95-97% of Greenhouse Gases and Global Warming is caused by Water!

Reply to Solasis:

Being only an idiot, perhaps you could explain:

When the atmospheric temperature is high - then more water evaporates. Is that correct?

And the more water evaporates, the more water vapor is in the air. Is that also correct?

And the more water vapor in the air, the more clouds are formed. Is that also correct?

And the more clouds are formed, the more the sun's rays are blocked. Is that also correct?

And the more the sun's rays are blocked, the more the atmospheric temperature decreases. Is that also correct?

And the more the temperature decreases, the less water evaporates. Is that also correct?

And the less water that evaporates, the less clouds are formed. Is that also correct?

And the less clouds are formed, the more the sun's rays can get through to heat up the atmosphere........and so on and so on and so on.

I may be an idiot but that almost sounds like the earth has a mechanism for correcting its own temperature. Sure temperature would fluctuate but isn't that kind of what has been happening for all of the earth's history?

But then since I am an idiot...I am sure you will be happy to explain this all to me.

TIRED OF CONTROL FREAKS

reply to post by TiredofControlFreaks


Actually there are four main types of processes which form cloud, not just the standard convection method as you described. Also, if cloud is present or froms during the night, it tends to trap heat in, so the nights do become warmer

And indeed aside from the reflection cooling the atmosphere there is still the fact that the amounts of greenhouse gases contributed by human kind since the beginning of our history (approx0.28%-0.5%) is farless than has been added by natural phenomena such as volcanoes etc... So again no cap and trade for clouds or volcanoes? Two contributors that effect the greennhouse gas levels much much more than we puny humans ever could!

reply to post by TiredofControlFreaks


And the more water vapor in the air, the more clouds are formed. Is that also correct?

And the more clouds are formed, the more the sun's rays are blocked. Is that also correct?

See, here's where the whole thing gets way more complicated than this topic is indicating. Increased cloud cover will reduce SOME of the incoming heat, but that which it doesn't repel and reaches the earth is bounced back not as light energy but as heat energy, which will almost ALL get bounced back down.

The earth does regulate its own temperature in this way under natural circumstances. But it's not a 1-to-1 ratio between how much heat is reflected away and how much heat is reflected inwards. I don't know the actual ratio, but let's say that each volume (V) of water vapor reflects away .95 Kelvin worth of heat for ever 1 Kelvin worth of heat that it reflects in. Whatever this actually is (not just the stand-in I'm writing in), it's enough to regulate the earth's temperature under normal circumstances. But under the abnormal circumstances we are creating, the added cloud cover won't account for the heat reflected inwards by the greenhouse gases which are not causing clouds -- the manmade ones. These will cause more water vapor which will reflect out .95 K for every 1 K it keeps in, a ratio which grows and grows as the amount of water vapor in the air grows, until with 100 V worth of water vapor, the earth's temperature has gone up 5 K.

All my units and ratios are way off, but they reflect something similar to what is the actual state of affairs.

Originally posted by Redwookieaz
That's right. Between 95-97% of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere is water vapor! Funny we don't hear about a cap and trade system for clouds! Oh and the amount of total greenhouse gases humans have added since the dawn of time? About 0.28% which is quickly scrubbed from the air by the plant life. I'm all for being responsible and for cleaning up after ourselves but don't be fooled people this new push of global warming in the media and governments is about control of you and me and nothing more.

www.geocraft.com...

And even though they try to scrub this fact from Google, you can still find it other places just by Googling it.

What -

wow - living in the dark ages I see - there is no doubt about global warming - none - the only position those that seek to mitigate the rquired action against it put forward is that of either it is too expensive or too late - no one - and I mean NO ONE still pushes this ridiculous line mate.

Water vapor is accounted for in every climatologists thinking - see James Hansens latest book .

Secondly carbon stays in the atmosphere for centuries - it is not -auto scrubbed - that's just ignorance of the highest order.

Finally - the accumulative amount of carbon in the atmosphere is in the billions of tons - it literally gets recycled - so if humans total input is as you say - .28% of the total historical carbon output - then that is a serious, serious problem - god your stupid. Any one who fell for this tripe is equally stupid.

Wake up to the scammers people.

Reply to Solaris

I must also apologise as I wrote my very sarcastic reply BEFORE i read your apology for your "idiot" comment.

Thank you for your explanation however you have touched on the very heart of the problem.

