Water Vapor most dominant greenhouse gas

[Misty]

"Water vapor is Earth's most dominant greenhouse gas*
It comes as a surprise to many, but water vapor is the most dominant greenhouse gas in the Earth's atmosphere. It accounts for about 60% of the greenhouse effect of the global atmosphere, far exceeding the total combined effects of increased carbon dioxide, methane, ozone and other greenhouse gases."

http://airs.jpl.nasa.gov/mission/description/

 

[FuelRod]

We need to do something about the oceans.

 

[Old Rocks]

Explaining how the water vapor greenhouse effect works

What the science says...
Select a level... Basic Intermediate
Increased CO2 makes more water vapor, a greenhouse gas which amplifies warming


When skeptics use this argument, they are trying to imply that an increase in CO2 isn't a major problem. If CO2 isn't as powerful as water vapor, which there's already a lot of, adding a little more CO2 couldn't be that bad, right? What this argument misses is the fact that water vapor creates what scientists call a 'positive feedback loop' in the atmosphere — making any temperature changes larger than they would be otherwise.

How does this work? The amount of water vapor in the atmosphere exists in direct relation to the temperature. If you increase the temperature, more water evaporates and becomes vapor, and vice versa. So when something else causes a temperature increase (such as extra CO2 from fossil fuels), more water evaporates. Then, since water vapor is a greenhouse gas, this additional water vapor causes the temperature to go up even further—a positive feedback.

How much does water vapor amplify CO2 warming? Studies show that water vapor feedback roughly doubles the amount of warming caused by CO2. So if there is a 1°C change caused by CO2, the water vapor will cause the temperature to go up another 1°C. When other feedback loops are included, the total warming from a potential 1°C change caused by CO2 is, in reality, as much as 3°C.

The other factor to consider is that water is evaporated from the land and sea and falls as rain or snow all the time. Thus the amount held in the atmosphere as water vapour varies greatly in just hours and days as result of the prevailing weather in any location. So even though water vapour is the greatest greenhouse gas, it is relatively short-lived. On the other hand, CO2 is removed from the air by natural geological-scale processes and these take a long time to work. Consequently CO2 stays in our atmosphere for years and even centuries. A small additional amount has a much more long-term effect.


So skeptics are right in saying that water vapor is the dominant greenhouse gas. What they don't mention is that the water vapor feedback loop actually makes temperature changes caused by CO2 even bigger.

 

[AmberR108]

I find this amusing because your SN is Misty.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Explaining how the water vapor greenhouse effect works

What the science says...
Select a level... Basic Intermediate
Increased CO2 makes more water vapor, a greenhouse gas which amplifies warming


When skeptics use this argument, they are trying to imply that an increase in CO2 isn't a major problem. If CO2 isn't as powerful as water vapor, which there's already a lot of, adding a little more CO2 couldn't be that bad, right? What this argument misses is the fact that water vapor creates what scientists call a 'positive feedback loop' in the atmosphere — making any temperature changes larger than they would be otherwise.

How does this work? The amount of water vapor in the atmosphere exists in direct relation to the temperature. If you increase the temperature, more water evaporates and becomes vapor, and vice versa. So when something else causes a temperature increase (such as extra CO2 from fossil fuels), more water evaporates. Then, since water vapor is a greenhouse gas, this additional water vapor causes the temperature to go up even further—a positive feedback.

How much does water vapor amplify CO2 warming? Studies show that water vapor feedback roughly doubles the amount of warming caused by CO2. So if there is a 1°C change caused by CO2, the water vapor will cause the temperature to go up another 1°C. When other feedback loops are included, the total warming from a potential 1°C change caused by CO2 is, in reality, as much as 3°C.

The other factor to consider is that water is evaporated from the land and sea and falls as rain or snow all the time. Thus the amount held in the atmosphere as water vapour varies greatly in just hours and days as result of the prevailing weather in any location. So even though water vapour is the greatest greenhouse gas, it is relatively short-lived. On the other hand, CO2 is removed from the air by natural geological-scale processes and these take a long time to work. Consequently CO2 stays in our atmosphere for years and even centuries. A small additional amount has a much more long-term effect.

