Climate change is truly due to greenhouse effect, more than naturel effects
The oceanic uptake of CO2 since the start of the industrial era has resulted in the acidification of the ocean and a decline of ocean surface water pH by 0.1, and a corresponding 26% increase of acidity. Corresponding to warming, a decrease in oxygen concentrations has also been observed in coastal waters and in the open ocean thermocline in numerous ocean regions since 1960. Consequently, in recent decades, it is very likely that tropical oxygen minimum zones have also expanded (IPCC2014).
Dear birhanu, this results were exposed in a seminary in reference to researchers in the autonom university of mexico.
The full effects of the 45% increase in CO2 are not yet known, but they will almost certainly result in the melting of the entire Greenland ice sheet causing a sea level rise of approximately 7 metres. The climate only responds slowly to forcings, but those caused by increased CO2 will be impossible to stop without reducing atmospheric CO2. Ken, how do you propose to do that?
Average global temperature is only slightly higher than it was in 2002 while atmospheric CO2 since 2002 has increased by 40% of the increase 1800 to 2017. CO2 (or any other ghg which does not condense in the atmosphere) apparently has little if any effect on temperature. http://globalclimatedrivers2.blogspot.com
RSS measures the temperature high in the atmosphere using satellites. Temperatures there are not affected by greenhouse gases which act to increase the surface temperature.
Al - RSS reports TLT (lower troposphere) which this is and it trends about parallel to reported ground temperatures. IMO satellite measured data is most credible because it is not contaminated by the urban heat island effect and there is less evidence that it has been 'adjusted'. RSS TLT v3.3 data corroborates UAH data.
Ken
A real climatologist is fully aware that an increase in global temperature of 0.85 C is huge
Shows you do not understand this discipline, yet continue to vent the idea that the mentioned value is small
What is your agenda?
Earth temperature would increase about 1 K as a result of average cloud altitude increase of only 250 m. The small solar variation is magnified by its influence on earth clouds. http://lowaltitudeclouds.blogspot.com
As always: the change is over the last half century!
every new question you come with your mystification that it took hundreds of years
Data show that it is only half a century
Or else show us differently with REFERENCES
To Dan Pangburn
Your reference is about cloud cooling not Greenhouse warming
and the link is not to a serious publication but some qualitative "reasoning"
Svensmark's hypothesis is not valid, it is only a mere hypothesis without any support by data
To Harry ten
Apparently you glossed over the linked article too quickly. It is a ‘what if’ assessment of change to planet reflectance, cloud area, or average cloud altitude. And it is quantitative not qualitative.
An equation which produces a 98.3% match with 5 yr smoothed, measured average global temperature 1895 to 2017 without explicitly including any influence from CO2 is shown at http://globalclimatedrivers2.blogspot.com
Ken
About Svensmark
1. Indeed the aspect of aerosols and clouds in climatology is my area of research.
The aerosols that he considers are far too small to be of relevance in cloud formation
As always this can be consulted best in IPCC report AR5 working group 1
Chapter with the associated references: you can all you need to know via search for "cosmic" in pdf
https://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar5/wg1/drafts/fgd/WGIAR5_WGI-12Doc2b_FinalDraft_Chapter07.pdf
and here the latest
Article Cosmic rays, aerosols, clouds, and climate: Recent findings ...
To Dan Pangburn
I would like to suggest that you have glance at the hundreds of real publications summarised in the IPCC reports
of which the latest can be donloaded from the web
IPCC is a gremium of the World Meteorological Organisation and written by hundreds of meteorologists and climatologists
Clouds are not drivers of Climate Change but react on Climate Change
There is a full chapter chapter 7 on the role of Clouds
ttps://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar5/wg1/drafts/fgd/WGIAR5_WGI-12Doc2b_FinalDraft_Chapter07.pdf
Ken
1. Over half a century means until present and thus from the 1960s and not 1949
2. And Mauna Loa shows CO2 level had risen 90 ppm ?? Since when? and tell me where those data come from prior to 1950
Ken
1. IPCC: you obviously never read the scientific parts of the reports
Point me out where those are political. I gave you the link to the chapter on clouds
Show us where that is political
2. CO2 I asked you for data in 1949 and BEFORE and you provide it for 1960
Example of and now for something completely different
3. Cosmic charlatan Svensmark: as a defence you come with an obscure page and for pete's sake from a POLICY site? You believe him instead of cloud experts? Bah
Ken
You refuse to READ what I provide
Why?
