According to NASA/RSS anomaly data (the reference level is 28.73 kg/m^2) at http://data.remss.com/vapor/monthly_1deg/tpw_v07r01_198801_202101.time_series.txtaverage global water vapor increased about 1.49% per decade from Jan 1988 to Jan 2021 (their most recent report). This is about twice the amount that would occur from just temperature increase and amounts to about 7 molecules of WV added for each molecule of CO2 added.
Dan P
Too afraid for us in the other questions here so you now present your stolen graphs without caption explanation here?
You were shown that you have been adapting the graphs of T versus WV since 2010 here every five years WITHOUT a reply by you
But we know where to find stolen goods
NASA/RSS apparently fixed the problem and TPW data are now up to date thru Nov 2021 at http://data.remss.com/vapor/monthly_1deg/tpw_v07r01_198801_202111.time_series.txt
A water vapor (WV) molecule is more effective as a greenhouse gas than a CO2 molecule. Measurements of both show WV molecules have been increasing 7 times faster than CO2 molecules. NASA/RSS reported WV (TPW) monthly since Jan 1988 but stopped reporting after Dec 2021
Dan
a WV is more effective?????? this is a research forum:
REFERENCES man
According to Dr. Thayer Watkins "The water molecule is 50 percent more effective than the carbon dioxide molecule [at absorbing thermal radiation]." http://www.applet-magic.com/watervapor01.htm
His resume: http://www.applet-magic.com/resume2.htm
THIS is NOT a scientific REFERENCE for your information
Be a man and start to STUDY the GreenHouse effect that you refused now for over 20 years
Steve Carson used less time to completely master the concept in his blog
https://scienceofdoom.com/roadmap/
AND come back to us with what you have learned!
A demonstration that humanity’s contribution to the modest rise trend in average global temperature is NOT due to increasing carbon dioxide is at http://globalclimatedrivers2.blogspot.com
Dan
are getting out of your mind to refer to own gut feelings for over 15 years
DEMONSTTRATION? yes of navel-staring
Richard Feynman famously wrote "Science is the Belief in the Ignorance of the Experts". He meant, and explained that "science - a.k.a. research - is in the making, belongs to the (unknown, yet to be discovered) future, while expertise is based on the past, with in-built obsolescence".
Water vapor molecules are increasing 7 times faster than CO2 molecules. Nobody else has looked at measured water vapor and correctly compared it to the maximum possible from just planet warming or they would have discovered that measured WV has increased more than possible from just planet warming. This demonstrates that global warming/climate change is not caused by CO2 increase i.e. burning fossil fuels.
DP
Water vapor molecules asre increasing:
WHERE
WHEN
says WHO
WHAT DATA
What RELATION with gobal wariming
After 20 years you still do not provide any of such scientific information
Your one-lier isn't much of a result for 20 years of ... Actually: What did you do all those years?
The water vapor increase is average global. Total Precipitable Water (TPW) as measured using satellite instrumentation and reported by NASA/RSS as numerical anomalies. Their methodology is described at https://www.remss.com/measurements/atmospheric-water-vapor/ . They have reported it monthly as TPW anomalies. Their latest report is for Dec 2021 at http://data.remss.com/vapor/monthly_1deg/tpw_v07r01_198801_202112.time_series.txt .
What they report is the average TPW for non-cloud covered oceans between latitudes 60N and 60S. I graphed this with the base value of 28.73 added to the anomaly data as shown about 10 posts up-thread and at Fig 3 in http://globalclimatedrivers2.blogspot.com The trend of this shows an increase rate of about 1.44% per decade.
DAn Pangburn
I taught you that the water path is NOT the parameter in the GreenHouse effect but you just refuse to even ONCE study because of? laziness I presume.
You have been navel-staring now for 20 years in which time you could atleast have don what a scientist does
For instance Steve Carson (SCIENCEOFDOOM) using HITRAN instead of showing some data from that base
In one word our THE exampled of laziness and putting on your site graphs from government agencies
Harry, your hand-waving is negated by measurements which show that WV has been increasing 7 times faster than CO2. I have provided the link multiple times. I wonder why you never provide a link to anything which supports your hand-waving.
Dan you confuse a question with a statement:
"What effect does the observation that water vapor has increased about twice the amount that would occur from just planet warming have on climate?"
Whatever a replier mentions you know already better
This SCIENCE? no, self-admiration in desquise
Dear Dan Pangburn . See the following useful link: https://www.eso.org/gen-fac/pubs/astclim/espas/pwv/mockler.html#:~:text=An%20increase%20in%20water%20vapor,effect%20of%20increased%20greenhouse%20gases.
Kindly see also the following useful link: https://climate.nasa.gov/ask-nasa-climate/3143/steamy-relationships-how-atmospheric-water-vapor-supercharges-earths-greenhouse-effect/
Also check please the following useful link: https://journals.ametsoc.org/view/journals/clim/12/8/1520-0442_1999_012_2327_trowvf_2.0.co_2.xml
The following link is also very useful: https://journals.ametsoc.org/view/journals/clim/11/10/1520-0442_1998_011_2686_wvstat_2.0.co_2.xml
Aref Wazwaz :
Those articles all share the common mistake that WV has increased only from feedback from temperature increase. Most likely they are not aware that average global WV has been accurately measured by NASA/RSS using satellite instrumentation and reported monthly since Jan 1988. It is fairly simple to calculate what the average global temperature increase would be from just average global temperature increase. The method and an example using the average global temperature reported as HadCRUT5 are at Section 7 of the analysis at https://watervaporandwarming.blogspot.com. I have done the same calculation using temperature data from UAH, GISS, NOAA and RSS. They all show that measured WV has been increasing substantially more (34% to 178%) than possible from just average global temperature increase.