So skeptics are right in saying that water vapor is the dominant greenhouse gas. What they don't mention is that the water vapor feedback loop actually makes temperature changes caused by CO2 even bigger.

And you can show us how this works in a laboratory setting, right, Miss Cleo?

And you can show how it causes "wider and wider swings with an overall warming" (BBC - Do you agree that from January 2002 to the present there has been statistically significant global cooling? Phil Jones - No. This period is even shorter than 1995-2009. The trend this time is negative (-0.12C per decade))

And you can show how the feedback loops causes CO2 to leave the oceans and simultaneously absorbed by the oceans in quantities that are turning the oceans acidic, right?

It sounds to me like you just make it all up.

In fact, I know you make it all up because you never once posted a single lab experiment demonstrating ANY of what you allege

 

[Ernie S.]

Gotta tax them damned whistling teapots!

 

[manifold]

Put me down for a couple thousand vapor credits please.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Put me down for a couple thousand vapor credits please.

Al Gore is going to corner the water vapor market

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Explaining how the water vapor greenhouse effect works

What the science says...
Select a level... Basic Intermediate
Increased CO2 makes more water vapor, a greenhouse gas which amplifies warming


When skeptics use this argument, they are trying to imply that an increase in CO2 isn't a major problem. If CO2 isn't as powerful as water vapor, which there's already a lot of, adding a little more CO2 couldn't be that bad, right? What this argument misses is the fact that water vapor creates what scientists call a 'positive feedback loop' in the atmosphere — making any temperature changes larger than they would be otherwise.

How does this work? The amount of water vapor in the atmosphere exists in direct relation to the temperature. If you increase the temperature, more water evaporates and becomes vapor, and vice versa. So when something else causes a temperature increase (such as extra CO2 from fossil fuels), more water evaporates. Then, since water vapor is a greenhouse gas, this additional water vapor causes the temperature to go up even further—a positive feedback.

How much does water vapor amplify CO2 warming? Studies show that water vapor feedback roughly doubles the amount of warming caused by CO2. So if there is a 1°C change caused by CO2, the water vapor will cause the temperature to go up another 1°C. When other feedback loops are included, the total warming from a potential 1°C change caused by CO2 is, in reality, as much as 3°C.

The other factor to consider is that water is evaporated from the land and sea and falls as rain or snow all the time. Thus the amount held in the atmosphere as water vapour varies greatly in just hours and days as result of the prevailing weather in any location. So even though water vapour is the greatest greenhouse gas, it is relatively short-lived. On the other hand, CO2 is removed from the air by natural geological-scale processes and these take a long time to work. Consequently CO2 stays in our atmosphere for years and even centuries. A small additional amount has a much more long-term effect.


So skeptics are right in saying that water vapor is the dominant greenhouse gas. What they don't mention is that the water vapor feedback loop actually makes temperature changes caused by CO2 even bigger.

Vostok ice cores going back 400,000 years show an 800 year lag between temperature increases and increase in CO2. So clearly CO2 is a passive passenger on the Global warming bus. Moreover if it worked as Old Rocks alleges (it doesn't) you'd see CO2 increases BEFORE increases in temperature. But the below chart, spanning the past 400,000 years shows that clearly not the case

Science. Ain't it wonderful?

 

[uscitizen]

The warmer the air over the oceans the more water vapor?
So the warmer the more greenhouse gas?

 

[Old Rocks]

Explaining how the water vapor greenhouse effect works

What the science says...
Select a level... Basic Intermediate
Increased CO2 makes more water vapor, a greenhouse gas which amplifies warming


When skeptics use this argument, they are trying to imply that an increase in CO2 isn't a major problem. If CO2 isn't as powerful as water vapor, which there's already a lot of, adding a little more CO2 couldn't be that bad, right? What this argument misses is the fact that water vapor creates what scientists call a 'positive feedback loop' in the atmosphere — making any temperature changes larger than they would be otherwise.

