Slashdot Mirror
Water Vapor Causing Climate Warming
karvind writes "According to BBC, new studies suggest that water vapor rather than carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is the main reason why Europe's climate is warming. The scientists say that rising temperatures caused by greenhouse gases are increasing humidity, which in turn amplifies the temperature rise. This is potentially a positive feedback mechanism which could increase the impact of greenhouse gases such as CO2. Even though 2005 will probably be warmest year, climatologists still differ in opinion"
So why not start mining the atmosphere for water? We're running out of clean water anyway.
The Earth, like many of these scientists, is full of hot air! News at 6!
Before you mod me funny, think, perhaps I was insightfully funny?
It's God sneezing
hello dear sirs my name is jamesh i are india (bihar) can u guide me install red had linux 9?
makes me all moist.
Well let's hope the scientists don't get too much overheated discussions then.... In the mean time put your stocks on sun block with heavy UV filters, they're the next business hype.
Too bad we wont be able to say "At least it's a dry heat" if this continues.
I could be missing something, but isn't this basic astronomy (or whatever science you care to term it)? Water vapor (among other gasses) is responsible for keeping a planet heated, and not a frozen ball of rock like Mars. Maintaining that delicate balance of how much water is in the air is important of course, but noting that water is causing the atmosphere to retain heat is... nothing new.
-Daniel
Scientists promptly advised everyone to:
1. Stop drinking water
2. Stop breathing
3. Stop taking showers (note: this doesn't apply to some countries such as France and Mexico)
Warming starts with CO2 and other greenhouse gases. Warmer climate means more evaporated water in the atmosphere. Guess what? Water vapor is also a greenhouse gas. So climate gets warmer. Lather. Rinse. Repeat.
This isn't a story that undermines or changes the prevailing scientific view. This may allow some fine tuning of the models. Some skeptics had argued with the results of the models because they didn't believe the contribution of water vapor. This may force them to reevaluate their view. (Yeah right).
and meanwhile the enviromentalists are pushing for fuel cell vehicles that output only clean water from the exhaust pipes. Wouldn't it be ironic if this article is correct
Go ahead mod my karma bad, just remember what karma is fuckers!!!!!!!!!
I'm just curious how many scientists have looked at the possibility that the earth warms and cools in cycles, and there's really not anything we can do to affect it, or stop it.
No boom today. Boom tomorrow. There's always a boom tomorrow. - Cmdr. Susan Ivanova
The reason we don't know how much global temperatures are going to rise is because we don't know enough about water vapor. Water vapor is thousands of times more potent than man made greenhouse gas. The main reason we can't 100% accurately predict the temperature is because we don't know for sure where the water vapor goes in the atmosphere. However, that does not mean that water vapor is causing global warming. Human emissions are the reason why there is more water vapor in the air than ever before. This isn't really knew, mainstream science has known this for ten plus years.
Accepted facts about global warming are as follows:
a)We are putting more greenhouse gases into the air than ever before.
b)Greenhouse gases trap heat.
c)The earth is getting warmer.
No one disagrees on these facts. The only legitamite disagreement is on how much warmer the earth will get, and this is because we don't know where the water vapor sits in the atmosphere. Supercomputers estimate the temperature increase will be between 1.5 and 11 degrees celcius in the next 50 years. At the low end we are seriously screwed. At the high end it is the end of civilization as we know it.
- There are factors other than human interference in global warming.
- Not every scientist in the world agrees on everything.
This allows us to draw two important conclusions:- Humans are not responsible for global warming.
- Climatology, a "soft" science, will never be able to provide the kind of reliable conclusions on which to form policy which "hard" scientists, such as libertarian economists, provide.
Discuss.I knew I should've voted for the EPA to ban that blasted dihydrogen monoxide!
All scientists have are "theories" and "facts". How are we supposed to trust scientific groupthink? What is important is, many posts on the internet have repeatedly demonstrated global warming is not caused by humans. You can try to spin things all you want, but the original slashdot summary is still correct: Global warming is caused by water vapor, not man.
?
UTF-8: There and Back Again
Your two conclusions preclude each other. If the statement "Climatology will never provide reliable conclusions is true, then we cannot conclude that humans are not responsible for global warming, since the the latter conclusion assumes that there is at least one case in the universe of discourse such that Climatology provide us with a valid conclusion x.
A Good Troll is better than a Bad Human.
(Hopefully) before this ends up in a big pissing match over whether or not global warming is real, I'd like to lay down some ideas.
Our climate changes- it has for billions of years and it will for billions of more years.
Our climate is *incredibly* complex, so accurate prediction either way is nigh impossible (and I think it's arrogant to imply we know enough about our climate to even try to control it).
Global warming *is* happening, but factually only in the sense that our planet has been getting warmer- the debate is over whether or not man is to blame. Keep in mind, we just came out of an ice age several thousand years ago, so global warming is basically a given until we enter the next ice age.
There is NO consensus on whether or not man-made global warming is happening- anyone who claims to have "climatologist" friends who say it most definitely is or isn't real and that all the real scientists agree are just pulling stuff out of their ass (and it's pretty obvious, too, so don't even try to do it).
Not everyone who believes global warming is caused by man is a crazy hippy and not everyone who believes it isn't caused by man is some money-grubbing republican. It's that kind of black and white approach to this and other topics, both by the people and especially the media, that has trivialized the issue at hand.
Please try to keep this in mind.
-Moses
Quote "many posts on the internet have repeatedly demonstrated global warming is not caused by humans". This is REALLY stupid. Many post of the internet just prooved me the moon landing is an hoax. Faery exists. UFO exists. Cthulhu exists. Also many post of the intenet proove that God does not exists at all. And also that it exists. Crystal do heal you. Putting a chip on your CD will enhance the quality of the 1's and 0's constituting the music. A magnet can enhance wine quality. YEAH RIGHT.
Secondly Scientific method is based on taking data, making a model of it (a FALSIFIABLE one) and checking the model against the data. If the model do not match the data then it is MERCILESSLY dropped. If you really want to see a dogma, look for religion or sect or even politics. I won't judge your post for its other argument (speaking of dogma means you probably do not understand the scientific method at all. I would even bet you are an ID believer or creationist, but that would be an ad persona attack on my part. Bad Aepervius. Bad bad.)
