all kinds of issues with your hypothetical which we can get into if this does not penetrate: removing greenhouse capacity, allows heat to radiate away from the troposphere upwards. it does indeed 'remove the heat', consequentially. so you know, i know what water is like and what the greehouse effect is. without this greenhouse capacity afforded specifically by H2O -- many times more than all other GHGs put together -- more cooling effect (on the scale of exponents) will take place than in your no CO2 model. instantaneous is relative; the world would not be habitable. there would not be sufficient energy in the atmosphere to affect the evaporation which your model anticipates.

Ever watch a patch of ice disappear at temperatures well below freezing? Even at below freezing temperatures, ice will sublimate if the air is dry. As pointed out numerous times, the surface of the earth is covered 2/3rds by water. A dry atmosphere would immediatly evaporate water out of the oceans, and attain equalibrium again in a matter of days. Inadaquete time to cause a major glaciation.

 

[IanC]

Water vapour is simple, clouds and precipitaion are complex. Depending on how much vapour and heat are available the system changes back and forth from positive to negative feedbacks. Why do you think the earth has rough plateaus of climate until incoming solar energy fluxes cause a change to a different plateau?

 

[antagon]

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.

there's all kinds of issues with your hypothetical which we can get into if this does not penetrate: removing greenhouse capacity, allows heat to radiate away from the troposphere upwards. it does indeed 'remove the heat', consequentially. so you know, i know what water is like and what the greehouse effect is. without this greenhouse capacity afforded specifically by H2O -- many times more than all other GHGs put together -- more cooling effect (on the scale of exponents) will take place than in your no CO2 model. instantaneous is relative; the world would not be habitable. there would not be sufficient energy in the atmosphere to affect the evaporation which your model anticipates.

Ever watch a patch of ice disappear at temperatures well below freezing? Even at below freezing temperatures, ice will sublimate if the air is dry. As pointed out numerous times, the surface of the earth is covered 2/3rds by water. A dry atmosphere would immediatly evaporate water out of the oceans, and attain equalibrium again in a matter of days. Inadaquete time to cause a major glaciation.

the water vapor from this effect is denser than the rest of the atmosphere and would sit on top of the ice, land or water. have you seen a patch of ice in sub-freezing conditions? as opposed to steam, we could expect different functions for this water vapor. certainly that it wont take to the air. what is the greenhouse capacity of water vapor on the surface?

instead of argumentum ad absurdum, which this no-water-vapor argument entails, what about the increase in water vapor in the real atmosphere? what about its persistent aggregate character despite the observation that water vapor cycles in and out of the atmosphere? what about the fact that that increase acts on atmospheric temps and other greenhouse effects to a degree substantially more significantly than all other GHGs combined?

 

[westwall]

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.

Wow, just wow.

 

[saveliberty]

...and with all the conflicting claims, even if some were true, you can't tie them back to human responsibility. It takes assumption after assumption for the faithers to have a case. That makes them the asses.

 

[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.

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?

Can you show that the amount of water in the atmosphere has increased significantly? You keep repeating that water is higher, but this is not a case where absolute values are significant, but the changes in relative concentrations. If you have a 25-30% increase in CO2 that's more significant than a <1% change in H2O. Yes, variations in temps can cause a change in humidity. Don't we see that every summer? What's not plausible about it? This doesn't happen in one direction. Look at what happens at night, temps go down and we get dew on the grass. In the morning it heats up and the dew evaporates.

 

[konradv]

...and with all the conflicting claims, even if some were true, you can't tie them back to human responsibility. It takes assumption after assumption for the faithers to have a case. That makes them the asses.

You're the ass, if you don't realize that GHGs have risen, since the advent of the Industrial Revolution, and that some of the most potent aren't even found in nature. If humans aren't responsible, what is? There are no "assumptions after assumptions", merely scientific facts and collected data. The ability to absorb infra-red radiation is easily demonstratable in the lab. As I said, GHGs have risen since the IR, according to ice-core data. Therefore, if the trend continues, how can you expect anything but warming?

 

[editec]

Seems to me that water vapor is a self limiting event.

When the atmosphere gets warmer there's more of it in the atmosphere which begins cooling off the atmosphere.

 

[konradv]

Seems to me that water vapor is a self limiting event.

