Science & Technology News

[newhaul]

Originally Posted by Dieseldude

The chart well illustrates that water vapor dominates. Did you include the citation, or did I miss it? I'm sure that there ill be nay sayers questioning the source.

I have posted it all before they all know the sources but here ya go

https://www.sciencedirect.com/scienc...05844018327415
The part reviewed paper is also a downloadable PDF as well as cytable

[newhaul]

Originally Posted by Dieseldude

Mars lacks the atmospheric gas that dominates earth's climate: water vapor.

Actually no it has a lot more to do with the same reason for the differing temperatures on all the planet's atmospheric pressure.
Don't let them try to tell you Venus is hotter ( as in 800?° hotter just because of the 90% or so co2 content. ) mars has the same concentrations. But a lot lower pressure.

And don't get me started about the warmer atmosphere on Neptune than Uranus even though it's further from Sol.

[Dieseldude]

Originally Posted by ImaginaryNumber

To say nothing of all those idiots who have built where forest fires occur, and those idiots who have built on fault zones, and those idiots who have built where hurricanes hit, and those idiots who have built in tornado alley, and those idiots who have built on now-melting permafrost, and those idiots who have built on sinking river deltas, and those idiots who have built in deserts, and those idiots who have built in the unbearably hot tropics, and...and...and...

It seems that all the world is uninhabitable. Obviously some of these worst case locations should have been avoided such as flood planes. But leaving vast areas uninhabited because a hurricane rips through from time to time would be an example of being overly cautious. Avoiding fault zones would have meant no settlement on North America's west coast. Avoiding tornado alley would mean no settlement in the US south and mid west. Avoiding forests due to fires would restrict settlement to only the central planes of North America, but they get tornadoes. Rising sea and nasty storms rule out all coastal areas. Perhaps a few areas of high planes could be used to house the world's population. But that opens up problems of overcrowding and limited resources. The answer seems to be avoid the very worst places and adapt architecture as best as possible to the places of moderate risk.

[GordMay]

Originally Posted by AllenRbrts

Yes you are correct that the effects of water vapor are higher than CO2. That doesn't stand to reason that you can ignore CO2.
You quote that CO2 is only .04% of the atmosphere and then conclude it doesn't matter. CO2 is only .04% of gases which mostly are transparent to IR reflected from the earth's surface back towards space, so those other gaes don't count at all in the equation.
The problem with water vapor being a greenhouse gas is it has an amplifying effect. When the atmosphere is warmer it can hold more water vapor. Which in turn heats up the atmosphere, etc. So as the concentration of CO2 rises due to burning fossil fuels and more heat is absorbed by the atmosphere and which increases the water content and the cycle continues.
As I pointed out to you, be very glad about that .04%, without it this would be a frozen planet.

Indeed.

I find it interesting to note how willing some are to cherry-pick NASA for data, they often misinterpret [as in this recent discussion], to support their contrarian beliefs, but decry the institution’s corruption [most of] the rest of the time.

Tell us: is NASA a mostly reliable source of accurate scientific information, or not?
[FWIW: I believe it is]

“Water Vapor Confirmed as Major Player in Climate Change” ~ NASA's Goddard Space Flight Center

..."Everyone agrees that if you add carbon dioxide to the atmosphere, then warming will result,” Dessler said. “So the real question is, how much warming?"
The answer can be found by estimating the magnitude of water vapor feedback. Increasing water vapor leads to warmer temperatures, which causes more water vapor to be absorbed into the air. Warming and water absorption increase in a spiraling cycle.
Water vapor feedback can also amplify the warming effect of other greenhouse gases, such that the warming brought about by increased carbon dioxide allows more water vapor to enter the atmosphere...
... This new data set shows that as surface temperature increases, so does atmospheric humidity,” Dessler said. “Dumping greenhouse gases into the atmosphere makes the atmosphere more humid. And since water vapor is itself a greenhouse gas, the increase in humidity amplifies the warming from carbon dioxide."
Specifically, the team found that if Earth warms 1.8 degrees Fahrenheit, the associated increase in water vapor will trap an extra 2 Watts of energy per square meter ...