C. Sagan : A demon haunted world:
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0345409469/
visit randi.org
In the planet's history there have been many fluctuations in temperature larger than what we are seeing currently. If water vapor were truly positive feedback ( and of such magnitude that we need orry about it ), then the climate would have already settled in a very hot or very cold state. But it hasn't. Therefore there must be some stabilizing negative-feedback mechanism at work that we don't know about. It might involve water vapor, it might not.
Yeah? Well my dad can beat up your dad!
Go ahead mod my karma bad, just remember what karma is fuckers!!!!!!!!!
My dad can use AOL better than your dad.
A Good Troll is better than a Bad Human.
It clearly says this is all a sign of His 'Second Boiling'.
So greenhouse gases are causing the earth to get warmer, thus increasing the rate of evaporation of water above previous levels.
And somehow its the water vapor that is released from this evaporation, from increased heating, that is warming the earth?
If I hit my tumb with a hammer, and it starts bleeding. It would be like saying it is the blood that is causing the pain.
Worst article summary ever!
I think it's time to admit that we're all in a race with each other to use fossil fuels.
The fact is most of the coal and petroleum will be burned, one way or another. The question is, who gets the benefit?
Those that race to burn it first get the benefit. Anyone that reduces their consumption suffers with a competitive disadvantage.
It's a classic tragedy of the commons situation.
So what! My dad looks at more porn than your dad.
The exhaust from combustion of hydrogen is water vapor. If this is a more serious greenhouse gas than originally thought, can hydrogen really be considered an eco-friendly fuel? We'd probably have to have condenser units in the role of catalytic converters in hydrogen power cars.
that's because he's got a porn addiction. Just kidding...funny reply :) if only i was a mod
Go ahead mod my karma bad, just remember what karma is fuckers!!!!!!!!!
George Bush is evidence that there is no such thing as INTELLIGENT DESIGN.
Fight Spammers!
What avout the Sun's age? I've read the Sun is getting hotter, and of course it'd be getting hotter since the sun is getting older.
Hydrogen-powered engines have been bandied about as a solution to using petroleum. So, wouldn't the use of hydrogen increase water vapor and -- and as a result -- contribute to global warming to much the same degree as the use of internal combustion engines?
It's clear from all the discussions in previous articles about global warming that no amount of science is going to convince anyone of anything.
Therefore, I'm sticking with the eminently reasonable position that global warming is caused by Republicans.
"Destroy science and religion. Science would re-emerge exactly the same; but not religion." - Penn Jillette, paraphrased
Are you fucking serious? Are people really this dumb? What the hell man. Fucking honestly. Seriously. What the fuck?
But this vapor is just a feedback effect, not an atmospheric forcing. This is due to the incredibly short residence time of water in the atmosphere of ~10 days. This means that even if you could somehow instantly cause the earth to have 0% humidity everywhere, things would stabalize back to "normal" within about 20-30. True forcings like CO2 have residence time of decades, which makes them the greenhouse gas to worry about.
Everyone posting here should first read this article for the full explination. The site in general is excelent.
"You saved 1968." - Ms. Valerie Pringle to the crew of Apollo 8
I'm pretty sure this has been a part of the greenhouse effect model all along--I have a strong memory of reading forecasts of exactly this at least ten years ago.
. . . the Kyoto Protocol, or as I like to call it the Kyoto Pissing contest between nations, is causing more harm than good? With these new developments, it seems money being used now to "fix" older power plants could have better been spent developing long term REAL solutions, like more research. For once, I think maybe the US was right to stay out of this "world effort," even if for the wrong internal reasons.
hydrogen is not really considered an eco-friendly fuel, because the exhaust is carbon dioxide, which (shock) is a greenhouse gas. it's a non-oil fuel, and cheaply available, which is why it's being researched (although the government is actually pushing for the use of hydrogen from non-renewable sources, which is insane to me).
reduce CO2 emissions. It's the CO2 emissions that start the process; water vapor serves as an amplifier and positive feedback.
Venus.
It is completely obvious that there have been warming and cooling periods in the past and that we may be in a warming period unrelated to CO2 emissions. People who demand action on climate change aren't disputing that. But we also know for certain that CO2 in the atmosphere has increased, and we also know for certain that increased CO2 causes a greenhouse effect--the only question is about the magnitude of the effect. The magnitude can be between mild and severe. Either way, sooner or later, we are going to run into trouble. If the effect is overlayed on top of a non-anthropogenic warming trend, it's even more cause for concern.
What I can't figure out is what people like you are trying to argue. Even if all your objections to the interpretation of historical data were valid, what would it matter? At what point are you willing to act to reduce CO2 emissions?
The anon users has an informative post.
evil is as evil does
ok, since I'm lazy, can you tell me from the docs you have read :-
Increased water vapour = increased cloud = increased reflection out of the atmosphere.
How much of a closed loop effect does this mechanism provide?
We call it "Intelligent sternutation."
...I got stung several times by a mosquito, and have the lumps to prove it. Having lived in the UK since 1963, I can confirm having never ever ever seen or been stung by a mosquito in November - they normally appear in the summer months. To any detractors out there, global warming IS happening, but because a number of large corporations stand to profit from it (were the ice sheets are melting), it's just not being given the sort of focus that it should be.
O'WONDERWe're working on it.
There goes all the hype for hydrogen powered cars right out the window. "All they emit is water vapor." Yeah.
By the way, there isn't "Europe's climate" only World's climate. I think so :-/
Scientists have reported that they have discovered a thick layer of gases and evaporated liquids around the earth which they believe contributes to global warming. They have named this layer of various elements, composed primarily of nitrogen and oxygen, the "atmosphere". It is hoped that further investigation of the atmosphere could lead to a greater understanding of global warming.
After 911, for three days, there was no air traffic in North America. Scientists found a measurable difference in the climate. As with the study in tfa, the results were localized; the greatest difference was where the air traffic was normally highest.
One of my buddies suggests that the contrails from high flying airplanes has a much greater effect than CO2 and are a more potent source of global warming.
www.sciencenews.org/articles/20020511/fob1.asp
If you check my posts you will see that I have been saying this for years.
