How much H2O was in the atmosphere 50, 100 300 years ago?

[CrusaderFrank]

By now, we all know that CO2 is a deadly poisonous, toxic gas; even a de minimus increase in this trace element can wipe out all life on Earth, except of course for Al Gore and a few cockroaches.

This gas is so deadly the Obama Administration is thinking of banning exhaling in order to combat ManMade Climate Change Global WarmerCoolering Global CoolerWarmering the Great Climactic Googly Moogly!!

But we also learned that H2O is a more powerful Greenhouse Gas than CO2 yet we never ever never ever never ever hear how much H2O was in the atmosphere 50 or 100 years ago.

This can only mean, as usual, Libruls are totally full of methane.

Amiright?

 

[KittenKoder]

By now, we all know that CO2 is a deadly poisonous, toxic gas; even a de minimus increase in this trace element can wipe out all life on Earth, except of course for Al Gore and a few cockroaches.

This gas is so deadly the Obama Administration is thinking of banning exhaling in order to combat ManMade Climate Change Global WarmerCoolering Global CoolerWarmering the Great Climactic Googly Moogly!!

But we also learned that H2O is a more powerful Greenhouse Gas than CO2 yet we never ever never ever never ever hear how much H2O was in the atmosphere 50 or 100 years ago.

This can only mean, as usual, Libruls are totally full of methane.

Amiright?

You are right about all but one thing ... not all environuts are liberals, and not all liberals are environuts.

 

[Old Rocks]

By now, we all know that CO2 is a deadly poisonous, toxic gas; even a de minimus increase in this trace element can wipe out all life on Earth, except of course for Al Gore and a few cockroaches.

This gas is so deadly the Obama Administration is thinking of banning exhaling in order to combat ManMade Climate Change Global WarmerCoolering Global CoolerWarmering the Great Climactic Googly Moogly!!

But we also learned that H2O is a more powerful Greenhouse Gas than CO2 yet we never ever never ever never ever hear how much H2O was in the atmosphere 50 or 100 years ago.

This can only mean, as usual, Libruls are totally full of methane.

Amiright?

A complete demonstration of one braindead fool.

Water vapor is indeed a powerful greenhouse gas, but there is plenty of room for CO2 to play a role | How to Talk to a Climate Skeptic: Responses to the most common skeptical arguments on global warming | Grist

(Part of the How to Talk to a Global Warming Skeptic guide)

Objection: H2O accounts for 95% of the greenhouse effect; CO2 is insignificant.

Answer: According to the scientific literature and climate experts, CO2 contributes anywhere from 9% to 30% to the overall greenhouse effect. The 95% number does not appear to come from any scientific source, though it gets tossed around a lot.

Please see this paper (PDF), the textbook referenced here, and this article at RealClimate.

There is a very important distinction to be made, as you will read if you follow the link to Real Climate, between water vapour's role in the Earth's Greenhouse effect and it's role in climate change. If you were to read through the table of climate forcings in the IPCC report or at NASA's page about forcings in its GCM, you won't find water vapour there at all. This is not because climate scientists are trying to hide the role of water vapour, rather it is because H2O in the troposphere is a feedback effect, it is not a forcing agent. Simply put, any artificial perturbation in water vapour concentrations is too short lived to change the climate. Too much in the air will quickly rain out, not enough and the abundant ocean surface will provide the difference via evaporation. But once the air is warmed by other means, H2O concentrations will rise and stay high, thus providing the feedback.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

By now, we all know that CO2 is a deadly poisonous, toxic gas; even a de minimus increase in this trace element can wipe out all life on Earth, except of course for Al Gore and a few cockroaches.

This gas is so deadly the Obama Administration is thinking of banning exhaling in order to combat ManMade Climate Change Global WarmerCoolering Global CoolerWarmering the Great Climactic Googly Moogly!!

But we also learned that H2O is a more powerful Greenhouse Gas than CO2 yet we never ever never ever never ever hear how much H2O was in the atmosphere 50 or 100 years ago.