➥ https://www.nasa.gov/topics/earth/fe...r_warming.html

In other words, water vapor makes carbon dioxide much more effective, at warming the planet [they found that if the Earth warms by 1°C, rising humidity will trap an additional 2 Watts of energy per square metre, similar to the estimates simulated by climate models]
It's correct that water vapor is the most important greenhouse gas, says atmospheric scientist Andrew Dessler, but it should not overshadow the importance of carbon dioxide emissions.

The scientific paper, the NASA [Goddard] article discusses:
“The response of stratospheric water vapor to climate change driven by different forcing agents” ~ by Xun Wang and Andrew E. Dessler
➥ https://acp.copernicus.org/articles/20/13267/2020/

From newhaul’s NASA [Langley Research] article [#3609], discussing the Global Effects of Mount Pinatubo:
“... over the next 15 months, scientists measured a drop in the average global temperature of about 1 degree F (0.6 degrees C)...”
Which IS, as newby implies, considerably more effect, than AllenRbrts “0.4C for a year”

From newhaul’s NASA article [#3616]:
“... The vegetation cooling effect is large from the energy dissipation perspective, but only about 10%-20% compared to the pace of global warming.
... This is a warning sign about climate change. We should be cautious that the rainforests, which are at the forefront of the fight against global warming, are reaching the limits of their capacity to absorb carbon and cool the surface.”

The scientific paper, the NASA article discusses:
“Biophysical impacts of Earth greening largely controlled by aerodynamic resistance” ~ by Chi Chen et al
➥ https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/sciadv.abb1981

[AllenRbrts]

Originally Posted by Dieseldude

Not a problem. CO2 is only 1/72 or .014 of water vapor content. And water is a green house gas. Its temperature effect dominates dominates that of CO2 by a factor of 72.

Your calculation ignores a couple of key facts.
First, water vapor in the atmosphere is not well mixed. It is mostly in the lower atmosphere and near the equator because at lower temperatures water vapor becomes a liquid. CO2 on the other hand is a well mixed gas, so it pretty uniformly distributed in the atmosphere.
Second, gases absorb radiation at different frequencies. For radiation from the sun the atmosphere is mostly transparent, so most of the energy warms the surface. That warm surface, radiates energy back out at a much lower frequency. At these frequencies, some the gases (not O2 or N2) in the atmosphere absorb energy and radiate it back in all directions. However, the absorption is in frequency bands. Water and CO2 do absorb in some bands in common, but there are bands where CO2 absorbs and water does not. In those cases, the concentration water vapor is irrelevant because it is transparent. See attached which shows the frequency bands of atmospheric gases.

[Dieseldude]

Originally Posted by GordMay

Indeed.

I find it interesting to note how willing some are to cherry-pick NASA for data, they often misinterpret [as in this recent discussion], to support their contrarian beliefs, but decry the institution’s corruption [most of] the rest of the time.

Tell us: is NASA a mostly reliable source of accurate scientific information, or not?
[FWIW: I believe it is]

“Water Vapor Confirmed as Major Player in Climate Change” ~ NASA's Goddard Space Flight Center
➥ https://www.nasa.gov/topics/earth/fe...r_warming.html

In other words, water vapor makes carbon dioxide much more effective, at warming the planet [they found that if the Earth warms by 1°C, rising humidity will trap an additional 2 Watts of energy per square metre, similar to the estimates simulated by climate models]
It's correct that water vapor is the most important greenhouse gas, says atmospheric scientist Andrew Dessler, but it should not overshadow the importance of carbon dioxide emissions.