The fact is that all the forcings and global climate are very poorly understood even by climatologists. In fact, so poorly understand that it is impossible to make accurate computer models.

As with all computer models - its garbage in and garbage out.

We now know for certain that the historic temperature graphs are questionable and cannot be relied upon because the original raw data was lost. We know that this same problem exists for both the east angolia climate research station and for NASA.

So we don't have sufficient information to draw conclusions that current global temperatures are "abnormal".

Now normally this wouldn't be such a huge problem because scientists would just continue to gather data until certainly could be reached.

However, now that the science is being used to support public policy, it has become a huge problem!

We understand that taxing CO2 will result in enormous economic hardship. To the point where our society and culture would be irrepably harmed.

Further, we have no idea whether global warming would have a net harmful effect or a net beneficial effect. Certainly previous cycles of global warming have been more beneficial than harmful.

The "global warming deniers" are not idiots and I am proud to be one of them. No one I know is saying "screw nature...I want my SUV". What we are saying is that the science is no where certain enough to support such drastic changes in public policy.

And you certainly can't deny that since "climategate", the wheels are rapidly falling off the bus with the revelations that the raw data has been lost, the mistaken Australia and New Zealand temperature data and the revelations that large portions of the IPPC report were written by activists and journalists based on nothing more than speculation and exaggerated alarmism.

TIRED OF CONTROL FREAKS

reply to post by Redwookieaz

It does change! Constantly. While this leads to an average amount of cloud cover overall that average does change based on things like the temperature!

Well yes, that's why cloud cover is a factor for temperature variations. Although there is a natural system that is balanced over longer periods of time.

When the atmospheric temperature is high - then more water evaporates. Is that correct?

And the more water evaporates, the more water vapor is in the air. Is that also correct?

And the more water vapor in the air, the more clouds are formed. Is that also correct?

And the more clouds are formed, the more the sun's rays are blocked. Is that also correct?

And the more the sun's rays are blocked, the more the atmospheric temperature decreases. Is that also correct?

And the more the temperature decreases, the less water evaporates. Is that also correct?

And the less water that evaporates, the less clouds are formed. Is that also correct?

When the atmospheric temperature is high - then more snow melts. Is that correct?

And the more white snow that melts, the less visible light is reflected. Is that also correct?

And the less visible light that is reflected, the temperature gets higher. Is that also correct?

And with higher temperatures, more snow melts . Is that also correct?

ad nauseum



[edit on 22-2-2010 by ncb1397]

This thread also totally confuses the subject of greenhouse gases.

That's right. Between 95-97% of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere is water vapor!

-Redwookieaz

But the more water vapor in the atmosphere doesn't lead to more heat. It leads to more cloud cover which reflects the suns rays back into space and cooling the planet so oi bact at ya!

-Redwookieaz

Ladies and gentlement, let me introduce you for the first time to the definition of a greenhouse gas.

a gas that contributes to the warming of the Earth's atmosphere by reflecting radiation from the Earth's surface, e.g. carbon dioxide, ozone, or water vapor

encarta.msn.com...

You can't say water vapor is the biggest greenhouse gas and then say it cools the climate. Greenhouse gases by definition have a warming effect. Really, the name should give away its definition. A "greenhouse" is something that raises temperature in a given enclosed area by manipulating electromagnetic radiation differently at different wavelengths.

[edit on 22-2-2010 by ncb1397]

Well I suppose my stupidity means I will have to bow out of this conversation because I can't possibly keep up with your quick wits. Although usually the ones throwing the insults are the ones with the weak argument. By the way to the guy that said I'm stupid congrats on reading a book! That must mean he's got it right if he wrote a book! Also we could go back and forth on the interpretations of the scientific data till we're blue in the face and despite my stupidity and your assertion that nobody believes the "scams" that I do, I guess I'll have to disagree. What I presented was originally presented to me at a global warming conference, held by climatolgists. I know they don't have your credentials but they will do for someone as stupid as myself. What the naysayers present here as facts, are not. Look these things up from the scientists doing the work, that doesn't mean newsweek either folks. Also, there facts don't account for the planet getting cooler over the last few years or the changes that are occuring in the whole solar system. And again despite what the angry guy said above, the amount of greenhouse gases human beings have added to the atmosphere ever, is still tiny, no matter how angrily they tell you differently and it's not fact. Here is a link to study some of the cases against man made global warming. Now I'll bow out as I'm not wasting my breath on those of you who can't keep it civil. The rest of you thanks for checking out my thread!

www.globalwarminghoax.com...