Most of this is probably due to a lot of land at high elevation. This causes a cooling because water vapour falls out at high elevation and cannot trap the incomming solar radiation. Furthermore we get a high reflection off the snow and ice as well.
In all likelihood the cooling from the Miocene was caused by mountain building with the himalyan plateau being the latest addition. The Rockys and Andies, Pyrannies, Alps and 2 Hellenic ranges appeared before the Himalain plateau was pushed up. In North America we have the Colorado Plateau.
As part of this cooling Antarctica froze over and that locked the planet into the current snowball earth. Prior to this freeze over Antactrica was cold - but still had significant amounts of water vapour which trapped solar energy falling during the Antarctic summers. After the freeze over, Antarctica became the dryest continent on the planet - with a huge increase in the loss of solar energy falling on Antarctica. So this is a powerful positive feedback mechanizm that locked us into the current snowball earth phase.
Since then a lot of erosion has taken place which my have moved us past the equilibrium point. Still - the ice on antarctica and the glaciers at high elevation have kept us locked into the snowball earth phase.
I suspect that irrigation is causing a warming. It makes a great deal of sense. But offsetting this is the distruction of the rain forests.
CO2 is negligable. During the ordovician levels of CO2 were 13x to 19x higher than now and the earth cooled.
Some have pointed out correctly that the sun was not as strong back then. While that is true - there was a fair amount of mountain building during the ordovician (taconic orogany) and this may have been what tipped the planet from the hot house into the snowball phase. The sun was also weaker when the planet came out of the snowball phase a few million years later.
For over 80% of the last 540 million years the earth has been about 22 degrees warmer on average than now. So it makes sense that the earth will warm up - we just do not know when.
Another thing is that we have had about 22 ice cycles in the last 2+ million years and typically with a frequency of about every 100,000 years or so. 5 million years ago there were trees north of the Arctic circle in Canada. This is probably true of Russia as well.
Since we have had a number of ice cycles (the last was at peak about 50,000 years ago) it would make sense that we will have another. If so then we may be within a few 1000 years of another ice age developing.
It really will depend on where the equilibrium points are and I don't think anyone has any real idea.
One thing that is really instructive is to look at a globe of the earth that has actual mountains on it. There is one at the Tyrrell Museum in Drumheller Alberta. When you look at this globe and see just how thin the atmosphere really is - 2/3 of it lies below 30,000 feet for instance (Mount Everest) - it becomes very clear that a lot of solar incident energy is simply reflected off into space.
Get rid of the mountains and you gain a very effective H2O blanket.
In the tropics at sea level and 35C the absolute H2O vapour in the atmosphere is over 8% (80,000 ppm). This is in contrast to CO2 levels of 365 PPM.
H2O is a stronger absorber than CO2 by far - in all wavelengths.
So I frankly do not think CO2 is even a factor to be honest. The models used by the IPCC do not take into consideration that water vapour levels may be changing. When your most significant variable is not handled properly then your model isn't very believable.
From a paleoclimate standpoint - CO2 can change climate. It did several times in the Precambrian. The thing is that in order to do this the CO2 levels had to climb to many 1000 PPM. This occurred back then because so much of the earth froze over that even the oceans may have frozen r
So more water vapor means we should be seeing an increase in rain & snow right?
The difference is, the source of the fuel. Fossil fuels are releasing carbon into the air that's been stored out of the way for millions of years. Hydrogen is made from water already in the ecosystem, so you're just moving water from one place to another in an active system, rather than adding a ton of carbon from 'outside' the system.
Admittedly, the water used for hydrogen production isn't already vapor, but as you say, it wouldn't be that hard to put some kind of condenser system as part of the car exhaust, and use the condensed water for say, coolant and screenwash, and have a tank for the remaining waste water that has to be drained periodically. Maybe you could use it to water your plants or somesuch.
It's also worth pointing out that carbon dioxide isn't the only or even most potent form of greenhouse gas you get from burning fossil fuel; it's just the most potent. You also get water vapor from car engines, which is what makes the white clouds from car exhausts on cold days.
Remember kids, it's all fun and games until someone commits wholesale galactic genocide.
Gah, I meant to say CO2 isn't the most potent, but it is the one you produce most of.
Remember kids, it's all fun and games until someone commits wholesale galactic genocide.
There seem to be a few things missing in this discussion:
s .1896.climate.pdf
1. The fact that most of the warming associated
with global warming is directly forced by water
vapor is well established, going back at least
as far as Arrhenius's 1895 paper often credited
with "discovering" global warming.
(original paper at:
http://geosci.uchicago.edu/~archer/PS134/arrheniu
)
i.e. this result is CONSISTENT with our understanding
of global warming.
2. Increases in atmospheric water vapor are tightly tied
to temperature. The saturation specific humidity
(the amount of water air will hold) increases
exponentially with temperature (an implication of the
Clasius-Claperyon relationship). Thus when you increase the
temperature of the atmosphere by dT (by, for example, adding
some CO2), more water vapor evaporates into the atmosphere,
amplifying the warming.
3. This effect, known as the water vapor feedback, has been in
our climate models from the beginning (at least as far back
as 1895), and produces results consitent with observations.
4. The cited Geophysical Research Letters paper uses observations
to estimate the strength of the water vapor feedback and
finds that it is strong (even stronger than most models
predict). It is also a step in the process
of understanding climate change on a regional level.
Z
Yeah, they're pushing for hydrogen vehicles that magically get hydrogen from sources that have no effect on the environment. You know, coal, oil, gas, nuclear--actually, nuclear isn't so bad unless there's an accident--and those huge wind farms or giant fields of solar panels that have no effect either, even if they take reduce the temperature at the surface or slow down the wind a bit.
This is something else to put on the scorecard then.
If Mr. Edison had thought smarter he wouldn't sweat as much. --Nikola Tesla
You know when you buy a pair of shoes, how the box has a little packet of silica? We should make some giant silica packets to soak all that humidity!
Patent: from Latin patere, to be open
There are a couple of feedbacks from water vapour, there's the reflection via cloudcover, and there's radiated heat trapped by the water vapour. There are all sorts of factors involved in that using a lot of complex issues to do with cloud formation that I can't say I understand. There has been a lot of work on modelling, but I don't think it's all that well understood yet all things considered. Certainly the models (with forcings) have a resulting equilibrium state, and most that I've seen end up warmer but I don't think it's a settled question. Try this random reference on the subject.