This can only mean, as usual, Libruls are totally full of methane.

Amiright?

A complete demonstration of one braindead fool.

Water vapor is indeed a powerful greenhouse gas, but there is plenty of room for CO2 to play a role | How to Talk to a Climate Skeptic: Responses to the most common skeptical arguments on global warming | Grist

(Part of the How to Talk to a Global Warming Skeptic guide)

Objection: H2O accounts for 95% of the greenhouse effect; CO2 is insignificant.

Answer: According to the scientific literature and climate experts, CO2 contributes anywhere from 9% to 30% to the overall greenhouse effect. The 95% number does not appear to come from any scientific source, though it gets tossed around a lot.

Please see this paper (PDF), the textbook referenced here, and this article at RealClimate.

There is a very important distinction to be made, as you will read if you follow the link to Real Climate, between water vapour's role in the Earth's Greenhouse effect and it's role in climate change. If you were to read through the table of climate forcings in the IPCC report or at NASA's page about forcings in its GCM, you won't find water vapour there at all. This is not because climate scientists are trying to hide the role of water vapour, rather it is because H2O in the troposphere is a feedback effect, it is not a forcing agent. Simply put, any artificial perturbation in water vapour concentrations is too short lived to change the climate. Too much in the air will quickly rain out, not enough and the abundant ocean surface will provide the difference via evaporation. But once the air is warmed by other means, H2O concentrations will rise and stay high, thus providing the feedback.

See what happens when you ask a simple question about the Great Climatic Googly Moogly?

You get "Don't look behind the curtain!"

Basically, the response is, "H2O is a more powerful greenhouse gas, but we're ignoring it because you can control the economy via CO2 emissions but we can't destroy Western Civilization by asking people to stop taking hot showers."

Oh, and douchebag Old Rock neg repped me even daring to ask the question.

You see the height of douchebaggery one has to contend with on the topic of ManMade GlobalWarmerCoolering?

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Oh, there's an article from "Real Climate" that's comforting. I mean Climatology is a settled science unlike that hit or miss science called physics.

 

[Old Rocks]

Oh, there's an article from "Real Climate" that's comforting. I mean Climatology is a settled science unlike that hit or miss science called physics.

Frank, you are an ignorant ass for sure. Here is a site from the American Institute of Physics.

The Carbon Dioxide Greenhouse Effect

By the way, if you wish this continued exchange of ridicuous insults, I can do that. If you wish to debate the subject with real information, like adults, I can do that also.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Oh, there's an article from "Real Climate" that's comforting. I mean Climatology is a settled science unlike that hit or miss science called physics.

Frank, you are an ignorant ass for sure. Here is a site from the American Institute of Physics.

The Carbon Dioxide Greenhouse Effect

By the way, if you wish this continued exchange of ridicuous insults, I can do that. If you wish to debate the subject with real information, like adults, I can do that also.

Debating Climatology is like debating shapes in clouds; there's no real science behind it especially when it comes to de minimus changes in the atmosphere trace element CO2.

"CO2 contributes anywhere from 9% to 30% to the overall greenhouse effect."

How are you supposed to take this seriously? HOW?

 

[hjmick]

...Googly Moogly

"Great googly moogly," made popular by Frank Zappa in the song "Nanook Rubs It" from Apostrophe in 1974.

Or...

A Snickers commercial...

[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hSAXLayoMKI[/ame]

 

[CrusaderFrank]

...Googly Moogly

"Great googly moogly," made popular by Frank Zappa in the song "Nanook Rubs It" from Apostrophe in 1974.

Or...

A Snickers commercial...

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hSAXLayoMKI]YouTube - Snickers Great Googly Moogly[/ame]

The crux of the biscuit is the apostrophe...

 

[CrusaderFrank]

...Googly Moogly

"Great googly moogly," made popular by Frank Zappa in the song "Nanook Rubs It" from Apostrophe in 1974.

Or...

A Snickers commercial...