Can you give me some details on this conference? Where was it? When was it? What was it called? Who was there? Any of these details would be helpful. A "conference" could mean anything from Blizzcon to an AAAS conference.

lso, there facts don't account for the planet getting cooler over the last few years or the changes that are occuring in the whole solar system.

This is just another example of "the sun could be doing it" without any reason to think so. The problem is we have good data from satellites without atmospheric interference that measure solar output. Solar variability and the solar cycle most certainly is taken into account in models.

And again despite what the angry guy said above, the amount of greenhouse gases human beings have added to the atmosphere ever, is still tiny, no matter how angrily they tell you differently and it's not fact.

Ehh, small things can have a big effect. In fact, it is precisely that CO2 is so rare in the atmosphere that man adding CO2 can effect the radiation escaping earth's atmosphere disproportionally. Different gases absorb, reflect, and transmit different wavelengths of light. The rarity of CO2 means that its absorption bands aren't being absorbed even close to 100%. Other gases that are better represented like water vapor don't have as much room for improvement. And again, Water isn't as good of a greenhouse gas as CO2. Not even close. The greenhouse effect works by the atmosphere absorbing higher energy visible/infrared/ultraviolet light from the sun and reflecting or absorbing on average lower energy infrared or visible light from the earth. Water has significant absorption in the predominant solar spectrum as well as lower energy infrared. CO2 has almost no absorption in the wavelengths of light that the sun emits. It has significant absorption bands in the lower energy infrared though (radiation from the atmosphere and earth).

upload.wikimedia.org...
As you can see from the above image, CO2 absorbs a tiny portion of the sun's energy before it reaches the earth's surface. Water on the other hand makes larger holes in the graph. It has more of a negative effect on its own greenhouse effect (even though there still is a greenhouse effect from water vapor..all things being considered...clouds, transparent water vapor not in clouds, etc). CO2 has significant absorption bands to the right of that gap (lower energy spectrum produced by earth's lower temperature than the sun).

chriscolose.files.wordpress.com...


[edit on 23-2-2010 by ncb1397]

[edit on 23-2-2010 by ncb1397]

Originally posted by Redwookieaz
www.geocraft.com...

And even though they try to scrub this fact from Google, you can still find it other places just by Googling it.

Yay! Teh googlescience!

The article is BS from start to finish, and has been doing the rounds from the gullible for years. Lets look at the very first claim:

Water vapor constitutes Earth's most significant greenhouse gas, accounting for about 95% of Earth's greenhouse effect (5).

Supported by reference 5. Which includes:

5) References to 95% contribution of water vapor:

a. S.M. Freidenreich and V. Ramaswamy, “Solar Radiation Absorption by Carbon Dioxide, Overlap with Water, and a Parameterization for General Circulation Models,” Journal of Geophysical Research 98 (1993):7255-7264

b. Global Deception: The Exaggeration of the Global Warming Threat
by Dr. Patrick J. Michaels, June 1998
Virginia State Climatologist and Professor of Environmental Sciences, University of Virginia

c. Greenhouse Gas Emissions, Appendix D, Greenhouse Gas Spectral Overlaps and Their Significance
Energy Information Administration; Official Energy Statistics from the U.S. Government

d. Personal Communication-- Dr. Richard S. Lindzen
Alfred P. Slone Professor of Meteorology, MIT

e. The Geologic Record and Climate Change
by Dr. Tim Patterson, January 2005
Professor of Geology-- Carleton University
Ottawa, Canada
Alternate link:
f. EPA Seeks To Have Water Vapor Classified As A Pollutant
by the ecoEnquirer, 2006
Alternate link:

g. Does CO2 Really Drive Global Warming?
by Dr. Robert Essenhigh, May 2001
Alternate link:

h. Solar Cycles, Not CO2, Determine Climate
by Zbigniew Jaworowski, M.D., Ph.D., D.Sc., 21st Century Science and Technology, Winter 2003-2004, pp. 52-65

There is one scientific article there:

S.M. Freidenreich and V. Ramaswamy, “Solar Radiation Absorption by Carbon Dioxide, Overlap with Water, and a Parameterization for General Circulation Models,” Journal of Geophysical Research 98 (1993):7255-7264