Jedidiah.
Craft Beer Programming T-shirts
You have negleted to mention one thing: greenhouse gasses only act as such at certain wavelengths depending on their absorption spectra. Therefore, there is a point at which adding more of any greenhouse to the atmosphere does not change the absorption spectra of the atmosphere since the absorbable light from the sun is already being fully absorbed.
I was unable to find a website explaining this or giving examples, but I remember being told at one point by a professor (2 years ago) and shown the data/graph showing it that the water vapor in the atmosphere already absorbs 100% of its absorption spectra but that since this is not the case for all this man-made junk (CFCs etc.) or CO2 that those things resulting in global warming.
Anyway, here is a link I found remotely interesting: http://www.spaceguarduk.com/cd/dict/dictionary/inf rared.htm/A.
This is brilliant: if the humidity is increasing, that means that there is less water in fluid state -- the water vapor has to come from somewhere, right? That might just compensate for the rising sea levels caused by melting polar ice!
I should have previewed first!
O'WONDERWe're working on it.
"The more issues a person refuses to shoehorn down into an artificial liberal/conservative dichotomy, the more certain you can be that the person is a liberal and trying to hide it."
I just love global warming debates!
Any reputable scientist of any discipline will have no problem in telling you that when you are talking about a complex system, that has been in operation for billions of years, a sampling of measurements over the past couple hundred years is nowhere near enough to KNOW how the system behaves to a particular factor over any meaningful span.
Yet, that doesn't stop people from coming right out and saying that all scientists agree, that people are causing a catastrophic climactic change with environmental pollution.
Why?
Because global warming is the modern, secular, version of original sin. People just know that there has to be some horrible price to pay for eating from the tree of knowledge, and destroying all life on the planet sounds just about right to them as the price we have to pay. Therefore, it makes perfect sense that we surely must be killing the very planet in order to live our comfy lives.
The problem with this theory, is that it is pure conjecture, mixed with no small amount of hubris. Sure, everyone has heard that one major volcanic eruption vents more carbon dioxide than all the cars ever constructed by man combined, but that can't really be right, because we are more important than some stupid volcano. Surely we the tax of our vices must be higher than some random venting of gas. Besides, if the temperature of the entire planet is rising due to factors that have nothing to do with us, that means we can't stop it, which can't be right. We are the most important thing on the planet, and obviously there isn't anything that we can't do. If we are destroying the planet, then all we need to do is renounce our evil ways, and we can save the planet. That makes much more sense. That is how the universe really works. If we want to destroy a planet, then we can, and likewise if we want to save a planet, then we can do that too. We aren't just a bunch of insignificant specs crawling around the surface of some giant system totally beyond our control. We are the center of everything, and all that matters is what we choose to do. Yeah, that sounds much better.
The simple fact is that there has been a very slight rise in temperatures globally over the past blink of a global eye that we call a century. If anyone knew why, they could probably also reliably tell you if it was going to rain tomorrow, where the next tsunami will hit, and what day the next big earthquake would hit California. They can't tell you any of those things because there are actually some things that are so complex that the human brain can't properly model them, even with the help of all the fancy supercomputers in the world.
I know, I know, this has to be just a load of crap. Obviously it is the Republicans, and Americans with SUVs causing all of this, because we can change that with a vote and some laws, and there is nothing more important to the world than politics. If Mother Nature is so powerful, why have I never seen her name on a ballot, right?
By the way, just to head off any political partisan attacks, let me say that as far as being a good green citizen, I probably have more "street cred'" than you, seeing as how I spent 10 years going everywhere on a bicycle, haven't driven (or even owned) a car in over 7 years, and now go everywhere either by walking, or riding on the largest fleet of clean air busses in America. I am hardly the gas-guzzling, big-business loving, neo-conservative republican you might like to think is the mold of every person on earth who disagrees with you.
Why does he say 'it is water vapor rather than caron dioxide that causes warming in europe'? The next sentence makes it clear that this is not the case, so the first sentence should have been omitted as it is misleading.
I miss my rubber keyboard.(Homepage)
Isn't methane an even more potent greenhouse gas than pure CO2? And don't our industrial animal breed-for-slaughter institutions and our oil production produce more methane than any other causes?
I'm just curious to see what the Slashdot crowd knows about this. Maybe tomorrow I'll look it up on the net.
-- thinkyhead software and media
is where you can find the critique of Mann and the hockey stick.
http://www.climateaudit.org/
is the blog of continuing critiques by McKintyre.
www.realclimate.org
is the place to go for Mann & his supporters.
Have fun!
It's always amused me how rags like "The Economist" pretend that economics is a science, while following this procedure:
1. We know that Adam Smith type economics is God-given truth, even though Smith lived in a completely different world.
2. Therefore we already know in advance the answer to every economic question, which is, totally free markets
3. Now what was the question?
4. Well, economists have studied your question carefully using our rigorous methodologies and the answer is (drumroll) introduce free markets!
In fact, "libertarian economics" is exactly as much a hard science as Creationism, Intelligent Design, etc., whereas climatology is a very hard science indeed studying immensely complicated things and using extremely clever people and enormous computer power to do it. The difference between climatologists and economists is that economists have cleverly made up rules like "let markets decide everything" and "there is no limit on natural resources" which are hugely attractive to neocon politicians - whereas climatologists are coming up with increased pessimism which equally hugely pisses off said politicians, who are afraid that they will be expected to DO SOMETHING which might harm their short term popularity. Faced with someone who tells politicians what they want to hear, and someone who doesn't, I'm afraid I know who I am more likely to listen to.
Pining for the fjords
So, great. Water vapor is increasing global temperature as well. This is a wonderful reassurance, and it only serves to further the thought that things are going to go rapidly downhill from here.
Here's something else to consider: More tundra is thawing now than anytime in recent history. Arctic tundra is full of greenhouse gasses that have been locked away in the permafrost. Now, it's being released, and quickly. This might not be so disturbing, except for the fact that there is a staggering ammount of greenhouse gas frozen there, and as they warm things up, it only aids in the release of more.