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hSAXLayoMKI]YouTube - Snickers Great Googly Moogly[/ame]

Frank Zappa/Steve Vai-Stevie's Spanking (LIVE) Video by art - MySpace Video

I pin the Volume control when I play this one

 

[Meister]

By now, we all know that CO2 is a deadly poisonous, toxic gas; even a de minimus increase in this trace element can wipe out all life on Earth, except of course for Al Gore and a few cockroaches.

This gas is so deadly the Obama Administration is thinking of banning exhaling in order to combat ManMade Climate Change Global WarmerCoolering Global CoolerWarmering the Great Climactic Googly Moogly!!

But we also learned that H2O is a more powerful Greenhouse Gas than CO2 yet we never ever never ever never ever hear how much H2O was in the atmosphere 50 or 100 years ago.

This can only mean, as usual, Libruls are totally full of methane.

Amiright?

A complete demonstration of one braindead fool.

Water vapor is indeed a powerful greenhouse gas, but there is plenty of room for CO2 to play a role | How to Talk to a Climate Skeptic: Responses to the most common skeptical arguments on global warming | Grist

(Part of the How to Talk to a Global Warming Skeptic guide)

Objection: H2O accounts for 95% of the greenhouse effect; CO2 is insignificant.

Answer: According to the scientific literature and climate experts, CO2 contributes anywhere from 9% to 30% to the overall greenhouse effect. The 95% number does not appear to come from any scientific source, though it gets tossed around a lot.

Please see this paper (PDF), the textbook referenced here, and this article at RealClimate.

There is a very important distinction to be made, as you will read if you follow the link to Real Climate, between water vapour's role in the Earth's Greenhouse effect and it's role in climate change. If you were to read through the table of climate forcings in the IPCC report or at NASA's page about forcings in its GCM, you won't find water vapour there at all. This is not because climate scientists are trying to hide the role of water vapour, rather it is because H2O in the troposphere is a feedback effect, it is not a forcing agent. Simply put, any artificial perturbation in water vapour concentrations is too short lived to change the climate. Too much in the air will quickly rain out, not enough and the abundant ocean surface will provide the difference via evaporation. But once the air is warmed by other means, H2O concentrations will rise and stay high, thus providing the feedback.

See what happens when you ask a simple question about the Great Climatic Googly Moogly?

You get "Don't look behind the curtain!"

Basically, the response is, "H2O is a more powerful greenhouse gas, but we're ignoring it because you can control the economy via CO2 emissions but we can't destroy Western Civilization by asking people to stop taking hot showers."

Oh, and douchebag Old Rock neg repped me even daring to ask the question.

You see the height of douchebaggery one has to contend with on the topic of ManMade GlobalWarmerCoolering?

Old Rocks....did you neg rep Frank? What the hell for?
Your the biggest goofball on the board, and I never neg repped you.

 

[FactFinder]

Good thing soft rocks is just a millwright and thus doesn't have his paw on "The Button". he'd likely nuke anyone who he disagreed with.

A couple lines from environuts document of spin points,,,er I mean, talking points... err I mean bullshit does not a legitimate point make.

 

[code1211]

By now, we all know that CO2 is a deadly poisonous, toxic gas; even a de minimus increase in this trace element can wipe out all life on Earth, except of course for Al Gore and a few cockroaches.

This gas is so deadly the Obama Administration is thinking of banning exhaling in order to combat ManMade Climate Change Global WarmerCoolering Global CoolerWarmering the Great Climactic Googly Moogly!!

But we also learned that H2O is a more powerful Greenhouse Gas than CO2 yet we never ever never ever never ever hear how much H2O was in the atmosphere 50 or 100 years ago.

This can only mean, as usual, Libruls are totally full of methane.

Amiright?

A complete demonstration of one braindead fool.

Water vapor is indeed a powerful greenhouse gas, but there is plenty of room for CO2 to play a role | How to Talk to a Climate Skeptic: Responses to the most common skeptical arguments on global warming | Grist

(Part of the How to Talk to a Global Warming Skeptic guide)

Objection: H2O accounts for 95% of the greenhouse effect; CO2 is insignificant.

