Water Vapor Is The Dominant Greenhouse Gas

[GAHD]

snip snip

 

Maybe somebody who liked the video could provide some quotes, or explanations about any points from the video, to indicate what it's getting at here

—especially for those who can't easily watch videos. 

(hint, hint, hint)

snip snip

https://blog.friendsofscience.org/2018/12/18/were-smarter-than-this-michelle-stirlings-rebuttal-to-tzeporah-bermans-speech-to-the-alberta-teachers-association/?fbclid=IwAR179lQj4ZTr72Owl8iTu-9YpKTp0IIdbd7w4aisTB_STRI-RrYHPmQubrk Full transcript from all parts. Part 1 is mainly her blowing her own horn about unrelated things. She meanders in and around a few topics rather than holding tight to any particular one over the course of it all. She DOES bring up interesting things throughout it, part 2 just happened to be one I considered relevant.

[hazelm]

I thought that, before we could have more water vapor (humidity) we had to have a rise in temperature.  In other words, first a rise in temperature which allows room for more vapor.  Then water vapor rises to the point that temperature allows.  More than that = rain.  No loop there.  Not unless you want to include the theory that appeared elsewhere on this site - it rained from the ground upward.  At that point you have to call in the wild winds.

 

This gets complicated.  Back to simplicity:  First comes temperature increase.  Then follows humidity increase.  Not the reverse.  No?

[exchemist]

I thought that, before we could have more water vapor (humidity) we had to have a rise in temperature.  In other words, first a rise in temperature which allows room for more vapor.  Then water vapor rises to the point that temperature allows.  More than that = rain.  No loop there.  Not unless you want to include the theory that appeared elsewhere on this site - it rained from the ground upward.  At that point you have to call in the wild winds.

 

This gets complicated.  Back to simplicity:  First comes temperature increase.  Then follows humidity increase.  Not the reverse.  No?

Yes, but suppose there is a tiny rise in temperature for some random reason - a variation in solar output, a random temporary reduction in cloud cover, or anything. That should lead to a tiny increase in water vapour. Which would lead to a further tiny increase in temperature. Which would lead to a further increase in water vapour. Etc etc. This +ve feedback loop would lead inexorably to a runaway process, unless there are "damping" factors that stop it. 

 

There obviously are such factors at work, seeing as the Earth has not experienced a runaway effect. My point is that a lot of the simplistic discussion of climate change we encounter does not talk about these damping factors. Not to do so gives sceptics a reason to be sceptical of the model.  

 

Essay seems to have attended a university course on this topic, so he or she may be a good person to ask about this. 

Edited December 22, 2018 by exchemist

[hazelm]

Yes, but suppose there is a tiny rise in temperature for some random reason - a variation in solar output, a random temporary reduction in cloud cover, or anything. That should lead to a tiny increase in water vapour. Which would lead to a further tiny increase in temperature. Which would lead to a further increase in water vapour. Etc etc. This +ve feedback loop would lead inexorably to a runaway process, unless there are "damping" factors that stop it. 

 

There obviously are such factors at work, seeing as the Earth has not experienced a runaway effect. My point is that a lot of the simplistic discussion of climate change we encounter does not talk about these damping factors. Not to do so gives sceptics a reason to be sceptical of the model.  

 

Essay seems to have attended a university course on this topic, so he or she may be a good person to ask about this. 

You seem to have said what I said - temperature must rise first.  I'll go back and read his/her post again.  Perhaps (probably) I am missing something. 

[A-wal]

Yes, but suppose there is a tiny rise in temperature for some random reason - a variation in solar output, a random temporary reduction in cloud cover, or anything. That should lead to a tiny increase in water vapour. Which would lead to a further tiny increase in temperature. Which would lead to a further increase in water vapour. Etc etc. This +ve feedback loop would lead inexorably to a runaway process, unless there are "damping" factors that stop it. 

 

There obviously are such factors at work, seeing as the Earth has not experienced a runaway effect. My point is that a lot of the simplistic discussion of climate change we encounter does not talk about these damping factors. Not to do so gives sceptics a reason to be sceptical of the model.