Is it too difficult
Too long
You only read clippings
You do not like what you expect to read
On Svensmark and the high cloud hoax there are 50 places in the IPCC report AR5 of Working Group 1"The Scientific Bais"
where you find that the mechanism he proposes is not relevant
And indeed as an expert on Aerosol-Cloud Interactions I can fully agree to that conclusion
NOW YOU
Ken
Then identify for us those UN-scientists
What about the World Meteorological Organisation as co-leader?
Ken
As always with you an answer a long the famous Python line "And now for something completely different": a picture of politicians
My question to you to scan the chapter of AR5-WG1 on clouds where it is demonstrated that the influence of cosmic rays on cloud formation is zilch
The sentences are political enough not to call Svensmark a charlatan
Ken
Your contribution/clipping/picture as reply is a running gag a la Monty Python's famous phrase
"And now for something completely different"
Great photo! And these are the beauraucrats that want to save us all
Do you think that the upper limit should be increased to save the planet?
The changes in the climate with CO2 concentrations
can also enhance the distribution and increase in the competitiveness of agronomically important and invasive weeds as it will reduce the effectiveness of some herbicides. All aspects of food security potentially are affected by climate change, including food access, utilization and price stability (IPCC 2014).
The oceanic uptake of CO2 since the start of the industrial era has resulted in the acidification of the ocean and a decline of ocean surface water pH by 0.1, and a corresponding 26% increase of acidity. Corresponding to warming, a decrease in oxygen concentrations has also been observed in coastal waters and in the open ocean thermocline in numerous ocean regions since 1960. Consequently, in recent decades, it is very likely that tropical oxygen minimum zones have also expanded (IPCC2014).
The main contributors to the significant increase in the total GHG emissions between 1970 and 2010 have been attributed to fossil fuel combustion as well as industrial processes which have contributed 78%.
CO2 remains the major anthropogenic GHG accounting for 76% and fossil fuel-related carbon dioxide emissions have continued to grow. The increase of total annual GHG emissions between 2000 and 2010 is directly attributed to GHG emissions from energy (47%), industry (30%), transport (11%) and building (3%) sectors.
Planet warming increases the vapor pressure of water (Figure 1.7 in http://globalclimatedrivers2.blogspot.com ) contributing to the water vapor increase. At present water vapor appears to be increasing about twice as fast as expected based on AGT increase alone. Global temperature increase since 2002 from the UAH trend is about 0.127 K per decade (this automatically includes feedback effect). At 24 °C, (75.2 °F) increase in vapor pressure of liquid water is 6.058% per degree (Figure 1.7). Percent increase in water vapor due to temperature increase = 0.127 * 6.058% = 0.769%. Measured % increase from Total Precipitable Water (TPW) in 28 yr = (29.5-28.25)/28.875 = 0.043 = 4.3%. In 10 yr = 10/28*4.3 = 1.54%. Thus measured increase in WV is about 1.54/.769 = 2+ times the amount for liquid water temperature increase alone.
If the calculation is made assuming the average global temperature of 15 K (59 °F) instead of the low-for-tropical 24 K, the factor reduces to 1.86+ times the amount for liquid water temperature increase alone.
There are large amounts of carbon normally in the ocean—about 50 times the amount in the atmosphere., http://www.whoi.edu/oceanus/viewArticle.do?id=17726
The increase from the atmosphere is insignificantly small. There is no ocean acidification beyond local fluctuations.
Dan Pangburn , Your calculation using 24 or 15 °C remains fundamentally wrong. Earth doesn't have the same temperature all over unlike the simple mechanic problems you are trained to calculate on as as an engineer The temperature and humidity increase mainly occur in polar regions and to a lesser degree the temperate regions. The vapour pressure has a lower slope at lower temperatures.
Even you don’t have a science education you should know from your basic engineering classes that “15 K (59 °F)” is incorrect. There is no place on earth that are naturally as cold as 15 °K and if there was we would find liquid nitrogen and oxygen.
While you claim “There is no ocean acidification beyond local fluctuations.” The reference you point to say “Hydrogen ions in ocean surface waters are now 25 percent higher than in the pre-industrial era, ..” http://www.whoi.edu/oceanus/viewArticle.do?id=17726
HRA,
The calculations are correct. You might discover that if you actually made the assessment yourself instead of presenting another unreferenced and irrelevant graph.
Dan Pangburn
You give us a reference but apparently did not read it yourself?!
