The AGW Ignorance of Water Vapor as a GreenHouse Gas
Whata Fool wrote:
"John M."
wrote:
On Aug 30, 1:55 am, William Asher
wrote:
Whata Fool wrote:
Whata Fool wrote:
For the sake of making this point,
consider water vapor and CO2
to both be GreenHouse Gases having identical
attributes as far as the IR electromagnetic
radiation energy transfer is concerned.
Greenhouse Gas theory talks about gases
able to absorb and radiate
Infra-Red radiation, with water vapor being
the only major GHG, and CO2 the only minor
GHG in concentration in the atmosphere of
more than 100 PPMV.
There are other very minor GHGs, but
they are of no import to this
discussion.
AGW theory seems to focus unduly on
CO2, and that is what AGW is
about, man does put additional CO2 into the
atmosphere every day.
But GHG theory is about water vapor
mostly, and CO2 as an adjunct.
And as I try to write about a subject
I have considerable interest
in, it is a fight to avoid the browser
hijackers, illegal malware scan sales
practices and suffering the damages from
forged messages posted by a criminal who can
have no reason to attack me other than my
views on GreenHouse Gas theory.
Two gases that can and do absorb and
radiate Infra-Red are present
in 99 percent of the mass of the atmosphere
at any and all times, CO2 at better than 380
PPMV presently, and water vapor usually at
more than 10,000 PPMV and often at more than
20,000 PPMV.
If temperature changes are affected by
changing CO2 concentration,
then changes in water vapor concentration
should affect temperatures, in the same
direction with increases.
This does not change any presumption
about what causes the surface
region of Earth to be 30 degrees warmer than
the moon, that is a separate issue entirely.
If increased concentration of CO2 were
to cause additional IR
radiation, and it should, then increased
water vapor concentration should cause
additional IR radiation, and it may.
The problem here is that increased CO2
has been blamed for some
small temperature rise, upon the assumption
that increased IR radiation must mean higher
temperatures, and this has to be a real-time
effect.
But increased humidity does not cause
temperature rise, even if
it causes increased IR radiation.
The driest days can be the hottest,
and the driest days can also
be the coldest. And with high humidity,
air temperatures seem to change more slowly.
And the AGW argument is that CO2 is a
"permanent" GHG, while water
vapor is considered to be more transitional
or even transient.
GHGs are responsible for considerable
distribution and re-distribution
of thermal energy, but the major heat sink
for the atmosphere is the N2 and the O2
atmosphere itself, with the limited ability
of those gases to radiate IR, they would
warm in daytime, and resist cooling at
night, and there is only the GHGs to cool
them and to produce survivable and even
comfortable temperatures on Earth
Foo-Foo:
Just.
Do.
Some.
Math.
That's a real problem for old 'uns like us,
believe it or not. I can spend hours trying to
dissect some straightforward piece of calculus
that would have occupied me for less than 5
minutes when I was twenty years old.
Before doing math, the problem has to be
structured and first
estimates made. It is common to not use any
precision math until there is a reason to.
I have read millions of words of technical
literature, and
both Climate Change and AGW have the least well
specified or defined
science ever. But this is common in a lot of
writing, it is usually more just sloppy writing
than a properly structured problem.
In climate science, the "surface" of the
real Earth might be
described in such a way so that the weather
services temperature data is quite adequate.
But in discussions of an Earth with N2 and
O2 atmosphere, but
no GHGs, the surface is simply the solid rock
surface.
In order to correctly model and evaluate
the effect of GHGs
with an increasing concentration of atmospheric
CO2 on the real Earth, understanding the physics
of the Earth with NO GHGs can help a lot.
If GHGs cool the atmosphere, then will
increasing atmospheric
CO2 cause more warming or more cooling?
My completely unscientific "guess" would be a
moderation of both warming and cooling.
Obviously CC science has already said that
the effects vary
according to latitude, but there are still some
questions about certain aspects, and apparently
some writers have said that certain problems are
not well understood.
If this August would have been like last
August here locally,
then many of us might have looked at AGW
differently, but the nights this August have
fallen down well into the 60s at night, and even
into the 50s.
The daytime temperatures have been as much
as 25 degrees cooler
than last August, and there would need to be a
lot of warmer anomalies elsewhere to get back to
average.
It seems as though there should be more
horizontal transfer of
energy from warm to cold, my impression is that
most of the horizontal temperature changes are
cold fronts moving into warmer air, and often
moist warmer air.
So this seems to make thermal transfer
more of a pressure thing
than Infra-Red radiation. Maybe weather is
different other places than here, most of our
weather comes down from Canada, with some from
the southwest, occasionally a Bermuda High from
the southeast.
The cooling has presented a problem, and
it may take time to
re-evaluate the situation. I am praying that
increased atmospheric CO2 is not the cause of
the cooling.
|