Answer: According to the scientific literature and climate experts, CO2 contributes anywhere from 9% to 30% to the overall greenhouse effect. The 95% number does not appear to come from any scientific source, though it gets tossed around a lot.

Please see this paper (PDF), the textbook referenced here, and this article at RealClimate.

There is a very important distinction to be made, as you will read if you follow the link to Real Climate, between water vapour's role in the Earth's Greenhouse effect and it's role in climate change. If you were to read through the table of climate forcings in the IPCC report or at NASA's page about forcings in its GCM, you won't find water vapour there at all. This is not because climate scientists are trying to hide the role of water vapour, rather it is because H2O in the troposphere is a feedback effect, it is not a forcing agent. Simply put, any artificial perturbation in water vapour concentrations is too short lived to change the climate. Too much in the air will quickly rain out, not enough and the abundant ocean surface will provide the difference via evaporation. But once the air is warmed by other means, H2O concentrations will rise and stay high, thus providing the feedback.

Realclimate and How to Talk to a Climate Skeptic?

These are just about the most biased sources available on the planet. Do you have any authoritative sources that reflect the Greenhouse effect of each molecule of CO2 and each molecule of Water vapor?

My guess is that this would be almost impossible to find as it would deflate entirely the hysteria. If it were available, though, then we could accurately pin the impact of the 3% of the 4-5% of the 5% that is Anthropogeninc CO2. As a civilian, I'm clueless as to even where to look for this. As a geologist, do you have a source?

 

[Old Rocks]

The Carbon Dioxide Greenhouse Effect

Misleading argument 1: ’Climate change is nothing to do with humans’

Carbon Cycle Science Breakthroughs. . . . at NOAA and Beyond

http://www.usgs.gov/corecast/?tag=ClimateChange

 

[elvis]

A complete demonstration of one braindead fool.

Water vapor is indeed a powerful greenhouse gas, but there is plenty of room for CO2 to play a role | How to Talk to a Climate Skeptic: Responses to the most common skeptical arguments on global warming | Grist

(Part of the How to Talk to a Global Warming Skeptic guide)

Objection: H2O accounts for 95% of the greenhouse effect; CO2 is insignificant.

Answer: According to the scientific literature and climate experts, CO2 contributes anywhere from 9% to 30% to the overall greenhouse effect. The 95% number does not appear to come from any scientific source, though it gets tossed around a lot.

Please see this paper (PDF), the textbook referenced here, and this article at RealClimate.

There is a very important distinction to be made, as you will read if you follow the link to Real Climate, between water vapour's role in the Earth's Greenhouse effect and it's role in climate change. If you were to read through the table of climate forcings in the IPCC report or at NASA's page about forcings in its GCM, you won't find water vapour there at all. This is not because climate scientists are trying to hide the role of water vapour, rather it is because H2O in the troposphere is a feedback effect, it is not a forcing agent. Simply put, any artificial perturbation in water vapour concentrations is too short lived to change the climate. Too much in the air will quickly rain out, not enough and the abundant ocean surface will provide the difference via evaporation. But once the air is warmed by other means, H2O concentrations will rise and stay high, thus providing the feedback.

See what happens when you ask a simple question about the Great Climatic Googly Moogly?

You get "Don't look behind the curtain!"

Basically, the response is, "H2O is a more powerful greenhouse gas, but we're ignoring it because you can control the economy via CO2 emissions but we can't destroy Western Civilization by asking people to stop taking hot showers."

Oh, and douchebag Old Rock neg repped me even daring to ask the question.

You see the height of douchebaggery one has to contend with on the topic of ManMade GlobalWarmerCoolering?

Old Rocks....did you neg rep Frank? What the hell for?
Your the biggest goofball on the board, and I never neg repped you.

Roxy is taking it out on everyone else since his boyfriend Chrissy lost his rep power.

 

[elvis]

Oh, there's an article from "Real Climate" that's comforting. I mean Climatology is a settled science unlike that hit or miss science called physics.