The first statement is that about 2/3d of the extra CO2 is now in the Ocean
What does your "50 times more carbon in the ocean than in the air" mean?
Dan Pangburn Your fundamentally flawed calculation uses the average temperature of earth and the average increase in temperature which you compare with the difference in water vapor at the average temperature of the Earth. This is fundamentally incorrect because the temperature increase mostly occur in the colder regions (so from a lower to a slightly less low temperature) and the increase in water vapor with temperature is much less at lower temperatures.
Earth is a complex system compared to a car and therefor scientists need a longer and more fundamental education than is given to a mechanical engineer.
The figure is not irrelevant you are just not qualified to understand it. You could find this figure in every post on Wikipedia on water vapor.
HTB,
If you had done a 'find' for 50, you would have seen this " First, there are large amounts of carbon normally in the ocean—about 50 times the amount in the atmosphere. " I'm well aware that they have fallen for the CO2-GW mistake.
HRA,
If you weren’t so blinded by your preconceived notions and arrogance you might have noticed that you have just made my assessment stronger. If there is less WV increase from temperature increase then even more of the WV increase is caused by other factors. The assessment in my blog/analysis found about 86 % of the WV increase is from increased crop irrigation.
If you weren’t too stubborn to look you might have discovered this: Vapor pressure and per unit rate-of-change of it vs temperature over the temperature range of interest are provided as Figure 1.7 in http://globalclimatedrivers2.blogspot.com
Dan
1. What does the following phrase have to do with CO2:
"First, there are large amounts of carbon normally in the ocean—about 50 times the amount in the atmosphere"?
2. What makes you an expert to judge that " I'm well aware that they have fallen for the CO2-GW mistake" and BTW what does this mean in scientific terms?
Dan Pangburn,
That you call ”preconceived notions and arrogance” is called a master of science degree – you don’t have one!
Your block (/brick!) state without any evidence your tinfoil-hat-religion that irrigation causes the vapor increase and heating of the globe.
As I mentioned the water increased most in polar regions. How do you explain the increases are highest in the arctic sea?
HTB,
1. Chemistry is not my field but as I understand it, some sort of balance continuously tries to maintain between CO2 in the atmosphere, CO2 dissolved in the oceans and C in the form of carbon hydration products dissolved in the ocean. Any relative excess or deficiency in any one is continuously minimized over time.
2. I did the research which is documented in http://globalclimatedrivers2.blogspot.com . Compelling evidence that CO2 has no significant effect on climate is in Section 2. A brief explanation of why is in the last paragraph of Section 2
An more detailed explanation of why that is true in spite of CO2 being a ghg is provided in http://diyclimateanalysis.blogspot.com as follows: (2nd paragraph after Figure 1): “Well above the tropopause, radiation to space is primarily from CO2 molecules. If you ignore the increase in water vapor near the surface (big mistake), WV averages about 10,000 ppmv. The increase in absorbers at ground level since 1900 is then about 10,410/10,295 = ~ 1%. WV above the tropopause is limited to about 32 ppmv because of the low temperature (~ -50 °C) while the CO2 fraction remains essentially constant with altitude at 410 ppmv; up from about 295 ppmv in 1900. The increase in emitters to space at high altitude (~> 30 km, 0.012 atm), and accounting for the lower atmospheric pressure, is (410 + 32)/(295 + 32) * 0.012 = ~ 1.4%. This easily explains why CO2 increase does not cause significant warming (except at the poles) and might even cause cooling. The exception at the poles is because it’s cold there at ground level so WV is already low.”
Dan
Blogspots are not serious science, I am sorry
CO2 does not emit above the tropopause, where do you get this info from?
and partial pressure is not the same as the ABSOLUTE vertical concentration of CO2
(Ocean: CO2 is taken up in the upper layer of the ocean with a limited capacity. On scales of centuries to milennia, yes, CO2 will move to the deep sea and by bio-reactions there is an interchange with other carbon species)
HRA,
Wrong again. I have an MSME and besides that a Professional Engineer License (ret). (If you weren’t too stubborn to look at my recent stuff you would have known that) But that was just a good place to start from (more than a decade ago) in understanding the influence of water vapor and non-influence of CO2 on global climate.
You are clueless about engineers also.
The evidence is all there but you have to take the blinders off and actually look.
