Water Vapor and Global Warming

[westwall]

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?

And exactly how does that work?

 

[westwall]

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.

konrad is not a debator, nor is he interested in facts. He is a religious fanatic and faith will carry him through.

 

[antagon]

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?

i would think that's just marginally plausible, and would question if the factor spurring longer and more pervasive el nino effect was explored. does the atmosphere have the energy to heat ocean currents to the extent which the el nino proliferation has? i have doubts that the atmosphere could rise a couple degrees and illicit a 2* change in water temps. such an increase in water temps from other sources could undoubtedly lead to atmospheric temp gains, specifically because of the chemical capacity for liquid water to absorb energy more effectively than air, and because of the effect which water vapor has on the GHeffect.

i would look to the sun, to the effect of polar freezing on the planet's currents, ie will receding ice caps affect the capacity to dominate tropical currents, or will these tropical currents dominate the ocean as indicated by the el nino patterns we've seen the last 20 years or so?

i only argue that the plausibility of the dominant causation proposed is subordinate to other factors available for study. the very fact has impaired the resources available for such study.

how would you argue that CO2 is the predominant cause of greater water vapor in the atmosphere?

 

[dimfry]

The reason that H2O increment is not much discussed is, H2O can make the earth warm, but not a poisonous environment, while CO2 and CH4 can otherwise make. that is the main reason I think. Global warming is definitely the top matter of concern now, but they are also keeping inn mind the rise of nitrogenous, and sulphur and carbon compounds.

 

[antagon]

The reason that H2O increment is not much discussed is, H2O can make the earth warm, but not a poisonous environment, while CO2 and CH4 can otherwise make. that is the main reason I think. Global warming is definitely the top matter of concern now, but they are also keeping inn mind the rise of nitrogenous, and sulphur and carbon compounds.

CO2 is not poisonous either. i do feel that the domination of CO2 with regard to research funding has eclipsed many other issues effecting the environment. some of these concerns, as before CO2 became vogue, warrant more than 'keeping in mind' in my opinion.

 

[saveliberty]

The reason that H2O increment is not much discussed is, H2O can make the earth warm, but not a poisonous environment, while CO2 and CH4 can otherwise make. that is the main reason I think. Global warming is definitely the top matter of concern now, but they are also keeping inn mind the rise of nitrogenous, and sulphur and carbon compounds.

CO2 is not poisonous either. i do feel that the domination of CO2 with regard to research funding has eclipsed many other issues effecting the environment. some of these concerns, as before CO2 became vogue, warrant more than 'keeping in mind' in my opinion.

I like how these guys paint high concentrations of CO2 as poisonous. O2 is poisonous in large concentrations too people.

 

[ScienceRocks]

The reason that H2O increment is not much discussed is, H2O can make the earth warm, but not a poisonous environment, while CO2 and CH4 can otherwise make. that is the main reason I think. Global warming is definitely the top matter of concern now, but they are also keeping inn mind the rise of nitrogenous, and sulphur and carbon compounds.

CO2 is not poisonous either. i do feel that the domination of CO2 with regard to research funding has eclipsed many other issues effecting the environment. some of these concerns, as before CO2 became vogue, warrant more than 'keeping in mind' in my opinion.

I like how these guys paint high concentrations of CO2 as poisonous. O2 is poisonous in large concentrations too people.

It is not poisonous. It would need to be 20,000 to 30,000 PPM to become Poisonous, but some harm maybe done at 8,000-12,000 ppm. Not saying we're ever going to get there.

 

[antagon]

CO2 is not poisonous either. i do feel that the domination of CO2 with regard to research funding has eclipsed many other issues effecting the environment. some of these concerns, as before CO2 became vogue, warrant more than 'keeping in mind' in my opinion.

I like how these guys paint high concentrations of CO2 as poisonous. O2 is poisonous in large concentrations too people.

It is not poisonous. It would need to be 20,000 to 30,000 PPM to become Poisonous, but some harm maybe done at 8,000-12,000 ppm. Not saying we're ever going to get there.

the broader point is that O2 CO2 and H2O are communicated in the environment too easily to ever be considered remotely toxic in real-world biochem.

 

[konradv]

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.

konrad is not a debator, nor is he interested in facts. He is a religious fanatic and faith will carry him through.

LOL!!! Look who's talking! You don't debate, you C&P other people's worki.

 

[IanC]

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.

konrad is not a debator, nor is he interested in facts. He is a religious fanatic and faith will carry him through.

LOL!!! Look who's talking! You don't debate, you C&P other people's worki.

surely you jest! westwall is constantly putting his thoughts down in his own words, and only posts link to support them. Guys like Chris are the ones who C&P without ever expressing a personal idea.