It's pretty clear at this point that things are changing. Those who say otherwise generally have some reason to be blind to the trends that are becoming increasingly dramatic (and clear). The real question here isn't if it's happening.
The real question is: Has it reached the tipping point yet?
Fill in your four or five-letter word of wisdom here _ _ _ _ _.
We know that AIDS comes after HIV, but the jury is still out on whether HIV has any part in the cause of AIDS. So just keep on having unprotected sex, we just don't know what causes AIDS yet.
A good read about this topic: http://www.friendsofscience.org/index.php?ide=3
The atmosphere is already saturated with water vapour. If it increases, we have what is called "rain", and then the water vapour level returns to normal.
All rites reversed 2010
The exhaust from combustion of hydrogen is water vapor. If this is a more serious greenhouse gas than originally thought, can hydrogen really be considered an eco-friendly fuel?
This is a general misconception, that hydrogen fuel cells will produce significantly more water vapor than fossile fuel cars already do. I found this explanation useful, from this web site (I have lost the exact page). Essentially it says (based on some assumptions) that a gasoline internal combustion engine vehicle puts out 0.14 kg water/mile and a hydrogen fuel cell vehichle 0.15 kg water/mile.
However, if you produce the hydrogen using an energy source which is polluting, then you haven't gained anything.
Akvo.org - the open source for water and sanitation
I first heard that water may be a greater contributor to global warming than carbon dioxide from Dr Henrik Kjaergaard, in my first year physical chemistry course.
Here is the atmospheric absorption spectrum, the solar black-body spectrum, and the earth's own emission spectrum (which shows which wavelengths are reabsorbed - "Greenhouse")
Absorption and reemission in the IR wavelength range (700nm to ~1mm) is important, but so too is absorption at shorter wavelengths, which may be reemitted in the infrared.
Dr Kjaergaard's research group conducts computational experiments and employs long path length absorption spectroscopic techniques to investigate the EM absorption of weakly bound complexes of water in the atmosphere, such as the water dimer.
Check http://www.realclimate.org/ for further comments.
Why is it that media has to give equal time to both sides and this makes people think that there is the same credibility to both sides ?
B
Slashdot seems to be falling victim to a pattern of trolltastic, usenet-like article submissions and unfortuntely many of those have been passed by editors and published on the site. The post itself is usually in stark contrast with the real content of the news they refer to. In some of those recent examples:
6 16230&from=rss1 2/2027218&tid=126&tid=14
- democrats hate freedom of speech http://yro.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=05/11/03/1
- Korean Lab Worker Forced to Donate Her Own Eggs (meaning: those stem cell research are babykilling backstabbing immoral bunch) http://science.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=05/11/
- This article post above that's striving to reach a conclusion that global warming is in much debate and CO2 is pretty innocent
Something needs to be done about this. I don't read rightwing blogs because I don't need their lies, I prefer my news to be reliable and not twisted and if slashdot continues like this it will be pretty unfortunate.
I have seen a lot of such trolltastic rightwing article posts lately and the editors seem either oblivious to them or otherwise. If you can remember some more of them then do post links in your reply to this post.
Yeah, those "scientists" jump at conclusions way to fast. Their consensus means absolutely nothing as long as I keep reading somebody with a degree related to science has doubts.
Take that heretic Darwin. Those "scientists" claim we used to be monkeys! I wonder how many of them have looked at the possibility that the Lord has created us the way we are now.
Folks,
People can complain about one thing or another but the end result is that big companies & big governments are not to blame. We (the consumer) are the ones responsible.
Let me ask you this:
- How many computers do you have running right now?
- Do you shut off your computer when it isn't in use?
- Do you run an air conditioner in the summer? If so, low do you set it? Do you turn it off in the evenings when it is cool (that really makes it work harder durring the day). How hot does it get before you turn it on?
- How high do you set the furnace in the winter?
- How cold does it need to get before you turn your furnace on?
- How regularly do you change your furnace filter?
- How many lights do you leave on when you are not in the room?
- How many extra car trips (to movies, stores, etc...) do you make?
- Do you have your car checked regularly to be sure it is running properly?
- Do you take extra long showers?
- Have you added extra insulation in your attic this winter?
- Have you put plastic coverings over the windows to help reduce heat loss in the winter?
- Have you looked at replacing old windows?
- Have you looked at installing a new, more efficient furnace?
- Have you looked at your major appliances (like refrigerator) to see if they is working properly?
- Is your refrigerator empty? A full refrigerator uses less energy than an empty one. I've seen people put bottles of water in their refrigerator as they take food out just to keep it from running so much.
- Do you carpool or take mass transit to work?
Don't get me wrong, I'm as big of an energy hog as anybody and I don't do a lot of the things listed above because they are hard or expensive. I probably waste more energy than most people but the polution problem is caused by me. I'm the one demanding the product at a cheap price.
If everyone cuts their energy usage, the amount of polution will decrease too. It is really that simple. Yes, it takes a bunch of people to make a difference, yes it requires altering your behavior, yes it may cost you money, but if enough people do a few simple things than it will make a big difference. The only other alternative I can see is to spend serious money on newer technology to produce cleaner energy, but people don't like to spend money on that either.
In other words, quit complaining because it is your fault. You are asking for the energy. The products you want are being created with energy and you want to buy them at the lowest cost. If you want to fix the problem the best thing you can do is fix your end. It is the only part of the equation you can control and if enough people do it the problem will be reduced.
It will be hard. That is just life.
Sorry to be bitchy but I'm tired & feel like venting.
Has anyone ever run the numbers to see if all the heat we create on a daily basis could be causing temperatures to rise? Our cars don't just emit CO2, but some really hot CO2! Everything else we do creates heat. Cities can be 10 degrees warmer than the surrounding countryside because of all the concrete and heat.
Read the other replies. Obviously, it's not as dumb a question as you seem to think. It's actually pretty dumb to think it's a dumb question.
Every climate scientist knows that water is responsible for most of the greenhouse effect -- this is not news.
The important point to remember is that in the lingo of the climate scientists, water is a "feedback" rather than a "forcing". CO2 is considered a forcing because you can affect the climate by adding to or removing it from the environment -- the levels of CO2 in the environment are not affected much by climate processes.