Yes it does, and makes people want to do the exact opposite of what the liars are telling them to do. If I was more of a conspiracy theorist I'd think the oil companies are behind the climate change movement.

 

One of the largest (I'd guess the largest by far) 'damping factor' is that CO2 is great for CO2 consuming plant life so the more there is around us, the greater the planet's capacity to consume it. If you just measure the current CO2 in the air though then it bypasses this damping factor. If we were to suddenly stop producing CO2 then it would probably drop to dangerously low levels, not that there's any chance of our output dropping enough for that to be a concern.

 

They should just be honest and say: Adding loads of CO2 to a system that we don't fully understand is very stupid and we should definitely try to stop doing that.

[Essay]

Interesting contribution. I can certainly see how the presence of more water vapour in the atmosphere would increase the heat trapping effect and how the resulting higher temperature would in turn lead to more water vapour in the atmosphere. The obvious question, then, is what prevents this process from leading to a runaway greenhouse effect today. What are the compensating processes that have, historically, allowed equilibrium to be maintained?  

 

I presume that a higher temperature in principle increases the amount of IR radiation from the Earth into space, from cloud tops and whatever windows in the IR are not blocked by water vapour or other greenhouse gas absorption bands. I can only presume that, at least up to now, this increases enough to restore an equilibrium between radiation received and radiation emitted. 

 

If so, then I would imagine the problem with increases in other greenhouse gases may be that these remaining windows for radiating heat become progressively blocked, leading to an increase in temperature before enough radiation is once more emitted, via the remaining channels, to restore equilibrium again.

 

Would that be your understanding of how these things are related? 

 

I feel it is worth clarifying this point, as the sceptics are otherwise entitled to ask why, if this water vapour +ve feedback loop exists, the Earth did not suffer a runaway greenhouse effect aeons ago. 

 

That is essentially what I’ve figured also.  It must be that any measurable temperature change (from a ‘forcing’ on the system) already includes the feedback from any change in water vapor, since water vapor adjusts as quickly as weather changes rather than at a glacial pace.

 

As you noted, the system radiates away more heat, as the system heats up, until the extra heat leaving will balance with the extra heat of the system.  That is of course on average, for the globe over the year, I think, and so it does act like a classic ‘black body’ for the purposes of using physics to understand the system.  As a complex system with layers of ocean and atmosphere at different temperatures, the heat transport within an individual layer can experience a lot of horizontal adjustment.  And that can occur without changing the vertical structure of all the layers of the system, which still ultimately act like a ‘black body’ radiating to achieve equilibrium.

 

I mention those horizontal adjustments, or redistribution of heat within a particular layer, thinking this might explain why we don’t get a runaway greenhouse effect when a little extra heating causes more water vapor to enter the system.  That extra heat also causes horizontal adjustments in the troposphere, so that extra water vapor also leaves the system more quickly, instead of just building up into a runaway greenhouse effect.

 

From a textbook on climate (which the professor teaching that class originally learned from) Oxford Monographs on Geology and Geophysics, no. 16: Paleoclimatology; Crowley & North; 1991, they talk about this on pages six and seven as part of the introductory basics.

 

From:  sect.1.2 Energy Balance Models (EBMs) of the Present Climate; part 1.2.1 Radiation and Climate

Part of the upwelling radiation is intercepted and absorbed by layers of the stratified atmosphere primarily through triatomic trace gases such as H₂O, CO₂, and O₃, as revealed in the absorption spectrum (Fig.1.3).  Carbon dioxide absorbs at about 2.7, 4, 10, and 14 μm; a water vapor continuum exists from ~12 to 18 μm; and so on.  Water vapor is the most important of these infrared absorbers.  Its concentration in the atmosphere is highly variable even on short (weather) time scales.  Its saturation vapor pressure also increases approximately exponentially as temperatures increase, with the vapor pressure of water roughly doubling for each increment of 10°C in the range of interest.  This is called the Clausius-Clapeyron relationship, and it is an important feature of the earth’s climate (and climate models).  It is an interesting fact that the relative humidity (ratio of actual concentration to the saturation value) appears to stay at an approximately constant value near 50% as the climate changes.

