ADVERTISEMENT

Fred Hiatt: Even ExxonMobil says climate change is real. So why won’t the GOP?

Hmmmmmmm……

http://www.nasa.gov/topics/earth/features/vapor_warming.html


Water Vapor Confirmed as Major Player in Climate Change
11.17.08


291249main_vapor_still_226.jpg
The distribution of atmospheric water vapor, a significant greenhouse gas, varies across the globe. During the summer and fall of 2005, this visualization shows that most vapor collects at tropical latitudes, particularly over south Asia, where monsoon thunderstorms swept the gas some 2 miles above the land.
Credit: NASA
> Watch videoWater vapor is known to be Earth’s most abundant greenhouse gas, but the extent of its contribution to global warming has been debated. Using recent NASA satellite data, researchers have estimated more precisely than ever the heat-trapping effect of water in the air, validating the role of the gas as a critical component of climate change.

Andrew Dessler and colleagues from Texas A&M University in College Station confirmed that the heat-amplifying effect of water vapor is potent enough to double the climate warming caused by increased levels of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere.

With new observations, the scientists confirmed experimentally what existing climate models had anticipated theoretically. The research team used novel data from the Atmospheric Infrared Sounder (AIRS) on NASA’s Aqua satellite to measure precisely the humidity throughout the lowest 10 miles of the atmosphere. That information was combined with global observations of shifts in temperature, allowing researchers to build a comprehensive picture of the interplay between water vapor, carbon dioxide, and other atmosphere-warming gases. The NASA-funded research was published recently in the American Geophysical Union's Geophysical Research Letters.

"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.

291246main_vapor_graph_226x111.jpg
Based on climate variations between 2003 and 2008, the energy trapped by water vapor is shown from southern to northern latitudes, peaking near the equator.
Credit: Andrew Dessler
> Larger imageWater 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.

"The difference in an atmosphere with a strong water vapor feedback and one with a weak feedback is enormous," Dessler said.

Climate models have estimated the strength of water vapor feedback, but until now the record of water vapor data was not sophisticated enough to provide a comprehensive view of at how water vapor responds to changes in Earth's surface temperature. That's because instruments on the ground and previous space-based could not measure water vapor at all altitudes in Earth's troposphere -- the layer of the atmosphere that extends from Earth's surface to about 10 miles in altitude.

AIRS is the first instrument to distinguish differences in the amount of water vapor at all altitudes within the troposphere. Using data from AIRS, the team observed how atmospheric water vapor reacted to shifts in surface temperatures between 2003 and 2008. By determining how humidity changed with surface temperature, the team could compute the average global strength of the water vapor feedback.

“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 (about 11 square feet).

"That number may not sound like much, but add up all of that energy over the entire Earth surface and you find that water vapor is trapping a lot of energy," Dessler said. "We now think the water vapor feedback is extraordinarily strong, capable of doubling the warming due to carbon dioxide alone."

Because the new precise observations agree with existing assessments of water vapor's impact, researchers are more confident than ever in model predictions that Earth's leading greenhouse gas will contribute to a temperature rise of a few degrees by the end of the century.

"This study confirms that what was predicted by the models is really happening in the atmosphere," said Eric Fetzer, an atmospheric scientist who works with AIRS data at NASA's Jet Propulsion Laboratory in Pasadena, Calif. "Water vapor is the big player in the atmosphere as far as climate is concerned."
 
Hmmmmmmm……

http://www.nasa.gov/topics/earth/features/vapor_warming.html


Water Vapor Confirmed as Major Player in Climate Change
11.17.08


291249main_vapor_still_226.jpg
The distribution of atmospheric water vapor, a significant greenhouse gas, varies across the globe. During the summer and fall of 2005, this visualization shows that most vapor collects at tropical latitudes, particularly over south Asia, where monsoon thunderstorms swept the gas some 2 miles above the land.
Credit: NASA
> Watch videoWater vapor is known to be Earth’s most abundant greenhouse gas, but the extent of its contribution to global warming has been debated. Using recent NASA satellite data, researchers have estimated more precisely than ever the heat-trapping effect of water in the air, validating the role of the gas as a critical component of climate change.

Andrew Dessler and colleagues from Texas A&M University in College Station confirmed that the heat-amplifying effect of water vapor is potent enough to double the climate warming caused by increased levels of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere.

