# Water Vapor Is The Dominant Greenhouse Gas

global warming climate change water vapor carbon dioxide

126 replies to this topic

### #1 TooMuchFun

TooMuchFun

• Members
• 57 posts

Posted 28 September 2018 - 09:27 AM

For the last four or five decades, atmospheric carbon dioxide has increased (gasp!) at a rate of approximately 1.3 parts per MILLION volume (ppmv).

Today, that concentration is slightly over 400 ppmv.

Compare this with atmospheric water vapor which is roughly 15,000 ppmv.

Not only is water vapor THE dominant greenhouse gas from a quantitative point of view, but qualitatively, water vapor absorbs more light energy than carbon dioxide, ceteris paribus.

To counter this science that so infuriates climate change proponents,  they have created a lexicon of confusion.

"Oh water vapor falls out as rain but carbon dioxide - whoa, that stays up there for decades."

Irrelevant.  A molecule is a molecule, old or new.

"Forcing!"

### #2 exchemist

exchemist

Creating

• Members
• 2488 posts

Posted 28 September 2018 - 10:33 AM

For the last four or five decades, atmospheric carbon dioxide has increased (gasp!) at a rate of approximately 1.3 parts per MILLION volume (ppmv).

Today, that concentration is slightly over 400 ppmv.

Compare this with atmospheric water vapor which is roughly 15,000 ppmv.

Not only is water vapor THE dominant greenhouse gas from a quantitative point of view, but qualitatively, water vapor absorbs more light energy than carbon dioxide, ceteris paribus.

To counter this science that so infuriates climate change proponents,  they have created a lexicon of confusion.

"Oh water vapor falls out as rain but carbon dioxide - whoa, that stays up there for decades."

Irrelevant.  A molecule is a molecule, old or new.

"Forcing!"

Wrong, but kudos for the IR spectrum. This nicely illustrates how CO2 absorbs at several wavelength regions that are transparent to water. So it thereby closes off the windows for radiating heat into space that water leaves open. Furthermore, water vapour concentration increases if the temperature goes up, due to the extra evaporation that takes place. So any extra increase in temperature due to CO2 closing the window is amplified by the water vapour effect. These are some of the reasons why there is an almost unanimous view in science that CO2 does in fact lead to climate change.

The correlation between global mean temperature and CO2 concentration over the last 150yrs corroborates the hypothesis:

https://www.co2levels.org

https://www.temperaturerecord.org

There is no serious doubt about it any longer. Those who refuse to acknowledge at least the likelihood that it is a real effect have, logically, to be conspiracy theorists.

### #3 TooMuchFun

TooMuchFun

• Members
• 57 posts

Posted 28 September 2018 - 12:35 PM

OF COURSE there is correlation between temperature and atmospheric CO2 levels.  Higher temperatures degasify the ocean,  increasing CO2 as a result.

You and others have the cause and effect all backwards.  But your shouts drown out all reason, all science.

Money from government for *research* is the driving engine. It makes academics lie and fudge their data.

Any dissenters are blackballed and ostracized.  That isn't science, it's the politics of greed.

As to the graph you love, it clearly shows far greater absorbtion, the yellow region, for water vapor than for the blue area, CO2.

Now one more graph that will make you gnash your teeth and spin facts.

CO2 adjusted to a zero base and including water vapor.

### #4 TooMuchFun

TooMuchFun

• Members
• 57 posts

Posted 28 September 2018 - 12:36 PM

Why Scientists Disagree About Global Warming

The NIPCC  Report on Scientific Consensus, by Craig D. Idso, Robert M. Carter, and S. Fred Singer

https://www.heartlan...with covers.pdf

A detailed scholarly article exposing the fraud of global warming/climate change:

http://www.petitionp...iew_OISM150.pdf

Global Warmists have been cheating, lying

https://thsresearch....port-062717.pdf

ABSTRACT

The objective of this research was to test the hypothesis that Global
Average Surface Temperature (GAST) data, produced by NOAA,
NASA, and HADLEY, are sufficiently credible estimates of global
average temperatures such that they can be relied upon for climate
modeling and policy analysis purposes. The relevance of this
research is that the validity of all three of the so- called Lines of
Evidence in EPA’s GHG/CO2 Endangerment Finding require GAST
data to be a valid representation of reality.

In this research report, the most important surface data adjustment
issues are identified and past changes in the previously reported
historical data are quantified. It was found that each new version of
GAST has nearly always exhibited a steeper warming linear trend
over its entire history. And, it was nearly always accomplished by
systematically removing the previously existing cyclical temperature
pattern. This was true for all three entities providing GAST data
measurement, NOAA, NASA and Hadley CRU.