 

We’ve been analyzing this from an ‘energy balance’ perspective, but I think it is the ‘general circulation’ within our troposphere that explains why there isn’t a runaway greenhouse effect.  Adding more energy to the overall system (climate amping) speeds up the transport of heat from the equator to the poles, since the system is just a big ‘heat engine’ fundamentally, especially in our little tropospheric level.

 

That same section begins on page six with:  “The simplest class of climate models is the energy balance model.  As the name implies, the models focus on the required balance between incoming and outgoing radiation at the top of the atmosphere.  Even though they consider only temperature, a number of significant insights are possible.” 

 

And that part concludes on page seven by saying:  “Climate modelers have learned to model the radiation fluxes and their interaction with the layers of matter in a vertical column of air above the earth’s surface.  Not only must the details of the wavelength dependencies of the various absorptivities, emissivities, and scattering properties be included, but allowances for vertical convective motions must also be included.  Such convection will occur when the atmospheric thermal layering is buoyantly unstable.  The net effect of the convection is to remove heat from the surface and carry it higher in the atmosphere mechanically.  Even without including horizontal motions of the atmosphere, these so-called radiative convective models (RCMs) are quite successful in describing the vertical temperature structure of the atmosphere and in leading the way for more accurate and efficient radiation calculations in general circulation models (Ramanathan and Coakley, 1978)."  (my emphases)

 

As Hazelm mentioned, if you’ve got more vapor in the atmosphere, you’ll get more precipitation.  Even if it is warm enough (on average) to hold more water vapor, wherever it does get cold enough, precipitation still happens.  Consistent with that theory, the records are increasingly showing storms becoming more frequent or more intense and larger, compared to the long-term average over the past century.

                

“Total annual precipitation has increased over land areas in the United States and worldwide.”

“In recent years, a higher percentage of precipitation in the United States has come in the form of intense single-day events.”

“The prevalence of extreme single-day precipitation events remained fairly steady between 1910 and the 1980s but has risen substantially since then.”

“Nationwide, nine of the top 10 years for extreme one-day precipitation events have occurred since 1990.”

“The occurrence of abnormally high annual precipitation totals has also increased."

~    

Edited December 24, 2018 by Essay

[exchemist]

That is essentially what I’ve figured also.  It must be that any measurable temperature change (from a ‘forcing’ on the system) already includes the feedback from any change in water vapor, since water vapor adjusts as quickly as weather changes rather than at a glacial pace.

 

As you noted, the system radiates away more heat, as the system heats up, until the extra heat leaving will balance with the extra heat of the system.  That is of course on average, for the globe over the year, I think, and so it does act like a classic ‘black body’ for the purposes of using physics to understand the system.  As a complex system with layers of ocean and atmosphere at different temperatures, the heat transport within an individual layer can experience a lot of horizontal adjustment.  And that can occur without changing the vertical structure of all the layers of the system, which still ultimately act like a ‘black body’ radiating to achieve equilibrium.

 

I mention those horizontal adjustments, or redistribution of heat within a particular layer, thinking this might explain why we don’t get a runaway greenhouse effect when a little extra heating causes more water vapor to enter the system.  That extra heat also causes horizontal adjustments in the troposphere, so that extra water vapor also leaves the system more quickly, instead of just building up into a runaway greenhouse effect.

 

From a textbook on climate (which the professor teaching that class originally learned from) Oxford Monographs on Geology and Geophysics, no. 16: Paleoclimatology; Crowley & North; 1991, they talk about this on pages six and seven as part of the introductory basics.

 

From:  sect.1.2 Energy Balance Models (EBMs) of the Present Climate; part 1.2.1 Radiation and Climate

 

We’ve been analyzing this from an ‘energy balance’ perspective, but I think it is the ‘general circulation’ within our troposphere that explains why there isn’t a runaway greenhouse effect.  Adding more energy to the overall system (climate amping) speeds up the transport of heat from the equator to the poles, since the system is just a big ‘heat engine’ fundamentally, especially in our little tropospheric level.