Water is completely different: there is so much water available on the surface of the earth that adding extra water to, or removing it from, the environment -- say, by building big condeners that feed storage tanks, or by building pumps that spray water into the air -- won't make much difference, at least once you turn the pumps or condensers off.
You can read all about it here.
The Earth also kills off massive amounts of life in cycles.
Just because it is a cycle doesn't mean it is a good thing.
Just because it is a natural process doesn't mean it is good for us.
Consider how much damage you would sustain should your vehicle stop from normal cruising speed by hitting a fixed concrete bride. Please remember that deacceleration, intertia, force, momentum, and velocity are all natural things which change in cycles on your daily drive. Also realize that there is no need to divert your path into a bridge because of the "natural-ness" of these phenomena or their cyclic tendencies.
We know that we assist in "making the world warmer sooner". Yet we argue that it's not a bad thing, because the planet sometimes was warmer and sometimes was cooler. It is sad when you consider that all of the major warmer and cooler periods of our plante were not periods when human population was dominant like it is today. By the same logic, arguments that we shouldn't care about global warming since it's a natural process are simlar to arguments that we shouldn't care about our own massive population reduction (and possible exinction) by the natural pressures of living on a warmer planet.
Warming the plant (not just having a warm season or two) melts ice, which releases water, which raises shorelines. It changes wind patterns, making local weather changes in communities. The air and water has more energy than before, leading to more hurricanes and more severe weather in general. Warmer oceans allow beds of frozen methane underneath the oceans to melt, releasing methane into the atmosphere (sometimes violently). Warmer weather puts easily combustible items a bit closer to their burning point, creating better conditions for forest fires, underground coal fires, and fire in general. And we have not mentioned the number of people that already die or are permanently injured by heat stroke, or the cost of lost production due to "cool down" breaks due to warm weather.
Life does not take kindly to most climate changes. What lives around you is there because it thrives in the climate typical for your area. If that climate changes, these plants / insects / animals will no longer be suited to their habitat, allowing foreign plants / insects / animals to intrude.
So look around. If you like what you see, then perhaps you should be arguing that we should not hurry nature, after all, nature has this nasty habit of killing off and radically changing the life that is on our planet's surface. Yes, global warming is a cycle, but so is the carbon cycle, and I don't believe you are in a rush to decompose and release your carbon back into the atmosphere anytime soon.
I have a simple question. First, everyone complains that the United States is not doing enough to combat global warming. Okay. What about the oil producing countries? With all the wealth that they make from the oil that bad old US of A is buying from them (and many other countries), why are they not investing that revenue into making oil cleaner to burn or in alternative fuel sources? It seems to me they spend the official government dollars on researching new palaces, yachts, and foreign real estate. I won't get into the weapons part of those expenditures-well, okay, I did a bit.
But seriously, why do not they come up with clean fuel sources? It seems to make sense. In the larger sense, if someone does come up with an energy source to replace oil, then the countries in the Middle East and Columbia would get far less money. And poverty is often blamed for the extremism that provides us with suicide bombers. So that problem would only get worse. But if they used their vast wealth to research and replace their own oil supplies, then they would continue to receive revenue and thus build more palaces. We all know that more palaces keeps people happy.
If you think the media gives "equal time" to "both sides" of the global warming debate, you have a half dozen screws loose.
Of course. Given that
is equivalent to what can an englishman possibly conclude?This is...
O
U
T
R
A
G
E
O
U
S
!
You should do it even if you believe tree hugging liberal types are blowing global warming out of proportion because parent gives a valid reason to look into relation of carbondioxide and global temperature levels very carefully.
Increase heat causes the humidity to rise. Water vapor typically has a cooling effect, yes? Think about the Island Effect. The problems you run into with high humidity and temperature comes to osmosis. In dryer environments, you sweat and the moisture immediately evaporates off your skin due to the low moisture in the air. When this is happening, your body is regulating its own temperature very well. In humid environments, say Key West, I'll sweat and sweat and the moisture just sticks to me and my shirt. As a result, it's hotter than hell outside always.
Chewbacon
The Bible is like Wikipedia: written by a bunch of people and verifiable by questionable sources.
And the increased water vapor is from... increased Greenhouse gases, like carbon dioxide.
What is this, the "last throes" of Greenhouse deniers, as we slip past the tipping point beyond which we can't do anything to stop the catastrophe we've been cooking up the past few hundred years? CO2, methane, nitrogen oxides and others are the controllable human generated pollution that we can reduce to save our civilization from destruction by what used to be known as "bad weather". The last generation used to point out that volcanoes make more Greenhouse pollution than humans do, or even blame trees, rejoicing as we cut them all down. But humans make pollution that forces those balanced elements over the edge, into a new balance too hostile for human civilization to survive as we know it. Maybe Greenhouse denial will go extinct, too, but few of us will be around to celebrate it.
--
make install -not war
I think global warming is being fueled by aircraft contrails. I would like to see this correlated with temperature changes in the days following 9/11 when the aircraft were forced to stop. Since all these artificial clouds are being created on a daily basis, I am sure they are either reflecting heat out back into space, back to earth, or both.
We are too short lived to have any meaningful grasp of this situation. Only arrogance lets us assume that the earth is of course supposed to be perfectly maintained at a suitable temperature for human habitation and we are the only agent of destruction powerful enough to effect such a massive shift is climate. The real truth is we could not possibly affect the earth so greatly in the few short years we have been keeping track of the climate. On the grand scale of things(millenia to those of you in Rio Linda)the earth is only fluctuating on a normal scale. The climate has never been a static phenomena and we need to step back and realize that the whole system runs whether we are here or not and even if we did the unthinkable and wiped out all human habitation the earth would continue and a new dominant species would evolve. Perhaps the next rulers of earth will have a more accurate grasp of their place or more likely they won't get so uptight about things that are out of their control anyway.
Global temperatures are extremely tied in to CO2 levels
This could also be written to imply the opposite of what you intended: CO2 levels are extremely tied to global temperatures. How do you tell which caused which?
I learned all about climatology and intulligunt desigen from the EIB Network!
This is hardly surprising to those with any understanding of climate change. Water vapour has been known to be a major greenhouse gas for a good long while. The difference is that we can control our carbon emissions by burning fewer fossil fuels, which we know have secondary beneficial effects on the environment ranging from less particulate matter, to less acid rain.