How does this work? The amount of water vapor in the atmosphere exists in direct relation to the temperature. If you increase the temperature, more water evaporates and becomes vapor, and vice versa. So when something else causes a temperature increase (such as extra CO2 from fossil fuels), more water evaporates. Then, since water vapor is a greenhouse gas, this additional water vapor causes the temperature to go up even further—a positive feedback.

How much does water vapor amplify CO2 warming? Studies show that water vapor feedback roughly doubles the amount of warming caused by CO2. So if there is a 1°C change caused by CO2, the water vapor will cause the temperature to go up another 1°C. When other feedback loops are included, the total warming from a potential 1°C change caused by CO2 is, in reality, as much as 3°C.

The other factor to consider is that water is evaporated from the land and sea and falls as rain or snow all the time. Thus the amount held in the atmosphere as water vapour varies greatly in just hours and days as result of the prevailing weather in any location. So even though water vapour is the greatest greenhouse gas, it is relatively short-lived. On the other hand, CO2 is removed from the air by natural geological-scale processes and these take a long time to work. Consequently CO2 stays in our atmosphere for years and even centuries. A small additional amount has a much more long-term effect.


So skeptics are right in saying that water vapor is the dominant greenhouse gas. What they don't mention is that the water vapor feedback loop actually makes temperature changes caused by CO2 even bigger.

Vostok ice cores going back 400,000 years show an 800 year lag between temperature increases and increase in CO2. So clearly CO2 is a passive passenger on the Global warming bus. Moreover if it worked as Old Rocks alleges (it doesn't) you'd see CO2 increases BEFORE increases in temperature. But the below chart, spanning the past 400,000 years shows that clearly not the case

Science. Ain't it wonderful?

Of course this has been brought up by Frankie Boy many times, and answered many times. But he is incapable of the slightest logic. For lurkers, here is the reality.

CO2 lags temperature - what does it mean?

Earth’s climate has varied widely over its history, from ice ages characterised by large ice sheets covering many land areas, to warm periods with no ice at the poles. Several factors have affected past climate change, including solar variability, volcanic activity and changes in the composition of the atmosphere. Data from Antarctic ice cores reveals an interesting story for the past 400,000 years. During this period, CO2 and temperatures are closely correlated, which means they rise and fall together. However, changes in CO2 follow changes in temperatures by about 600 to 1000 years, as illustrated in figure 1 below. This has led some to conclude that CO2 simply cannot be responsible for current global warming.

This statement does not tell the whole story. The initial changes in temperature during this period are explained by changes in the Earth’s orbit around the sun, which affects the amount of seasonal sunlight reaching the Earth’s surface. In the case of warming, the lag between temperature and CO2 is explained as follows: as ocean temperatures rise, oceans release CO2 into the atmosphere. In turn, this release amplifies the warming trend, leading to yet more CO2 being released. In other words, increasing CO2 levels become both the cause and effect of further warming. This positive feedback is necessary to trigger the shifts between glacials and interglacials as the effect of orbital changes is too weak to cause such variation. Additional positive feedbacks which play an important role in this process include other greenhouse gases, and changes in ice sheet cover and vegetation patterns.


The only conclusion that can be reached from the observed lag between CO2 and temperatures in the past 400,000 years is that CO2 did not initiate the shifts towards interglacials. To understand current climate change, scientists have looked at many factors, such as volcanic activity and solar variability, and concluded that CO2 and other greenhouse gases are the most likely factor driving current climate change. This conclusion is not based on the analysis of past climate change, though this provides key insights into the way climate responds to different forcings and adds weight to the several lines of evidence that strongly support the role of greenhouse gases in recent warming.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Explaining how the water vapor greenhouse effect works

What the science says...
Select a level... Basic Intermediate
Increased CO2 makes more water vapor, a greenhouse gas which amplifies warming

When skeptics use this argument, they are trying to imply that an increase in CO2 isn't a major problem. If CO2 isn't as powerful as water vapor, which there's already a lot of, adding a little more CO2 couldn't be that bad, right? What this argument misses is the fact that water vapor creates what scientists call a 'positive feedback loop' in the atmosphere — making any temperature changes larger than they would be otherwise.