When the atmosphere gets warmer there's more of it in the atmosphere which begins cooling off the atmosphere.

Quite right. That's why other factors are looked at when determining if and why the climate is changing.

 

[saveliberty]

...and with all the conflicting claims, even if some were true, you can't tie them back to human responsibility. It takes assumption after assumption for the faithers to have a case. That makes them the asses.

You're the ass, if you don't realize that GHGs have risen, since the advent of the Industrial Revolution, and that some of the most potent aren't even found in nature. If humans aren't responsible, what is? There are no "assumptions after assumptions", merely scientific facts and collected data. The ability to absorb infra-red radiation is easily demonstratable in the lab. As I said, GHGs have risen since the IR, according to ice-core data. Therefore, if the trend continues, how can you expect anything but warming?

You attribute far too much to human activity. If we stopped today, we would die and the planet would not change temperature significantly. That is reality.

 

[konradv]

...and with all the conflicting claims, even if some were true, you can't tie them back to human responsibility. It takes assumption after assumption for the faithers to have a case. That makes them the asses.

You're the ass, if you don't realize that GHGs have risen, since the advent of the Industrial Revolution, and that some of the most potent aren't even found in nature. If humans aren't responsible, what is? There are no "assumptions after assumptions", merely scientific facts and collected data. The ability to absorb infra-red radiation is easily demonstratable in the lab. As I said, GHGs have risen since the IR, according to ice-core data. Therefore, if the trend continues, how can you expect anything but warming?

You attribute far too much to human activity. If we stopped today, we would die and the planet would not change temperature significantly. That is reality.

If not human activity, what's the cause of the rise in GHGs?

Who's talking about stopping? That's a denier "meme". Slowing down or better yet living smarter is the ticket.

What's this "we would die" stuff? Now who's being the "alarmist"? Why would we die?

I don't think you have much of a grasp on reality.

 

[saveliberty]

If not human activity, what's the cause of the rise in GHGs?

Who's talking about stopping? That's a denier "meme". Slowing down or better yet living smarter is the ticket.

What's this "we would die" stuff? Now who's being the "alarmist"? Why would we die?

I don't think you have much of a grasp on reality.

Rise in GHGs: Volcaneos, natural CO2 cycles other nonhuman sources.

Slowing down will NOT stop the trend, because of the other sources continuing to change CO2 levels.

If we stopped transporting food and fuel today, most of us would die off in weeks.

That is reality. You are the one who denies the folly of your suggested actions.

 

[antagon]

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?

Can you show that the amount of water in the atmosphere has increased significantly? You keep repeating that water is higher, but this is not a case where absolute values are significant, but the changes in relative concentrations. If you have a 25-30% increase in CO2 that's more significant than a <1% change in H2O. Yes, variations in temps can cause a change in humidity. Don't we see that every summer? What's not plausible about it? This doesn't happen in one direction. Look at what happens at night, temps go down and we get dew on the grass. In the morning it heats up and the dew evaporates.

from the NOAA's ESRL @ boulder, co.

this indicates a greater than 2% change. while you dismiss the significance of that -- the very theme of this thread -- this pattern more directly mimics the change in atmospheric temperature, coincides with el nino effects and constitutes a trend which acts more significantly on the greenhouse effect than carbon has the potential to, even in the higher concentrations which you propose. CO2 is marginally significant in the overall GHeffect, a fractional change in it may not explain the rise in the temperature of the atmosphere, particularly since a rise is indicated in a more -- the most -- significant contributor to greenhouse effect.

this chart:

courtesy of this blog illustrates the spectral efficiency of the compounds in question, lending an insight into the dominance of H2O in GHeffect. do you question the vast volumetric advantage of water over the other gases? volumetrically, a 2-3% increase in H2O is about as significant as your proposed 25-30% rise in CO2. this is before accounting for efficiency. considering that, it is H2O increases are substantially more significant. can you refute that?

 

[konradv]

If not human activity, what's the cause of the rise in GHGs?

Who's talking about stopping? That's a denier "meme". Slowing down or better yet living smarter is the ticket.

What's this "we would die" stuff? Now who's being the "alarmist"? Why would we die?

I don't think you have much of a grasp on reality.

Rise in GHGs: Volcaneos, natural CO2 cycles other nonhuman sources.