This does not give license to people thinking they can drive 2 blocks to the corner store in their Hummer. This simply means that we should look at ways of preventing massive steam producers from pumping their waste water into the air.
Saskboy's blog is good. 9 out of 10 dentists agree.
Hey asshole, where does the carbon come from when you burn HYDROGEN in OXYGEN? Fuck you're an idiot. A drooling microcephalic retard.
Yeah, but how does the hyrdogen become fuel? You burn some coal in a power plant to make the electricity to make the hydrogen. After all the releases from the power plant, you add on top of that water vapor from your car! That would make these cars even worse for the environment!
The truth is that water vapor may be a cause of global warming. Think of all the people watering their lawns in the desert. Where does all the water go?
-- these are only opinions and they might not be mine.
Don't try to reason with him. He has a Karl Marx tagline.
Me, I think Henry George is a more amusing obsolete 19th Century Economist. But some people collect US Stamps, and some people collect Foreign Stamps.
resigned
The standard argument against global warming:
1. Weather is complicated. The models aren't perfect.
2. No matter how much of a scientific consensus there may be, there will always be a few guys who don't agree.
Conclusion: We don't really know anything about climate or global warming.
Rinse, lather, repeat.
The wonderful thing about these arguments is that no matter what we may discover in the future about climate, they will remain valid (well, as valid as they are today), so you can safely trot them out any time anybody dares to suggest that you should be inconvenienced in any way to reduce global warming.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Comment removed based on user account deletion
That is, my boy, why there is no science in global warming. Ten years from now we'll be laughing at the idea of global warming, just as we laugh now at global cooling. Those of us who have been dubious at the idea of spending X% of our GDP reducing carbon emissions will have the last laugh.
-russ
Don't piss off The Angry Economist
We're all gonna die!
When I was a kid the world was going to be destroyed by nukes. Either WWIII would happen and MAD would do us all in or a nuclear reactor would go out of control somewhere and destroy everything. Pay attention kids, that's really the way it was for us. They taught it to us in school, it was the theme of many of our Saturday morning cartoons, it was in every magazine and book and all over the TV.
That myth was slowly shattered over time. The Soviets had a couple of nuke reactor problems and so did we. Life went on. Then the USSR fell and the idea of MAD went away with it. Suddenly nukes didn't seem so frightening. People started to wake up to the fact that life was even going on in the cities that the US had nuked in WWII.
So what do we do without the threat of nukes? Without the fear of nuclear death we would have to accept the fact that the fate of every living thing might be in the hands of a higher power or, worse yet, not in the hands of anyone at all. As humans we can not accept that. Something or someone must be in control and we like it best if we can imagine it to be us as we had imagined it with nukes.
So now there is some data that can be stretched to imagine that the climate of our planet will kill us all. That's even bigger and more scary than nukes. Children can be taught to fear that with ease. Better yet, our ego will allow us to believe that we can control it, that we caused it. And most of us can accept as fact that although we caused it there is nothing we can do to correct it.
Yes, we're all going to die.
. Quit playing Monopoly with Bill. Switch to one of many non-Microsoft products today.
The thought had occurred to me. However, that is my point. They have the money for the research. Plus, I thought that only us Americans were the only greedy capitalists in the world. Reading /., at least that is the opinion most often expressed.
I just want to hear from the oil producing nations what their plan for alternative energy is.
The exact nation who is producing the oil is not of concern to me. Rather it is any of the oil producing nations. I always hear that American should come up with the solution to things like global warming (if it is indeed a human caused problem and not just one cycle in the billions of years of a planet ecology). What I want to hear is the plan and efforts of the oil producing nations. America isn't the only one here with the money and resources to clean up the air. Heck, if oil producing nations really thought that cutting out the burning of oil would solve the perceived global warming problem and they REALLY CARED, then they could just stop pumping oil entirely - couldn't they.
Why are you stopping with just the French and the Mexicans? American xenophobia extends to the people of all other nations from those socialist tree-hugging Canadians to those crafty Japanese who keep stealing American jobs. When you unfairly single out only Mexicans and French, you create the false impression that Americans are a much more benign and tolerant people than they really are.
What happens when we go to a hydrogen economy?
Lots of extra water vapor.
A little water is good for you. A lot of water will kill you.
A few cards using hydrogen are probably good for us. All cars using hydrogen needs to be investigated to see if it puts out significantly more water vapor than our current gasoline cars (which also put out water as a part of burning the fuel).
She was like chocolate when she drank... semi-sweet at first and then increasingly bitter.
First, can you prove that man made greenhouse gases are the sole reason behind global temp. increases, can you prove it isn't volcanos or decomposing plant matter?
Um, who cares? (see below)
Second, what temp. is the correct temp. for the Earth?
Wrong question, genius. There is no correct temperature for Earth. But there is a correct temperature for us. The Earth won't care if it's average surface temperature is ten degrees hotter next decade, but we sure as hell will.
What gets me is that conservatives seem perfectly happy to run around screaming "It's not our fault! It's not our fault! I promise! It's not our fault!" while they die as the result of environmental change.
It doesn't matter whose fault it is if you're dead anyway. The idea is to try to survive, by actively preventing extreme climate change, no matter who or what is responsible for it. Get it? Survival. What a tree-huggingly liberal idea!
STOP . AMERICA . NOW
While Global Warming may be a fact, its anthropogenic nature is still reasonably disputed for several reasons. First, there have been many climatic swings of warming and cooling since before man even existed. There is no compelling evidence to suggest that this current warming spell is not a natural occurrence.
Second, as far as CO2 levels are concerned, correlation != causation. For example, it is not out of reason to speculate that naturally warming temperatures might disrupt the ability of phytoplankton in the oceans to sequester carbon thereby causing increased oceanic and atmospheric CO2. Because the oceans are the world's largest single carbon sink and phytoplankton are probably the largest sequesterors of carbon in the world, that would cause a release of carbon that would dwarf human industrial activity. This would also provide a correlation between warming and CO2, but the causation would be reversed.