How does this work? The amount of water vapor in the atmosphere exists in direct relation to the temperature. If you increase the temperature, more water evaporates and becomes vapor, and vice versa. So when something else causes a temperature increase (such as extra CO2 from fossil fuels), more water evaporates. Then, since water vapor is a greenhouse gas, this additional water vapor causes the temperature to go up even further—a positive feedback.

How much does water vapor amplify CO2 warming? Studies show that water vapor feedback roughly doubles the amount of warming caused by CO2. So if there is a 1°C change caused by CO2, the water vapor will cause the temperature to go up another 1°C. When other feedback loops are included, the total warming from a potential 1°C change caused by CO2 is, in reality, as much as 3°C.

The other factor to consider is that water is evaporated from the land and sea and falls as rain or snow all the time. Thus the amount held in the atmosphere as water vapour varies greatly in just hours and days as result of the prevailing weather in any location. So even though water vapour is the greatest greenhouse gas, it is relatively short-lived. On the other hand, CO2 is removed from the air by natural geological-scale processes and these take a long time to work. Consequently CO2 stays in our atmosphere for years and even centuries. A small additional amount has a much more long-term effect.


So skeptics are right in saying that water vapor is the dominant greenhouse gas. What they don't mention is that the water vapor feedback loop actually makes temperature changes caused by CO2 even bigger.

Vostok ice cores going back 400,000 years show an 800 year lag between temperature increases and increase in CO2. So clearly CO2 is a passive passenger on the Global warming bus. Moreover if it worked as Old Rocks alleges (it doesn't) you'd see CO2 increases BEFORE increases in temperature. But the below chart, spanning the past 400,000 years shows that clearly not the case

Science. Ain't it wonderful?

Of course this has been brought up by Frankie Boy many times, and answered many times. But he is incapable of the slightest logic. For lurkers, here is the reality.

CO2 lags temperature - what does it mean?

Earth’s climate has varied widely over its history, from ice ages characterised by large ice sheets covering many land areas, to warm periods with no ice at the poles. Several factors have affected past climate change, including solar variability, volcanic activity and changes in the composition of the atmosphere. Data from Antarctic ice cores reveals an interesting story for the past 400,000 years. During this period, CO2 and temperatures are closely correlated, which means they rise and fall together. However, changes in CO2 follow changes in temperatures by about 600 to 1000 years, as illustrated in figure 1 below. This has led some to conclude that CO2 simply cannot be responsible for current global warming.

This statement does not tell the whole story. The initial changes in temperature during this period are explained by changes in the Earth’s orbit around the sun, which affects the amount of seasonal sunlight reaching the Earth’s surface. In the case of warming, the lag between temperature and CO2 is explained as follows: as ocean temperatures rise, oceans release CO2 into the atmosphere. In turn, this release amplifies the warming trend, leading to yet more CO2 being released. In other words, increasing CO2 levels become both the cause and effect of further warming. This positive feedback is necessary to trigger the shifts between glacials and interglacials as the effect of orbital changes is too weak to cause such variation. Additional positive feedbacks which play an important role in this process include other greenhouse gases, and changes in ice sheet cover and vegetation patterns.


The only conclusion that can be reached from the observed lag between CO2 and temperatures in the past 400,000 years is that CO2 did not initiate the shifts towards interglacials. To understand current climate change, scientists have looked at many factors, such as volcanic activity and solar variability, and concluded that CO2 and other greenhouse gases are the most likely factor driving current climate change. This conclusion is not based on the analysis of past climate change, though this provides key insights into the way climate responds to different forcings and adds weight to the several lines of evidence that strongly support the role of greenhouse gases in recent warming.

Do you read the things you post?

"The only conclusion that can be reached from the observed lag between CO2 and temperatures in the past 400,000 years is that CO2 did not initiate the shifts towards interglacials."