The scientific paper, the NASA [Goddard] article discusses:
“The response of stratospheric water vapor to climate change driven by different forcing agents” ~ by Xun Wang and Andrew E. Dessler
➥ https://acp.copernicus.org/articles/20/13267/2020/

From newhaul’s NASA [Langley Research] article [#3609], discussing the Global Effects of Mount Pinatubo:
“... over the next 15 months, scientists measured a drop in the average global temperature of about 1 degree F (0.6 degrees C)...”
Which IS, as newby implies, considerably more effect, than AllenRbrts “0.4C for a year”

From newhaul’s NASA article [#3616]:
“... The vegetation cooling effect is large from the energy dissipation perspective, but only about 10%-20% compared to the pace of global warming.
... This is a warning sign about climate change. We should be cautious that the rainforests, which are at the forefront of the fight against global warming, are reaching the limits of their capacity to absorb carbon and cool the surface.”

The scientific paper, the NASA article discusses:
“Biophysical impacts of Earth greening largely controlled by aerodynamic resistance” ~ by Chi Chen et al
➥ https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/sciadv.abb1981

Though NASA propagates the anthropomorphic climate change lie, they do leak out some truth. Complex lies are generally mixture of truth and fiction. I think that we can be confident in NASA's atmospheric CO2 measurements. They are independently verifiable. Their statement of water vapor being the most abundant green house gas is also verifiable. Giving credence to such basic science cannot be considered as cherry picking, as it is easily confirmed by other sources. It is their complex climate modelling that fails scrutiny. The more complex the scheme, the more opportunity to falsify. Computer climate modelling is only as objective as the people who write the code. Biases are easily built in.



Climate change cultists are so predictable. They always use red herring statements to side track the discussion.



As for large scale rain forest loss, it is quite clear that this is detrimental. We do not need NASA to tell us. The effect of this on atmospheric CO2 levels may not be so severe though. There are plenty of plants, both large and micro, in the sea to buffer the effects of land plants.

[Dieseldude]

Originally Posted by AllenRbrts

Your calculation ignores a couple of key facts.
First, water vapor in the atmosphere is not well mixed. It is mostly in the lower atmosphere and near the equator because at lower temperatures water vapor becomes a liquid. CO2 on the other hand is a well mixed gas, so it pretty uniformly distributed in the atmosphere.
Second, gases absorb radiation at different frequencies. For radiation from the sun the atmosphere is mostly transparent, so most of the energy warms the surface. That warm surface, radiates energy back out at a much lower frequency. At these frequencies, some the gases (not O2 or N2) in the atmosphere absorb energy and radiate it back in all directions. However, the absorption is in frequency bands. Water and CO2 do absorb in some bands in common, but there are bands where CO2 absorbs and water does not. In those cases, the concentration water vapor is irrelevant because it is transparent. See attached which shows the frequency bands of atmospheric gases.

The graphs are interesting, but the area under the H2O curve is much greater than the area under the CO2 curve, showing that H2O dominates. This supports the graph posted by Newhaul.

[AllenRbrts]

Originally Posted by newhaul

I have posted it all before they all know the sources but here ya go

https://www.sciencedirect.com/scienc...05844018327415
The part reviewed paper is also a downloadable PDF as well as cytable

Do you read the things you post? If you did you might find they say something different than you think. If you think this paper somehow debunks the effect of CO2 in the atmosphere, you didn't actually read it.

[AllenRbrts]

Originally Posted by Dieseldude

The graphs are interesting, but the area under the H2O curve is much greater than the area under the CO2 curve, showing that H2O dominates. This supports the graph posted by Newhaul.

You are ignoring the points I made. Perhaps this will help. This is graph of measured vs calculated of outgoing radiation from the earth. Note the decreased radiation in the frequency of CO2 absorption. The curves purposefully offset from each other, in reality that sit on top of each other. The absorption of the atmosphere is well understood and has been for a long time (this graph was from the 60s by the US military). You might think you have discovered something all these scientists have overlooked for the past 100 years, but you haven't.