Average global water vapor (WV or TPW for Total Precipitable Water) has been accurately measured by satellite and reported publicly by NASA/RSS since 1988. The numerical data for June, 2019 are at http://data.remss.com/vapor/monthly_1deg/tpw_v07r01_198801_201906.time_series.txt (last six digits are year-month). This is graphed as Figure 3 at http://globalclimatedrivers2.blogspot.com
I did the research on where the WV comes from. It is documented in Section 9 with all data sources linked. About 86% of the WV increase comes from irrigation. WV increase heats the globe because it is a ghg.
It would be profoundly ignorant to assert that WV increased most in the polar regions. WV is very low there at all altitudes because it is so cold. I will assume you merely misspoke and meant to say that it warmed most there which is correct. The reason why is precisely because the WV at the poles is low at all altitudes and the GHE at the poles (only about 13% of planet area) is primarily caused by CO2. Therefore, at the poles only, more CO2 = more warming.
Dan Pangburn , some weird statements:
- "You are clueless about engineers also." Nice. I am currently full professor of environmental engineering at a leading technical university and the 10 latest PhDs I supervised was on engineering.
- "It is documented in Section 9 with all data sources linked. About 86% of the WV increase comes from irrigation. WV increase heats the globe because it is a ghg. " You have not documented irrigation cause global warming. You just repeatedly state this without any evidence = argumentum ad infinitum.
- You claim CO2 doesn't cause warming and then proceed to agree warming is highest at the poles/arctic regions and you state this is caused by increasing CO2 which has increased the same amount all over the globe. It seems some contradictions are squeezed into your tinfoil covered head.
HTB & HRA,
Apparently understanding that CO2 has no significant effect on climate except at the poles, where the water vapor is so low that the GRE is controlled by CO2 there (and only there) is not something that you can grasp.
As to irrigation, I wonder which part you don’t get:
1. Water vapor is a ghg
2. Water vapor is increasing
3. About 86% of WV increase is from irrigation.
None are so blind as those who refuse to see.
I wonder how you rationalize that the ‘climate scientists’ got it wrong.
Not only at the poles
CO2 has an absorption band at a wavelength were WV does NOT absorb!
Or else you show us YOUR CO2 and WV IR-spectra
Dan Pangburn : "As to irrigation, I wonder which part you don’t get: "
It is easy. 1 & 2 are facts and no. 3("About 86% of WV increase is from irrigation.") is fiction which you dreamt up. I don't agree with that.
HTB,
If you had looked at http://globalclimatedrivers2.blogspot.com you might have discovered that I used data measurements by others so IR spectra was not needed. Knowing them might help you in understanding. They are widely available. Just do a web search for CO2 and H2O spectra and look at images. This is typical for climate work. Note the overlap of absorption for CO2 and H2O.
HRA,
You ‘don’t agree with that’. That is your opinion which of course you have a right to. My opinion changed when I actually looked at some numbers.
The ‘about 86%’ estimate was based on a “survey of available on-line literature” and is documented in Section 9 of
http://globalclimatedrivers2.blogspot.com . Feel free to challenge it. Here is the summary.
Water vapor source………………………..…..E13 kg/y
Irrigation…………………………………..…..30.8
Transportation fuel………………………..…..0.4
Fossil fuel for electricity generation………..…0.4
Cooling towers, etc. for electricity generation...4.0
Total……………………………………………35.6
Dan
I am a spectroscopist by training!
It is you who should have a look at the IR-part of the spectrum because that is what counts in the greenhouse effect
Look at that part and you must see for yourself that there are CO2 windows
As a matter of fact the IR-absoprtion and its effect is shown in your own pamphlet-blog in fig 1 and 1.5 (what happened BTW with figs 1.2-1.4?)
and I remember I pointed this out to you some months ago
Dan Pangburn, Your list of water sources miss the increase in water evaporation from the increased evaporation of natural water bodies. +1 °C on average is a lot of evaporation increase then you have 3/4 of the globe covered by seas.
You are also missing the things-add-up-correctly. Your figure show an increase in water by ~3 kg/m2. If you distribute the water you claim come from irrigation( 30.8·1013 kg/y) over the surface of earth (510.072.000.000.000 m2) you get 0.60 kg/m2/y. This is not enough for your theory as the average lifetime of water in the atmosphere is 3 kg/m2/week = > 150 kg/y/m2 from irrigation. You are a factor ~300 short!
Article A revised picture of the atmospheric moisture residence time
.
Dan Pangburn, You still owe us an explanation for global warming being fastest at the poles where you claim water vapor has no influence (note I also disagree with this).