 

That same section begins on page six with:  “The simplest class of climate models is the energy balance model.  As the name implies, the models focus on the required balance between incoming and outgoing radiation at the top of the atmosphere.  Even though they consider only temperature, a number of significant insights are possible.” 

 

And that part concludes on page seven by saying:  “Climate modelers have learned to model the radiation fluxes and their interaction with the layers of matter in a vertical column of air above the earth’s surface.  Not only must the details of the wavelength dependencies of the various absorptivities, emissivities, and scattering properties be included, but allowances for vertical convective motions must also be included.  Such convection will occur when the atmospheric thermal layering is buoyantly unstable.  The net effect of the convection is to remove heat from the surface and carry it higher in the atmosphere mechanically.  Even without including horizontal motions of the atmosphere, these so-called radiative convective models (RCMs) are quite successful in describing the vertical temperature structure of the atmosphere and in leading the way for more accurate and efficient radiation calculations in general circulation models (Ramanathan and Coakley, 1978)."  (my emphases)

 

As Hazelm mentioned, if you’ve got more vapor in the atmosphere, you’ll get more precipitation.  Even if it is warm enough (on average) to hold more water vapor, wherever it does get cold enough, precipitation still happens.  Consistent with that theory, the records are increasingly showing storms becoming more frequent or more intense and larger, compared to the long-term average over the past century.

                

~    

Thank you for this. Indeed I take your point about the complexity of the system and its ability to move heat around and radiate it from different places. 

 

Perhaps it is unfortunate that the impression is sometimes created that a runaway effect is one of the risks we run, when it seems unclear that this is truly so. It seems as though the real role of the +ve feedback loop of water vapour is to amplify the effect of changes in the other greenhouse gases.

 

Useful to get that clear.

[fahrquad]

The only problem is that Co2 levels in the jurrasic period would have been over 5 times greater than modern "skyrocketing" Co2 levels. If you look at the reconstructed georecord from ice coring we are currently coming out of the lowest atmospheric carbon levels in literally MILLIONS of years. Take a look at the atmos data vs plotted geo temp. I'm gonna let you look it up yerself so you're more likely to crack the "repeated till it becomes obvious truth" effect you're displaying. Carbon scare is 100% a setup for a tax scam, has been since the early 90's.  There is no serious doubt about it any longer. Those who refuse to acknowledge at least the likelihood that it is not a very strong effect have, logically, to be conspiracy theorists.

 

I welcome our new saurian overlords.

[Thoth101]

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.  

 

To be fair it was daddy George Bush that was said to be Reptilian most of the time. Actually not many people on the left have been said to be Reptilian but I am sure many of the more powerful ones are. I am pretty sure Nancy Pelosi is one for sure.

 

Actually if you think about it. If I were an intelligent Reptilian wouldn't I want to make the planet warmer? I could artificially make the planet warmer such as using things like Geo-engineering. And at the same time blame it on humans and suck more life blood out of them such as money which is energy. The humans are pretty gullible and mostly believe anything their governments tell them and the mainstream media and paid for scientist. Oh an especially a Greta like entity wanting her 0 net.

Edited February 16, 2020 by Thoth101

[exchemist]

To be fair it was daddy George Bush that was said to be Reptilian most of the time. Actually not many people on the left have been said to be Reptilian but I am sure many of the more powerful ones are. I am pretty sure Nancy Pelosi is one for sure.

 

Actually if you think about it. If I were an intelligent Reptilian wouldn't I want to make the planet warmer? I could artificially make the planet warmer such as using things like Geo-engineering. And at the same time blame it on humans and suck more life blood out of them such as money which is energy. The humans are pretty gullible and mostly believe anything their governments tell them and the mainstream media and paid for scientist. Oh an especially a Greta like entity wanting her 0 net.