Dan Pangburn
You write
"It is fairly simple to calculate what the average global temperature increase would be from just average global temperature increase."
WHAT does this MEAN?
And you even have done this before SO PRESENT it here in summarised form when it is so simple
IF NOT: I will confront you with this citation in every reply
Click here, Harry: https://watervaporandwarming.blogspot.com
It’s in Section 7.
Dan
1. You did not reread the nonsense one-liner above
2. Why can't you summarise a section of an e-note of a few pages?
Dan
And I went to that page and what do I see:
A fully stolen 20 year's old graph based on one of the first satellite observations
or did YOU do it with a drone?
And what does this mean for the warming???? I explain this to you for the nth time
Increasing CO2 implies emission from a higher level and thus via the lapse rate a higher surface temperature
The AGW effect explained in one sentence: you want more: study ScienceofDoom
By Carson spending 5 years on a blog for Dummies
This is the algorithm in Section 7 that calculates WV increase from temperature increase that Harry is too willfully blind to see:
"The file for calculated change in WV is generated in EXCEL where each row contains:
WVn = WV(n-1) + (Tn – T(n-1))* R * (WV(n-1) + F)
Where:
WVn = calculated WV in month n, kg/m^2
Tn = temperature anomaly in month n, C°
R = effective rate of WV increase resulting from feedback of temperature increase, 0.067/C° (= 6.7 %/C°)
F = added to avoid circular reference of (WV(n-1)+WVn)/2
For HadCRUT5 [31] as of Dec 2021, F = 0.029835/24 = 0.00124 kg/m^2/month. Slope at F = 0 is 0.0298342. Effect over 34 yr = (0.0298355 - 0.0298342)*34 = 0.000044 kg/m^2 "
Harry, if you had any understanding of how climate works you would know what this means. I have explained it many times but you seem to have some sort of mental block that prevents you from grasping it. A co-plot of this, the WV increase resulting from temperature increase, with the measured WV increase demonstrates that WV has been increasing faster than possible from feedback. This means that the basis for GW (or climate change, etc.) expounded by Climate Science is without merit, the human contribution to climate change is from increased WV, which is eventually self limiting. Curtailing the use of fossil fuels will have no significant effect on climate and much of the free world is committing economic suicide for no reason.
Dan
Is this AN EXPLANATION? one answer not by a long-shot
And since you mention it: HOW does CLIMATE "work"?
Never read a textbook and re-invented yourself the 5th wheel on the wagon again
Don't make us laugh
First realize that CO2 has no significant effect on climate. This chart is a clue.
This chart is a riddle by a charlatan
WHAT the heck is THIS?
This here is ResearchGate the central Research forum for Europe
and you steal a graph from somewhere and we should know what it is
This is all you can after 20 years of navel-staring?
The graph that I created from published data is adjacent to and uses the same vertical scales as the NOAA chart. My graph is readily verified by spot checking to noted data available on line. CO2 data is discussed further and with links at Sect 13 of http://globalclimatedrivers2.blogspot.com Unfortunately I did not write down where I copied the NOAA chart from but I found the substance of it as Fig 3 at https://skepticalscience.com/archive.php?r=1490
Dan Pangburn Your figure is fraud and/or incompetence. The temperature anomaly in the original graph is for a specific spot in central Antarctica and it cannot be continued by global average temperature anomalies. If you claim you are not a dishonest the other alternative is ....
A simple reason might be a longer residence time of water vapour between evaporation and removal by rainfall.
To extend this residence time cloud microphysics has to be modified towards more and smaller cloud droplets. Smaller droplets would lead to enhanced evaporation of cloud droplets and more latent energy in the layer between the clouds. That would require an increase in anthropogenic CCN size emissions which is well in agreement with current observations, less fine particle mass but lots of ultrafine ones as either direct CCN or precursors.
Dan
"Unfortunately I did not write down where I copied the NOAA chart from"?
fraudulously, I never write down where I copy my 20 year old graphs come from and what they mean
W. Junkermann
What matters to planet warming is the amount of WV not the residence time of individual molecules. The amount of WV (average global Total precipitable water vapor) has been increasing 1.44% per decade since they started accurately measuring it in Jan, 1988.
Apparently
there is Dan Pangburn who refuses already for over 20 years to study basic science as there are
Physical Chemistry
Atmospheric Science
Instead repeats his gut feelings now for all that time and accusing others that their knowledge is fooled by scientific publications
Dan
SHOW us what total WV (BTW: where when etc!!!) does to climate and how?
This is the 51st time I ask this
Dan
and to complete by answer:
my remark is the title of YOUR QUESTION HERE so what do you mean with all of your entries here: giving your own answer on a meaningless question?
- Badges
- Science topic
- Similar topics
- Linguistics
- Composition Studies
- Publications