Frank, you are an ignorant ass for sure. Here is a site from the American Institute of Physics.

The Carbon Dioxide Greenhouse Effect

By the way, if you wish this continued exchange of ridicuous insults, I can do that. If you wish to debate the subject with real information, like adults, I can do that also.

For old rocks, "like adults"= gagging on Al gore's cock.

 

[KittenKoder]

I still have yet to see anything more than parroting garbage from the environuts ... I am wondering, if they will ever do more than swallow reports and assertions based on incomplete science?

 

[code1211]

The Carbon Dioxide Greenhouse Effect

Misleading argument 1: ’Climate change is nothing to do with humans’

Carbon Cycle Science Breakthroughs. . . . at NOAA and Beyond

U.S. Geological Survey: USGS CoreCast

Was this a response to my request? I didn't see any comparrison between the GHG power of a molecule of CO2 vs a molecule of H2O.

If it was in there, could you please cut and paste it?

My contention was that this is hard to find because if it were presented, it would undermine the argument of CO2 being a driver of climate even farther than it has already been undermined.

I know that this is a moving target because the impact of GHG decreases in potency as the concentration increases meaning that a particular concentration is needed to affect any temperature change, but that concentration needs to rise dramatically to achieve the same incremental change again and so on. More and more GHG gas is required to cause less and less climate rise.

Does anybody have a source for this relationship Broken down between the various GHG's and an understandable layman's explanation?

 

[Old Rocks]

Water vapor is the most powerful greenhouse gas
The skeptic argument...Water vapour is the most important greenhouse gas. If you get a fall evening and the sky is clear, heat will escape, the temperature will drop and you get frost. If there's cloud cover, the heat is trapped by water vapour as a greenhouse gas and the temperature stays warm. If you go to In Salah in southern Algeria, they recorded at noon 52°C. By midnight, it's -3.6°C. That’s a 56°C drop in temperature in 12 hours. It's caused because there is very little water vapour in the atmosphere and is a demonstration of water vapour as the most important greenhouse gas (source: Interview with Tim Ball).

What the science says...

Water vapour is indeed the most dominant greenhouse gas. The radiative forcing for water is around 75 W/m2 while carbon dioxide contributes 32 W/m2 (Kiehl 1997). Water vapour is also the dominant positive feedback in our climate system and a major reason why temperature is so sensitive to changes in CO2.

Unlike external forcings such as CO2 which can be added to the atmosphere, the level of water vapour in the atmosphere is a function of temperature. Water vapour is brought into the atmosphere via evaporation - the rate depends on the ocean and air temperature and is governed by the Clausius-Clapeyron relation.

If extra water is added to the atmosphere, it condenses and falls as rain or snow within a week or two. Similarly, if somehow moisture was sucked out of the atmosphere, evaporation would restore water vapour levels to 'normal levels' in short time.

Water Vapour as a positive feedback
As water vapour is directly related to temperature, it's also a positive feedback - in fact, the largest positive feedback in the climate system (Soden 2005). As temperature rises, evaporation increases and more water vapour accumulates in the atmosphere. As a greenhouse gas, the water absorbs more heat, further warming the air and causing more evaporation.

How does water vapour fit in with CO2 emissions? When CO2 is added to the atmosphere, as a greenhouse gas it has a warming effect. This causes more water to evaporate and warm the air more to a higher (more or less) stabilized level. So CO2 warming has an amplified effect, beyond a purely CO2 effect.

How much does water vapour amplify CO2 warming? Without any feedbacks, a doubling of CO2 would warm the globe around 1°C. Taken on its own, water vapour feedback roughly doubles the amount of CO2 warming. When other feedbacks are included (eg - loss of albedo due to melting ice), the total warming from a doubling of CO2 is around 3°C (Held 2000).

Water vapor is the most powerful greenhouse gas

 

[KittenKoder]

Hmm ... so with the "solar minimum" we need more water in the air so all the plant life doesn't die off ... so, how do we create water?