The window in the water spectra you cannot see and CO2 peak in the same area = "None are so blind as those who refuse to see."
Ales
I would not mind but this is ResearchGate considered to be a serious scientific platform by young scientists. This is the only place I will continue to fight for the real science
HRA,
Well, you screwed up again. You were too dense up thread to realize that your assertion only added to my assertion and you did it again here. The objective for determining world sources of water vapor was only to show where the EXTRA water vapor comes from, because the data is that measured WV increase is about twice that resulting from the temperature increase. But you assert that I should add the water vapor resulting from the temperature rise. Apparently you are too dense to realize that would be stupid and result in a bogus calculation showing water vapor increasing even more than twice expected from temperature increase.
If you had read to the last paragraph in Section 9 you would have discovered that I had already calculated the ” tiny (about 0.07 %) equivalent increase in global precipitation.”
The purpose of that calculation is to show that the increase from irrigation is not having a significant effect on annual rainfall. Your “300 short” assertion is mindless.
I gave the reason more CO2 causes warming at the poles in response to HTB 3 days ago “The exception at the poles is because it’s cold there at ground level so WV is already low.” Therefore the GHE at the ~13% of planet area at the poles is primarily from CO2. A TOA over Antarctica at Figure 9 of http://www.warwickhughes.com/papers/barrett_ee05.pdf shows this.
When you read my stuff, instead of rationally challenging it, your knee jerk response appears to be ‘how can I ridicule this?’. Apparently you have been so profoundly indoctrinated with the ‘CO2 causes warming’ mistake that you can’t think straight and besides that, engage in the childish practice of posting antagonistic images.
I am done with trying to help you see beyond the BS in the ‘pal reviewed’ papers you seem to blindly accept. Perhaps Mother Nature will get through to you.
HTB,
You are a ‘spectroscopist by training’ who is not aware that CO2 emits above the tropopause. Pathetic. And you apparently didn’t understand and probably didn’t even look at my blog/analysis or you would have known better than to imply that I didn’t know the spectrum for CO2.
As to the ‘notches’ in the TOA radiation flux graphs. Of course it shows radiation absorption by CO2. I wonder if you understand what happens to that energy. You should know but your statements give no indication that you do. I can and have in the Section 5 paragraphs just after Figure 1 and in more detail in http://energyredirect3.blogspot.com .
There never was figs 1.2-1.4. http://globalclimatedrivers2.blogspot.com was started 3 years ago and as new graphs were needed, they were assigned numbers between existing graphs.
AK,
The typical Warmist has been so indoctrinated by group-think that direct confrontation does not work on them either, even when supplied with compelling evidence and detailed explanation with links to the data used.
There was and still is great division among experts regarding the influence of CO2 on climate. I got curious about who was right more than a decade ago and did some web searching resulting in an early paper made public at http://www.middlebury.net/op-ed/pangburn.html which includes the hilited statement “The conclusion from all this is that carbon dioxide change does NOT cause significant climate change.” Since then I have accumulated substantial corroboration for that and even discovered what actually is responsible for the warming that has occurred. The important aspect of that is that it is self-limiting.
A key factor was discovering how CO2, in spite of being a ghg, does not now, never has and never will have a significant effect on climate.
Mother Nature will eventually settle the debate. The concern is that the ‘free world’ might commit prosperity suicide with a ban on fossil fuels before that happens.
Aleš Kralj , it seems you are a ”typical Warmist ”..”indoctrinated by group-think” 😏 and remember it does not help to confront the hobby scientist who have this little side-line occupation.
Then I ridicule the pensionary amateurs I have no expectation to change their mind. They will keep on lying until they die. Scientist have always dealt with village idiots in this way: One dissect their argument and ridicule their inconsistency. This housekeeping is needed because it prevent other from picking up the crap and repeating it then they see the inconsistency of the fabricated science exposed - Thus with time the idea disappear as the fool dies of old age. One of my professors who taught this scientific dissection in my atmospheric chemistry studies said that we must have scientific hygiene to avoid things like race hygiene.
As you read a bit back in the posts you quickly got the point of that is wrong with the irrigation theory.
Dan Pangburn Your irrigation theory don’t add up. You claim irrigation caused most of the vapor increase and your figure (filename: ”TPW+thru+June+2019+&+yearly”) 3 days ago show an increase from just above 26 to well above 29 kg/m2. Given the experimentally very well proven 1 week residence time of water in the atmosphere an increase of 3 kg/m2 requires the atmosphere receive 150 kg/y/m2 but the 30.8·1013 kg/y water you claim is being added by irrigation distributed over the surface of Earth (510.072.000.000.000 m2) only give 0.60 kg/m2/y. This is all your facts except the residence time of water in the atmosphere, which I gave a source for and there are many independent studies which determine this parameter in the 4-11 day range using different methods.