With new observations, the scientists confirmed experimentally what existing climate models had anticipated theoretically. The research team used novel data from the Atmospheric Infrared Sounder (AIRS) on NASA’s Aqua satellite to measure precisely the humidity throughout the lowest 10 miles of the atmosphere. That information was combined with global observations of shifts in temperature, allowing researchers to build a comprehensive picture of the interplay between water vapor, carbon dioxide, and other atmosphere-warming gases. The NASA-funded research was published recently in the American Geophysical Union's Geophysical Research Letters.

"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.

291246main_vapor_graph_226x111.jpg
Based on climate variations between 2003 and 2008, the energy trapped by water vapor is shown from southern to northern latitudes, peaking near the equator.
Credit: Andrew Dessler
> Larger imageWater 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.

"The difference in an atmosphere with a strong water vapor feedback and one with a weak feedback is enormous," Dessler said.

Climate models have estimated the strength of water vapor feedback, but until now the record of water vapor data was not sophisticated enough to provide a comprehensive view of at how water vapor responds to changes in Earth's surface temperature. That's because instruments on the ground and previous space-based could not measure water vapor at all altitudes in Earth's troposphere -- the layer of the atmosphere that extends from Earth's surface to about 10 miles in altitude.

AIRS is the first instrument to distinguish differences in the amount of water vapor at all altitudes within the troposphere. Using data from AIRS, the team observed how atmospheric water vapor reacted to shifts in surface temperatures between 2003 and 2008. By determining how humidity changed with surface temperature, the team could compute the average global strength of the water vapor feedback.

“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 (about 11 square feet).

"That number may not sound like much, but add up all of that energy over the entire Earth surface and you find that water vapor is trapping a lot of energy," Dessler said. "We now think the water vapor feedback is extraordinarily strong, capable of doubling the warming due to carbon dioxide alone."

Because the new precise observations agree with existing assessments of water vapor's impact, researchers are more confident than ever in model predictions that Earth's leading greenhouse gas will contribute to a temperature rise of a few degrees by the end of the century.

"This study confirms that what was predicted by the models is really happening in the atmosphere," said Eric Fetzer, an atmospheric scientist who works with AIRS data at NASA's Jet Propulsion Laboratory in Pasadena, Calif. "Water vapor is the big player in the atmosphere as far as climate is concerned."
I asked Trad but he punted. Perhaps you will answer. What is causing all this additional vapor? Hint it has to do with increased temps.
 
Nope. I understand completely. Water vapor is worse than CO2 but the politicians and Algores of the world want to redistribute wealth for themselves. So they CHOOSE to tax a gas that is measurable and can bankrupt people for their own benefit.

It's a total money scam and that's all it is.
Apparently you do need it explained to you. Even though others have already done so. Let me see if I can simplify it enough.

CO2 is a greenhouse gas and causes warming.
Warming increases water vapor.
Water vapor is also a greenhouse gas and adds more warming.

We don't need to address the water vapor problem (yet) because it is self-regulating. If we control the CO2-caused warming and avert the methane-caused warming, water vapor will respond almost immediately. But that isn't true of CO2. Unfortunately, an additional temp increase of one degree or possibly several degrees is already baked in. So, whether we like it or not, this positive feedback loop will make things worse.

There isn't a lot we could do about water vapor in any case, since it's temperature-driven. So, for example, even if we engaged in massive cloud seeding to try to lower planetary humidity, more water vapor would just be released through evaporation to restore the temperature-driven equilibrium.

What I don't understand - and maybe you or Tradition can explain it - is why you seem to think one of the global warming positive feedback loops is somehow an argument that favors the denialist position.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: cigaretteman
Warming = Vapor is not that simple. Why are you intent on looking like a simpleton?

Besides, we're talking about an AVERAGE temperature increase of a very tiny amount. Some days it's cooler, some days it's hotter, but there are slightly more hotter days than there used to be. You really think that's going to drastically increase evaporation rates? With no information about changes in average humidity, changes in average wind direction and speed, changes in water temperatures and currents?

If you put a two vessels of water near light bulbs, and one is 25 watts and the other is 26 watts, I doubt you'll see any appreciable increase in evaporation.
 
Warming = Vapor is not that simple. Why are you intent on looking like a simpleton?

Besides, we're talking about an AVERAGE temperature increase of a very tiny amount. Some days it's cooler, some days it's hotter, but there are slightly more hotter days than there used to be. You really think that's going to drastically increase evaporation rates? With no information about changes in average humidity, changes in average wind direction and speed, changes in water temperatures and currents?