As a result, this research sought to validate the current estimates of
GAST using the best available relevant data. This included the best
documented and understood data sets from the U.S. and elsewhere
as well as global data from satellites that provide far more extensive
global coverage and are not contaminated by bad siting and
urbanization impacts. Satellite data integrity also benefits from having
cross checks with Balloon data.
The conclusive findings of this research are that the three GAST data
sets are not a valid representation of reality. In fact, the magnitude of
their historical data adjustments, that removed their cyclical
temperature patterns, are totally inconsistent with published and
credible U.S. and other temperature data. Thus, it is impossible to
conclude from the three published GAST data sets that recent years
have been the warmest ever –despite current claims of record setting
Finally, since GAST data set validity is a necessary condition for
EPA’s GHG/CO2 Endangerment Finding, it too is invalidated by these
research findings.

### #5 billvon

billvon

Understanding

• Members
• 281 posts

Posted 28 September 2018 - 01:39 PM

OF COURSE there is correlation between temperature and atmospheric CO2 levels.  Higher temperatures degasify the ocean,  increasing CO2 as a result.

You and others have the cause and effect all backwards.  But your shouts drown out all reason, all science.

If that were true, concentrations of CO2 in ocean water would be going down.

The opposite is happening.  Oceanic CO2 concentrations are going UP.

https://ocean.si.edu...ification-graph

The NIPCC  Report on Scientific Consensus, by Craig D. Idso, Robert M. Carter, and S. Fred Singer

You realize that Fred Singer is the same guy who used to work for tobacco companies to claim that smoking wasn't dangerous, right?  He made the tobacco companies millions by sowing fear, uncertainty and doubt over the research linking smoking and lung cancer.   He's a scientist for hire, and is willing to take any position he is paid to take.

• exchemist likes this

### #6 TooMuchFun

TooMuchFun

• Members
• 57 posts

Posted 28 September 2018 - 02:55 PM

If that were true, concentrations of CO2 in ocean water would be going down.

The opposite is happening.  Oceanic CO2 concentrations are going UP.

https://ocean.si.edu...ification-graph

You realize that Fred Singer is the same guy who used to work for tobacco companies to claim that smoking wasn't dangerous, right?  He made the tobacco companies millions by sowing fear, uncertainty and doubt over the research linking smoking and lung cancer.   He's a scientist for hire, and is willing to take any position he is paid to take.

So you claim that WHILE sea temperatures increase, CO2 concentration also increases, contradicting the logarithmic solubility graph of CO2 in water.

I never mentioned Fred Singer.  YOU did.  Professor Singer is a climate scientist.  How he could be involved in cigarettes and lung cancer you have yet to explain and verify.  But people who are "willing to take any position" they are paid to take certainly include all the *researchers* for global warming and climate change.  To pretend that bias for hire is strictly one-sided, and in the OTHER side is the height of hypocrisy, particularly given the orders of magnitude more money poured into global warmists' hands by federal agencies, and environmental hypocrites who preach conservation and then sell world tours everywhere, every single day.

Take National Geographic Society, please.  It's climate change/ global warming in every issue, and on every TV program.  Then they send out 130 page advertisements with global tours all around the world at great expense, INCLUDING "Around the World by Private Jet."

### #15 billvon

billvon

Understanding

• Members
• 281 posts

Posted 28 September 2018 - 07:56 PM

Insulting others' "grasp of reality" is unintelligent and anti-scientific.

Not if they don't have a grasp on reality.  In fact, in that case it is a valid conclusion.

### #16 exchemist

exchemist

Creating

• Members
• 2488 posts

Posted 29 September 2018 - 03:28 AM

Interestingly, this thread has now thrown up three different conspiracy theories to account for why climate science is allegedly a scam:

1) The climate scientists all either stand to gain from, or are employed by those who stand to gain from, carbon taxes,

2) The climate scientists are all conniving at keeping a bogus science going so as to benefit from government research funding,

3) It is a left wing political conspiracy (Illuminati? Lizard people?), for some reason signed up to by almost all climate scientists, to redistribute wealth in some undefined way, to achieve some unstated goal.

It is worthwhile identifying these various conspiracy theories, because climate change refuseniks need to advocate some kind of conspiracy theory to make sense of their own positions on the issue, given the high degree of consensus in the science community.

Edited by exchemist, 29 September 2018 - 03:32 AM.

### #17 exchemist

exchemist

Creating

• Members
• 2488 posts

Posted 29 September 2018 - 03:42 AM

So you claim that WHILE sea temperatures increase, CO2 concentration also increases, contradicting the logarithmic solubility graph of CO2 in water.

I never mentioned Fred Singer.  YOU did.

Eh? You made a post, copy/pasting text from a publication co-written by Fred Singer and explicitly mentioning his name, at the top.

So you most certainly DID mention Fred Singer.

As for the supposed "contradiction" of the logarithmic solublility of CO2 in water with temperature, that graph applies if the partial pressure of CO2 above the surface of the liquid is constant.

Which is obviously not the case if the atmospheric CO2 is increasing. Durh!