Slowing down will NOT stop the trend, because of the other sources continuing to change CO2 levels.

If we stopped transporting food and fuel today, most of us would die off in weeks.

That is reality. You are the one who denies the folly of your suggested actions.

Volcanoes? Humans put out more in days than all the volcanoes on earth do in a year. Besides, that doesn't explain the gases not found in nature. What are the other sources you're talking about? Who says we're going to stop transporting food and fuel? I'll be kind and repeat that you're an alarmist. Otherwise I'd have to say you're purposely lying to us for some political agenda because, scientifically and logically, your statements don't make sense.

 

[konradv]

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?

Can you show that the amount of water in the atmosphere has increased significantly? You keep repeating that water is higher, but this is not a case where absolute values are significant, but the changes in relative concentrations. If you have a 25-30% increase in CO2 that's more significant than a <1% change in H2O. Yes, variations in temps can cause a change in humidity. Don't we see that every summer? What's not plausible about it? This doesn't happen in one direction. Look at what happens at night, temps go down and we get dew on the grass. In the morning it heats up and the dew evaporates.

from the NOAA's ESRL @ boulder, co.

this indicates a greater than 2% change. while you dismiss the significance of that -- the very theme of this thread -- this pattern more directly mimics the change in atmospheric temperature, coincides with el nino effects and constitutes a trend which acts more significantly on the greenhouse effect than carbon has the potential to, even in the higher concentrations which you propose. CO2 is marginally significant in the overall GHeffect, a fractional change in it may not explain the rise in the temperature of the atmosphere, particularly since a rise is indicated in a more -- the most -- significant contributor to greenhouse effect.

this chart:

courtesy of this blog illustrates the spectral efficiency of the compounds in question, lending an insight into the dominance of H2O in GHeffect. do you question the vast volumetric advantage of water over the other gases? volumetrically, a 2-3% increase in H2O is about as significant as your proposed 25-30% rise in CO2. this is before accounting for efficiency. considering that, it is H2O increases are substantially more significant. can you refute that?

No, I won't refute it. I'll propose that the 2-3% increase in H2O is a result of the 25-30% increase in CO2. What's your explanation for the increase in H2O?

 

[saveliberty]

If not human activity, what's the cause of the rise in GHGs?

Who's talking about stopping? That's a denier "meme". Slowing down or better yet living smarter is the ticket.

What's this "we would die" stuff? Now who's being the "alarmist"? Why would we die?

I don't think you have much of a grasp on reality.

Rise in GHGs: Volcaneos, natural CO2 cycles other nonhuman sources.

Slowing down will NOT stop the trend, because of the other sources continuing to change CO2 levels.

If we stopped transporting food and fuel today, most of us would die off in weeks.

That is reality. You are the one who denies the folly of your suggested actions.

Volcanoes? Humans put out more in days than all the volcanoes on earth do in a year. Besides, that doesn't explain the gases not found in nature. What are the other sources you're talking about? Who says we're going to stop transporting food and fuel? I'll be kind and repeat that you're an alarmist. Otherwise I'd have to say you're purposely lying to us for some political agenda because, scientifically and logically, your statements don't make sense.

In a paper recently published in the international peer-reviewed journal Energy & Fuels, Dr. Robert H. Essenhigh (2009), Professor of Energy Conversion at The Ohio State University, addresses the residence time (RT) of anthropogenic CO2 in the air. He finds that the RT for bulk atmospheric CO2, the molecule 12CO2, is ~5 years, in good agreement with other cited sources (Segalstad, 1998), while the RT for the trace molecule 14CO2 is ~16 years. Both of these residence times are much shorter than what is claimed by the IPCC. The rising concentration of atmospheric CO2 in the last century is not consistent with supply from anthropogenic sources. Such anthropogenic sources account for less than 5% of the present atmosphere, compared to the major input/output from natural sources (~95%). Hence, anthropogenic CO2 is too small to be a significant or relevant factor in the global warming process, particularly when comparing with the far more potent greenhouse gas water vapor.

CO2 Science

You asked about the scenario where humans die off. I explain it. To turn it in its ear is another intellectually dishonest move on your part. Your argument grows weaker and weaker. Your a debate fail. I'm done. Fresh meat please.