If you put a two vessels of water near light bulbs, and one is 25 watts and the other is 26 watts, I doubt you'll see any appreciable increase in evaporation.

You are the simpleton here. It only takes a few degrees C change in global temperature to shift the overall climate of the Earth from an Ice Age iceball to the temperatures we've experienced in the past 10,000 years.

And we are not talking about a 26W vs 25W light bulb; we are talking about steadily increasing the 'forcing' of energy input on Earth by very small amounts. Earth's climate is generally in a long-term state of 'balance', much like a see-saw; one side represents hot, one side represents cold. And when you alter some element of that balance, it's like adding a small mass to one side of the see saw; in this case, the hot side.

The Earth's climate has immense inertia, just like a seesaw pivot will have, so you can add a few grams a day onto one side, and nothing will happen. But, at some point you will add enough weight onto the hot side that you will start the seesaw tilting in one direction. Once you start it into motion, it requires a greater forcing on the other side to slow it down or stop it. We have been 'forcing' the climate for >100 years now, some claim for the past 10,000 years, and the amount of weight we've been adding to the hot side of the seesaw has been steadily increasing.

It does not take a very large amount of forcing (or mass on a seesaw) to start making it move out of balance, if you keep adding to that forcing over time. And that is what makes most educated scientists pretty concerned about what may happen in the next 100 or 200 years if we don't stop the forcing actions on the climate we are currently imposing. Once that inertia starts shifting, we could go 'cold turkey' on emissions forever, but the Earth will continue to warm significantly until it hits a new balance point.
 
  • Like
Reactions: cigaretteman
Blah, blah, blah. Your see-saw analogy says nothing about evaporation rates.

Your simpleton understanding is incapable of realizing that 'water vapor' has an atmospheric half-life of less than 1 week, while CO2 has an atmospheric half-life of several hundred years. That's exactly why CO2 drives 'climate', and water vapor drives 'weather'. The water vapor is a feedback, resulting from CO2 buildup and higher temperatures, not a climate driver or forcing.

But, I doubt you've passed many science classes with better than a C+....
 
  • Like
Reactions: cigaretteman
Wow. Even with proof right in front of your eyes you still deny it's happening. Or do you not know how to read a simple X Y chart?
Maybe a slight upward trend over the entire chart, but a major dip over the past 10 years
 
No, you said water has a half life. Only compounds containing carbon have a half life. Water does not not contain carbon.

You fail.
You're aware that the official definition of half-life includes the elimination of a substance in a system and not just the decay of it, right?

Full Definition of HALF-LIFE
1
: the time required for half of something to undergo a process: as

a : the time required for half of the atoms of a radioactive substance to become disintegrated

b
: the time required for half the amount of a substance (as a drug, radioactive tracer, or pesticide) in or introduced into a living system or ecosystem to be eliminated or disintegrated by natural processes

You fail.
 
You're aware that the official definition of half-life includes the elimination of a substance in a system and not just the decay of it, right?

Full Definition of HALF-LIFE
1
: the time required for half of something to undergo a process: as

a : the time required for half of the atoms of a radioactive substance to become disintegrated

b
: the time required for half the amount of a substance (as a drug, radioactive tracer, or pesticide) in or introduced into a living system or ecosystem to be eliminated or disintegrated by natural processes

You fail.

Water is "eliminated" from the water cycle? Interesting.
 
And pop open a chemistry book sometime, trad. You also get it wrong by thinking that only substances with carbon can decay. Does uranium have carbon? No. Does plutonium have carbon? No. Does potassium have carbon? No. Yet these are all common radioactive elements that have half-lives.

Next time you spout off about science make sure you know what you're talking about first.
 
And pop open a chemistry book sometime, trad. You also get it wrong by thinking that only substances with carbon can decay. Does uranium have carbon? No. Does plutonium have carbon? No. Does potassium have carbon? No. Yet these are all common radioactive elements that have half-lives.

Next time you spout off about science make sure you know what you're talking about first.

Uranium atoms readily form molecules with carbon. Plutonium also combines with carbon.
 
Jesus, you're dumb. It's eliminated from the ecosystem. I only bolded that section. You're just embarrassing yourself now.

What is the difference between the water cycle and the ecosystem? It's PART of the ecosystem, and is never eliminated unless we shoot it into outer space or sequester it underground.
 