Dan Pangburn , You still didn't manage to explain why the poles warm faster with CO2 increasing the same all over the globe. Once again you repeat that which we agree: Warming at the poles occur faster than the globe average and there is less vapor to start with in the atmosphere around the poles. You didn't give a mechanism that can explain this then you maintain water vapor is not the cause of warming at the poles and deny water feedback as a major part of the greenhouse gas theory.
Aleš Kralj
Which unexplained data do you refer to with "Temperature and CO2 deviate here and there (paleo proxy record)" ?
Aleš Kralj, I agree CO2 lacking temperature was observed at least twice in glacier ice cores at the end of glaciation periods. This proves that rising CO2 was not the trigger that caused the initial warming that ended these ice ages – but no climate scientist has ever made this claim. This data was obtained after the phenomenon was predicted by climate modelers. In order to explain how Milankovitch cycles small changes in energy input to Earth can terminate an ice age there need to be a feedforward mechanism there the first heating can result in a larger change and it could be CO2 and methane released from seabeds or permafrost. You see in the cores the temperature lead the first few hundred years and later in the transition to interglacial period the CO2 lead temperature after some time. Consistently it appears warm periods have higher CO2.
I think there is not any paley climate data that are unexplained. Science essentially understand the mechanisms and the equilibrium conditions well enough, but not every detail of the kinetic of change. We know how warm it will eventually be - just not the details of the speed.
Like Henrik I feel the idea that water from irrigation is causing the observed global warming is a little far fetched.
One fact I heard quoted was that all human water influence is 0.0007 % of natural water cycle activity.
If that were true it would support global warming as bogus yet the temperatures are increasing according to greenhouse gases and not necessary from water vapor. Why is human influenced water if it is so small is of any effect at all.
Why is irrigation water and not the water from other water sources this is not explained In any conclusive way either.
The conventional wisdom suggests that temperature increase water vapor and water vapor amplifies the warming which is driven by the carbon dioxide. As Henrik adds this accepted positive feedback mechanism is not even treated either.
How for instance that we can separate carbon dioxide from water vapor when both are immediate products of fossil fuel combustions. I agree that the increases from water are hard to separate from the other greenhouse gases. For example when fossil fuels are combusted they produce gaseous carbon dioxide and water both in great quantity.
These are being generated simultaneously. However considering the long half life of carbon dioxide, nitrous oxides and methane their accrual are very obvious and measurable with the very short half life of water I believe their increase will not be so comparably increased in any sense but then again there is much less data on these to compare with temperature fluctuations.
The rate of disappearance is more important to the net effect than the generation rate alone. One of the ideas is that water by its mass has to be the driver but this argument can be fraught with the issue such di atomic Nitrogen is the greatest mass in our atmosphere but the lesser concentration of oxygen and carbon dioxide is of greater importance for our life critical processes of respiration and photosynthesis processes. Quantitities do not necessarily represent the importance.
Another caveat is the idea that recognition of issues with fossil fuels is some plot to keep people poor. This is a very Red Herring argument which points to a preconceived unsustainable idea that modern economies are not able to flourish except on a fossil fuel basis. Since many of the non fossil fuel alternatives are considerably less costly have greater economic multiplier effects and less negative consequences this is a Red Herring argument not directed at the issue of global warming and its causes but on the convenience of status quo for the fixed economies in the world.
If the real nature of this water as the principal driver of global warming really an effort to support fossil fuel emissions by suggesting they are of little climatic influence. As such the argument is unveiled as more a political economic one rather than a serious scientific proposition.
Andrew Dessler Texas A and M confirms in collaborative work with NASA the water vapor has an amplifying effect on global warming. As he says, "Everybody agrees that as we add carbon dioxide warming is the result but the question is how much warming we will evidence?"
Increasing temperatures increase water vapor but this is a chicken and egg situation again. Dessler says warming and water absorption are part of temperature spiraling upward. The water he says should be considered an amplifier of warming from other greenhouse gases. The studies focused on AIRS measurements in the atmosphere.
- Badges
- Science topic
- Similar topics
- Geoscience
- Atmospheric Sciences
- Climate Science
- Climate Change