And the abstract clearly shows the article's focus:

Solar Radiation Absorption by CO2, Overlap With H2O, and a Parameterization for General Circulation Models

Solar Radiation Absorption by CO2, Overlap With H2O, and a Parameterization for General Circulation Models
S. M. Freidenreich

NOAA Geophysical Fluid Dynamics Laboratory, Princeton, New Jersey

V. Ramaswamy

Atmospheric and Oceanic Sciences Program, Princeton University, Princeton, New Jersey

Line-by-line (LBL) solar radiative transfer solutions are obtained for CO2-only, H2O-only, and CO2 + H2O atmospheres, and the contributions by the major CO2 and H2O absorption bands to the heating rates in the stratosphere and troposphere are analyzed. The LBL results are also used to investigate the inaccuracies in the absorption by a CO2 + H2O atmosphere, arising due to a multiplication of the individual gas transmissions averaged over specific spectral widths (Δv). Errors in absorption generally increase with the value of Δv chosen. However, even when the interval chosen for averaging the individual gas transmissions is the entire solar spectrum, there is no serious degradation in the accuracy of the atmospheric absorbed flux (error < 3%) and the heating rates (errors < 10%). A broadband parameterization for CO2 absorption, employed in several weather prediction and climate models, is found to substantially underestimate the LBL heating rates throughout the atmosphere, most notably in the stratosphere (errors > 40%). This parameterization is modified such that the resulting errors are less than 20%. When this modified CO2 parameterization is combined with a recently modified formulation for H2O vapor absorption, the resulting errors in the heating rates are also less than 20%. The application of the modified solar absorption parameterizations in a general circulation model (GCM) causes an increase in the simulated clear sky diabatic heating rates, ranging from nonnegligible (middle stratosphere and lower troposphere) to significant (lower stratosphere and upper troposphere) additions. The results here should enable a continued use of the older broadband parameterizations in GCMs, albeit in modified forms.

The article is focused on solar absorption. The greenhouse effect is not caused by solar radiation, but by outgoing longwave radiation.

There are articles that assess the contributions of GHGs to the greenhouse effect:

Kiehl & Trenberth (1997) Ramanathan & Coakley (1978).

Neither support Teh (laughable) GoogleScientist. The article only goes downhill from there.

[edit on 23-2-2010 by melatonin]

reply to post by Redwookieaz

That's right. Between 95-97% of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere is water vapor! Funny we don't hear about a cap and trade system for clouds!

Umm..sorry if someone else already pointed this out, but... clouds are condensed water droplets (read: liquid water), whereas water vapor is an invisible gas. Two completely different things, they have different properties.

Although clouds do have a significant latent heat impact with the formation and dissipation of them (when water vapor condenses it releases heat), this article is foremost talking about water vapor, which is in the air everywhere, not just clouds. Clouds have a high albedo, so reflect solar radiation but do not absorb infrared radiation, and thus do not contribute to the GHE in that regard. Water vapor, however, does absorb longwave radiation and is a very important GHG.

If we had no GHG's, the average temperature on Earth would be about 60F lower than it is now. Yay for greenhouse gases!

NEXUS

BEFORE WE GET ALL EXCITED ABOUT GLOBAL WARMING;

Please prove that the earth's global temperature has indeed warmed to a degree higher than has ever existed before?

Without the raw data, who can say what is what?

We know from newspaper articles in the 1930s that the artic sea has already lost its ice cover before.

So how is this cycle of warming different than any previous cycle of warming?


TIRED OF CONTROL FREAKS

Originally posted by TiredofControlFreaks
Reply to Solasis:

Being only an idiot, perhaps you could explain:

When the atmospheric temperature is high - then more water evaporates. Is that correct?

And the more water evaporates, the more water vapor is in the air. Is that also correct?

And the more water vapor in the air, the more clouds are formed. Is that also correct?

And the more clouds are formed, the more the sun's rays are blocked. Is that also correct?

And the more the sun's rays are blocked, the more the atmospheric temperature decreases. Is that also correct?

And the more the temperature decreases, the less water evaporates. Is that also correct?

And the less water that evaporates, the less clouds are formed. Is that also correct?

And the less clouds are formed, the more the sun's rays can get through to heat up the atmosphere........and so on and so on and so on.

I may be an idiot but that almost sounds like the earth has a mechanism for correcting its own temperature. Sure temperature would fluctuate but isn't that kind of what has been happening for all of the earth's history?