What is the difference between the water cycle and the ecosystem? It's PART of the ecosystem, and is never eliminated unless we shoot it into outer space or sequester it underground.
I'll be honest with you, trad. I tuned out of your posts after you claimed that the only element that can decay is carbon. You clearly don't have a grasp on basic chemistry. At this point it's a waste of my time to talk science with you anymore.
 
Dude, trad doesn't even know what an element is. You think he'll be able to understand this?

You're absolutely right, HG.

Because the 2°C change in global temperature is actually pretty significant when you are talking about trillions of gallons of water, a very small shift in temperature results in an enormous increase in water vapor.

This is stuff that's been known for well over a century and is in HS-level textbooks. So, I supposed someone with a GED or who dropped out of Jr-high probably wouldn't be able to grasp it...
 
Dude, trad doesn't even know what an element is. You think he'll be able to understand this?

Dude, your spouting a bunch of junk
I'll be honest with you, trad. I tuned out of your posts after you claimed that the only element that can decay is carbon. You clearly don't have a grasp on basic chemistry. At this point it's a waste of my time to talk science with you anymore.

Carbon in what makes something "organic". Measuring the decay of carbon is how we measure the age of various things that combine with carbon. We can't measure the age of water because it does not contain carbon.

Furthermore, this notion that water vapor "decays" in the atmosphere is wrong. Water cycles through the environment. It's like saying that water in my swimming pool has been "removed" from the pool because it's pumped out through the filter and comes right back into the pool.
 
You're absolutely right, HG.

Because the 2°C change in global temperature is actually pretty significant when you are talking about trillions of gallons of water, a very small shift in temperature results in an enormous increase in water vapor.

This is stuff that's been known for well over a century and is in HS-level textbooks. So, I supposed someone with a GED or who dropped out of Jr-high probably wouldn't be able to grasp it...

I'm sure you could post something from a HS-level textbook if what you're saying is true, but it's not.

A 2 percent increase in average temperatures will result in an increase from approximately 56 degrees F to 59 degrees F. This small temperature change is insignificant (see your own chart) compared to all the other variables of evaporation, to include the temperature of the water vs. the temperature of the air at any given time, the amount of humidity in the air at any given time, wind or the lack thereof, and so on and so on.

If you guys are going to stick with this simplistic "one variable is all that matters" idea, both in the evaporation debate and the broader climate change debate (i.e., CO2 is the only variable that matters) then I don't know what to tell you. Please keep making these wild claims. They're hilarious.
 
I'm sure you could post something from a HS-level textbook if what you're saying is true, but it's not.
What I'm saying is not only absolutely true, it's absolutely understood by any climatologist or physical chemist who works with basic phase diagrams; precisely the same science used to develop new alloys, new pharmaceuticals, etc.

That you cannot even differentiate between 'water' and 'water vapor' when someone is referencing the half life of a vapor/gas in the atmosphere tells me all I need to know: you have probably never passed a basic science class.
 
What?

What does water turn into after a week?
It leaves the atmosphere as rain, snow, dew or whatever.

As temps increase, air can hold more moisture. As temps increase and more liquid water evaporates, more of it stays in the atmosphere, exerting its greenhouse effect.

Water vapor seeks an equilibrium. So, for any given temp, as a molecule of water vapor precipitates out of the atmosphere, that makes room for newly-evaporated water to take its place.
 
  • Like
Reactions: cigaretteman
It leaves the atmosphere as rain, snow, dew or whatever.

As temps increase, air can hold more moisture. As temps increase and more liquid water evaporates, more of it stays in the atmosphere, exerting its greenhouse effect.

Water vapor seeks an equilibrium. So, for any given temp, as a molecule of water vapor precipitates out of the atmosphere, that makes room for newly-evaporated water to take its place.

If the air is holding more moisture, that is going to result in more clouds, which will allow less sunlight to warm the Earth in the first place.
 
What I'm saying is not only absolutely true, it's absolutely understood by any climatologist or physical chemist who works with basic phase diagrams; precisely the same science used to develop new alloys, new pharmaceuticals, etc.

That you cannot even differentiate between 'water' and 'water vapor' when someone is referencing the half life of a vapor/gas in the atmosphere tells me all I need to know: you have probably never passed a basic science class.

So, you have no link to this "basic" information?
 
ADVERTISEMENT
ADVERTISEMENT