[Dieseldude]

Originally Posted by AllenRbrts

Do you read the things you post? If you did you might find they say something different than you think. If you think this paper somehow debunks the effect of CO2 in the atmosphere, you didn't actually read it.

The dominant effect of water vapor is well stated early in the paper.
"Water vapor contributes significantly to the greenhouse effect, between 35% and 65 % for clear sky conditions and between 65% and 85% for a cloudy day."

[Dieseldude]

Originally Posted by AllenRbrts

You are ignoring the points I made. Perhaps this will help. This is graph of measured vs calculated of outgoing radiation from the earth. Note the decreased radiation in the frequency of CO2 absorption. The curves purposefully offset from each other, in reality that sit on top of each other. The absorption of the atmosphere is well understood and has been for a long time (this graph was from the 60s by the US military). You might think you have discovered something all these scientists have overlooked for the past 100 years, but you haven't.

The gap indicates the CO2's reduced affect compared to H2O.

[GordMay]

At doom’s doorstep: It is [still] 100 seconds to midnight

The Doomsday Clock remain at 100 seconds to midnight, as scientists warn of threats of nuclear war and climate change.
The Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists, an organisation whose aim is to disseminate information to “reduce man-made threats”, announced the unchanged doomsday warning on Thursday
The last time the clock was at two minutes to midnight – where midnight represents global catastrophe – was in 1953, during the Cold War years, when the United States and the Soviet Union were testing hydrogen bombs.

2022 Doomsday Clock Announcement ➥ https://thebulletin.org/doomsday-clock/

Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists Statement ➥ https://thebulletin.org/doomsday-clock/current-time/

[Dieseldude]

Originally Posted by GordMay

At doom’s doorstep: It is [still] 100 seconds to midnight

The Doomsday Clock remain at 100 seconds to midnight, as scientists warn of threats of nuclear war and climate change.
The Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists, an organisation whose aim is to disseminate information to “reduce man-made threats”, announced the unchanged doomsday warning on Thursday
The last time the clock was at two minutes to midnight – where midnight represents global catastrophe – was in 1953, during the Cold War years, when the United States and the Soviet Union were testing hydrogen bombs.

2022 Doomsday Clock Announcement ➥ https://thebulletin.org/doomsday-clock/

Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists Statement ➥ https://thebulletin.org/doomsday-clock/current-time/

A concern for sure. But we are busy fighting COVID and climate tyranny. Nuclear explosions might be the answer though. Radiation would kill off the virus. The earth would cool off by plenty of atmospheric dust screening out sunlight. Don't leak this idea to the government though. With their reckless approach so far, they could try anything. They have destroyed the economy, forced people out of jobs and closed businesses, and killed and maimed people with vaccine reactions. So finally destroying the environment might be viewed as the next solution.

[Lake-Effect]

Originally Posted by Dieseldude

If origin theory of hydrocarbon deposits is correct, then all that CO2 that they contain, originated in the atmosphere. So burning them only returns CO2 back to its natural place in the atmosphere. So what is the harm?

... Nuclear explosions might be the answer though. Radiation would kill off the virus. The earth would cool off by plenty of atmospheric dust screening out sunlight.

Ignorance of epic proportions... or shameless trolling.

I am going to assume the latter, because it's hard to imagine someone succeeding in life with that level of stupid. You're welcome.

[AllenRbrts]

Originally Posted by Dieseldude

The graphs are interesting, but the area under the H2O curve is much greater than the area under the CO2 curve, showing that H2O dominates. This supports the graph posted by Newhaul.

Actually found a study which has the relative influence of O2, CO2 and H2O in the amount of outgoing radiation from the earth. This was done with the concentration of 330ppm of CO2, so today's influence would be more. It shows that H2O has about 2.5X the absorption that CO2 does in the atmosphere. So your 72x number was off by about a factor of 30. But remember water is acting like an amplifier as well. Warming caused by CO2 causes more water vapor in the atmosphere which then causes more warming.

http://climateknowledge.org/figures/...ys_%201978.pdf