And further, how can CO2 both contribute to an imaginary "forcing" by simultaneously leaving the ocean and being absorbed by the ocean.

What you've proposed is mutually exclusive and downright silly

 

[konradv]

Explaining how the water vapor greenhouse effect works

What the science says...
Select a level... Basic Intermediate
Increased CO2 makes more water vapor, a greenhouse gas which amplifies warming


When skeptics use this argument, they are trying to imply that an increase in CO2 isn't a major problem. If CO2 isn't as powerful as water vapor, which there's already a lot of, adding a little more CO2 couldn't be that bad, right? What this argument misses is the fact that water vapor creates what scientists call a 'positive feedback loop' in the atmosphere — making any temperature changes larger than they would be otherwise.

How does this work? The amount of water vapor in the atmosphere exists in direct relation to the temperature. If you increase the temperature, more water evaporates and becomes vapor, and vice versa. So when something else causes a temperature increase (such as extra CO2 from fossil fuels), more water evaporates. Then, since water vapor is a greenhouse gas, this additional water vapor causes the temperature to go up even further—a positive feedback.

How much does water vapor amplify CO2 warming? Studies show that water vapor feedback roughly doubles the amount of warming caused by CO2. So if there is a 1°C change caused by CO2, the water vapor will cause the temperature to go up another 1°C. When other feedback loops are included, the total warming from a potential 1°C change caused by CO2 is, in reality, as much as 3°C.

The other factor to consider is that water is evaporated from the land and sea and falls as rain or snow all the time. Thus the amount held in the atmosphere as water vapour varies greatly in just hours and days as result of the prevailing weather in any location. So even though water vapour is the greatest greenhouse gas, it is relatively short-lived. On the other hand, CO2 is removed from the air by natural geological-scale processes and these take a long time to work. Consequently CO2 stays in our atmosphere for years and even centuries. A small additional amount has a much more long-term effect.


So skeptics are right in saying that water vapor is the dominant greenhouse gas. What they don't mention is that the water vapor feedback loop actually makes temperature changes caused by CO2 even bigger.

Vostok ice cores going back 400,000 years show an 800 year lag between temperature increases and increase in CO2. So clearly CO2 is a passive passenger on the Global warming bus. Moreover if it worked as Old Rocks alleges (it doesn't) you'd see CO2 increases BEFORE increases in temperature. But the below chart, spanning the past 400,000 years shows that clearly not the case

Science. Ain't it wonderful?

Where is the lag on the graph? It looks like they go up in concert to me. I think someone's been playing with the data. Sorry, you're going to have to do better. A simple declaration that CO2 doesn't have an effect goes against its known properties. How do explain what happens to the energy that CO2 absorbs? It has to go somewhere! Why don't the skeptics ever explain THAT?

 

[konradv]

The warmer the air over the oceans the more water vapor?
So the warmer the more greenhouse gas?

Logic isn't Frank's forte.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Explaining how the water vapor greenhouse effect works

What the science says...
Select a level... Basic Intermediate
Increased CO2 makes more water vapor, a greenhouse gas which amplifies warming


When skeptics use this argument, they are trying to imply that an increase in CO2 isn't a major problem. If CO2 isn't as powerful as water vapor, which there's already a lot of, adding a little more CO2 couldn't be that bad, right? What this argument misses is the fact that water vapor creates what scientists call a 'positive feedback loop' in the atmosphere — making any temperature changes larger than they would be otherwise.

How does this work? The amount of water vapor in the atmosphere exists in direct relation to the temperature. If you increase the temperature, more water evaporates and becomes vapor, and vice versa. So when something else causes a temperature increase (such as extra CO2 from fossil fuels), more water evaporates. Then, since water vapor is a greenhouse gas, this additional water vapor causes the temperature to go up even further—a positive feedback.

How much does water vapor amplify CO2 warming? Studies show that water vapor feedback roughly doubles the amount of warming caused by CO2. So if there is a 1°C change caused by CO2, the water vapor will cause the temperature to go up another 1°C. When other feedback loops are included, the total warming from a potential 1°C change caused by CO2 is, in reality, as much as 3°C.