But then since I am an idiot...I am sure you will be happy to explain this all to me.

TIRED OF CONTROL FREAKS

You are confusing vapor and humidity for a start - secondly you are confusing weather and climate - perhaps do SOME research rather than just making baseless, ignorant assumptions and then getting gruffy because you are not respected for your idiocy.

Originally posted by TiredofControlFreaks
BEFORE WE GET ALL EXCITED ABOUT GLOBAL WARMING;

Please prove that the earth's global temperature has indeed warmed to a degree higher than has ever existed before?

Without the raw data, who can say what is what?

We know from newspaper articles in the 1930s that the artic sea has already lost its ice cover before.

So how is this cycle of warming different than any previous cycle of warming?


TIRED OF CONTROL FREAKS

Um - are you kidding me - please.

data.giss.nasa.gov...

Secondly yes temperatures have been hotter before - in fact at one point the planet was a molten rock - - read a Storms of OUr Grandchildren by James Hansen - the worlds best climatologist.

Originally posted by Redwookieaz
And indeed aside from the reflection cooling the atmosphere there is still the fact that the amounts of greenhouse gases contributed by human kind since the beginning of our history (approx0.28%-0.5%) is farless than has been added by natural phenomena such as volcanoes etc... So again no cap and trade for clouds or volcanoes? Two contributors that effect the greennhouse gas levels much much more than we puny humans ever could!

Actually that is not correct - the volcanoes do add a great deal - but over incredibly long periods of time - if humans were to be emitting carbon the way we do for an equitable period of time we would now be in a climate like Venus - crushed by the weight of our carbon atmosphere with a surface temperature hot enough to melt lead -

reply to post by TiredofControlFreaks


Great argumentation there.
No need of scientist to complicate matters that are supersimple.
Mere observation and clear thought is what it takes.

Star for you

Originally posted by TiredofControlFreaks
Reply to Solaris

I must also apologise as I wrote my very sarcastic reply BEFORE i read your apology for your "idiot" comment.

Thank you for your explanation however you have touched on the very heart of the problem.

The fact is that all the forcings and global climate are very poorly understood even by climatologists. In fact, so poorly understand that it is impossible to make accurate computer models.

As with all computer models - its garbage in and garbage out.

We now know for certain that the historic temperature graphs are questionable and cannot be relied upon because the original raw data was lost. We know that this same problem exists for both the east angolia climate research station and for NASA.

So we don't have sufficient information to draw conclusions that current global temperatures are "abnormal".

Now normally this wouldn't be such a huge problem because scientists would just continue to gather data until certainly could be reached.

However, now that the science is being used to support public policy, it has become a huge problem!

We understand that taxing CO2 will result in enormous economic hardship. To the point where our society and culture would be irrepably harmed.

Further, we have no idea whether global warming would have a net harmful effect or a net beneficial effect. Certainly previous cycles of global warming have been more beneficial than harmful.

The "global warming deniers" are not idiots and I am proud to be one of them. No one I know is saying "screw nature...I want my SUV". What we are saying is that the science is no where certain enough to support such drastic changes in public policy.

And you certainly can't deny that since "climategate", the wheels are rapidly falling off the bus with the revelations that the raw data has been lost, the mistaken Australia and New Zealand temperature data and the revelations that large portions of the IPPC report were written by activists and journalists based on nothing more than speculation and exaggerated alarmism.

TIRED OF CONTROL FREAKS

You mention economic hardship, and society and culture being irreparably harmed. Could you please site a few examples of how cap & trade during the 1970's and 1980's caused these effects you mention? I would imagine that a historical precedent would be good evidence to support your claim. As far as I know, cap & trade during those decades was successful in reducing air pollution significantly, and left no irreparable damage to our culture, society or economy. You have studied up on the history of cap & trade, right? You would of course be aware of it's previous success if you had.

As far as following the money goes, you should also know that Exxon has been busy funding many studies that attempt to debunk man made climate change.

I am highly skeptical of the science. Escpecially with all the leaked emails

I don't think that we have all of the data necessary to predict the climate.

I don't trust computer models. I bet if you ran the models 10 times you'd get 10 different results.

You're preaching MMGW like it's the next comming of jesus and anyone that says you're wrong is going to burn in hell.

Don't get mad. just show us the science.

IMO we don't have enough data to accurately predict climate.