The other factor to consider is that water is evaporated from the land and sea and falls as rain or snow all the time. Thus the amount held in the atmosphere as water vapour varies greatly in just hours and days as result of the prevailing weather in any location. So even though water vapour is the greatest greenhouse gas, it is relatively short-lived. On the other hand, CO2 is removed from the air by natural geological-scale processes and these take a long time to work. Consequently CO2 stays in our atmosphere for years and even centuries. A small additional amount has a much more long-term effect.


So skeptics are right in saying that water vapor is the dominant greenhouse gas. What they don't mention is that the water vapor feedback loop actually makes temperature changes caused by CO2 even bigger.

Vostok ice cores going back 400,000 years show an 800 year lag between temperature increases and increase in CO2. So clearly CO2 is a passive passenger on the Global warming bus. Moreover if it worked as Old Rocks alleges (it doesn't) you'd see CO2 increases BEFORE increases in temperature. But the below chart, spanning the past 400,000 years shows that clearly not the case

Science. Ain't it wonderful?

Where is the lag on the graph? It looks like they go up in concert to me. I think someone's been playing with the data. Sorry, you're going to have to do better. A simple declaration that CO2 doesn't have an effect goes against its known properties. How do explain what happens to the energy that CO2 absorbs? It has to go somewhere! Why don't the skeptics ever explain THAT?

Did you read the article your uncle Old Rocks posted? They admitted there was an 800-1000 year lag in CO2 increase.

From post #11 "However, changes in CO2 follow changes in temperatures by about 600 to 1000 years, as illustrated in figure 1 below. This has led some to conclude that CO2 simply cannot be responsible for current global warming."

 

[konradv]

Vostok ice cores going back 400,000 years show an 800 year lag between temperature increases and increase in CO2. So clearly CO2 is a passive passenger on the Global warming bus. Moreover if it worked as Old Rocks alleges (it doesn't) you'd see CO2 increases BEFORE increases in temperature. But the below chart, spanning the past 400,000 years shows that clearly not the case

Science. Ain't it wonderful?

Where is the lag on the graph? It looks like they go up in concert to me. I think someone's been playing with the data. Sorry, you're going to have to do better. A simple declaration that CO2 doesn't have an effect goes against its known properties. How do explain what happens to the energy that CO2 absorbs? It has to go somewhere! Why don't the skeptics ever explain THAT?

Did you read the article your uncle Old Rocks posted? They admitted there was an 800-1000 year lag in CO2 increase.

From post #11 "However, changes in CO2 follow changes in temperatures by about 600 to 1000 years, as illustrated in figure 1 below. This has led some to conclude that CO2 simply cannot be responsible for current global warming."

Doesn't prove a thing. What happens to the energy that CO2 absorbs? Can you show us a single laboratory experiment that demonstrates that the energy just disappears?

 

[agraw]

Greenhouse effect on global ecological influence is too great, a lot of animals will lead to extinction.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Where is the lag on the graph? It looks like they go up in concert to me. I think someone's been playing with the data. Sorry, you're going to have to do better. A simple declaration that CO2 doesn't have an effect goes against its known properties. How do explain what happens to the energy that CO2 absorbs? It has to go somewhere! Why don't the skeptics ever explain THAT?

Did you read the article your uncle Old Rocks posted? They admitted there was an 800-1000 year lag in CO2 increase.

From post #11 "However, changes in CO2 follow changes in temperatures by about 600 to 1000 years, as illustrated in figure 1 below. This has led some to conclude that CO2 simply cannot be responsible for current global warming."

Doesn't prove a thing. What happens to the energy that CO2 absorbs? Can you show us a single laboratory experiment that demonstrates that the energy just disappears?

Have you figured out how to read the chart yet?

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Greenhouse effect on global ecological influence is too great, a lot of animals will lead to extinction.

Sure it will. Sure it will.