Another scenario is that the reported "solar dimming", could also disrupt the ability of phytoplankton in the oceans to sequester carbon. In this scenario, the extra release of CO2, may well be causing the warming, but the CO2 is largely released by diminished phytoplankton activity, with human releases being a drop in the bucket. The dimming itself may be caused by natural fluctuations of solar activity, natural atmospheric changes, or even to human activity creating particulate matter. (However, there is at least some evidence that human generated particulate matter in the atmosphere is actually decreasing since coal and wood are no longer burned in large quantities in modern industrial societies, outside of power plants.)
Recorded human history is merely a blink of an eye in geologic terms. Recorded *climatic* history has only started in the modern times (last 500 years). Our frame of reference is short. Our idea of "normal" climate is very limited. What we consider "normal" might actually be cold. We only consider our current climate to be "normal" because of our own hubris. Since we are also naturally anthropocentric, we look for human cause and human solutions everywhere, even where they do not belong.
Let me get this straight: C02 isn't causing global warming beacause the real dynamic is that C02 is causing water vapour which is causing global warming?
HUH
I feel much better now.
I guess we'll have to be proactive then and ban fuel cells and hydrogen power systems before they get established :-)
Every power source has its drawbacks. Environmentalists have even been able to slow windmill installations because they occasionally kill birds.
I'm not convinced... everyone and their grandmother knows that water vapor is already coming out of our tailpipes, along with a whole bunch of other crap. Haven't you ever seen a car run on a cold day?
Remember what Luke Skywalker was? A farm boy... on a moisture farm. Recovering moisture from the air, the Skywalker farmstead would then sell the resulting water.
Maybe Europe should look into starting a new moisture farm industry.
With spending like this, exactly what are "conservatives" conserving?
Marx was much more than an economist, and even if his economic theories are completely bunk, he still has much to impart on today's way of viewing the world.
Using coal to generate electricity to get hydrogen from water is indeed an insane and wasteful idea, not least given the shear amounts of crap that coal burning generates besides the CO2.
For hydrogen to be eco-friendly, the electricity would have to come from non-fossil fuel sources. Currently, the only practical possibility is nuclear fission plants, but solar, wind and geothermal power will become increasing more practical options as the costs of fossil fuels continue to rise, and the technology improves.
Water vapour is a contributor to global warming, it's just not one we understand in detail yet, and the concentration of it hasn't been going up significantly. If anything, it's an accelerator of the warming caused by greenhouse gases which we're pumping out in large quantities, rather than a cause of global warming in and of itself.
Remember kids, it's all fun and games until someone commits wholesale galactic genocide.
Yes, and the root of the question is directed at QUANTITY.
Try using some of that reason your hero espouses before jumping to conclusions about a question.
The title of this post is terribly misleading. Greenhouse gases are still the cause of the global warming and the rise in humidity is simply a consequence of their concentration. Take responsiblity for what you post and don't mislead people with shocking headlines.
This means that even if you could somehow instantly cause the earth to have 0% humidity everywhere, things would stabalize back to "normal" within about 20-30.
If by "stabilize back to normal" you mean "kill us all in the impending freeze", then yes. The greenhouse effect due to water vapor provides an important contribution to the temperatures we've come to enjoy as normal.
It is not that the water vaporization increases the temperature, but the reverse: the increased temperature makes water evaporate.
Earth has gone many times between the extreme hot and the extreme cold, so it should not be a surprise that temperature is rising. But we should not help it by emitting more greenhouse gasses than what is allowed to.
I know.. The sunblock part was charging a little bit, just joking around.
Ofcourse, were al on the titanic having the biggest luxureous party of our lives. And most people don't think humanity can sink, which is arrogant and ignorant. While most poor countries only suffer and we extract all resources. Not only we extract resources from them but also from the earth and are really pushing our luck with our _not-so-harmonious_way_ with our environment. Ofcourse we get all the consequences. The arrogance and ignorance of the wealthy western countries backfires in all kinds of doom.
But the party is still going strong.. How could we not party, we have built a society which depends on our economics. How to change that.. I really don't know. Too much to do, and it's not easy (if not impossible) to not be dependent of that system.
There is NO consensus on whether or not man-made global warming is happening- anyone who claims to have "climatologist" friends who say it most definitely is or isn't real and that all the real scientists agree are just pulling stuff out of their ass (and it's pretty obvious, too, so don't even try to do it).
Well, here I go pulling stuff out of my ass (and by "my ass" I mean "the positions of the most influential bodies in the field") [my bold].
From the Position Statement of the American Geophysical Union:
Human activities are increasingly altering the Earth's climate. These effects add to natural influences that have been present over Earth's history. Scientific evidence strongly indicates that natural influences cannot explain the rapid increase in global near-surface temperatures observed during the second half of the 20th century.
From the Position Statement of the American Meteorological Society:
* The theory of how greenhouse gases directly interact with atmospheric radiation is not controversial. If no other factors counter their influence, increases in their concentration will lead to global warming.
* A steady rise in the concentration of greenhouse gases began over 200 years ago and is continuing. Atmospheric concentration of carbon dioxide, the principal greenhouse gas, has increased from pre-industrial concentrations of 280 ppmv (parts per million by volume) to over 367 ppmv in 2000, an increase of more than 30%; methane has increased from 0.7 to about 1.8 ppmv, an increase of more than 150%; nitrous oxide has increased from 0.27 to over 0.31 ppmv, an increase of 16%. Tropospheric ozone is estimated to have increased by 35% since the industrial revolution...
The first line of the National Academy of Sciences 2001 report titled "Climate Change Science: An Analysis of Some Key Questions", performed at the request of President Bush:
Greenhouse gases are accumulating in Earth's atmosphere as a result of human activities, causing surface air temperatures and subsurface ocean temperatures to rise.
In short... there is no controversy. Yes, there are a handful of very loud people who are attempting to create one, who are assisted by the media's dedication to "balance," which consists of giving equal weight to totally unequal positions. Really, though, in the scientific community, anthropogenic warming is considered to be a fact.
Now, to be clear, this doesn't mean that we should necessarily do anything about it. The existence of a phenomenon is not de facto support for any particular policy position. But let's not screw around-- the "controversy" over whether global warming is at least partially anthropogenic is manufactured and does not reflect the views of the scientific community.
Let us suppose that it was possible to prove that irrigation is causing global warming, should we ban irrigation and starve people?
Do you think anyone can prove anything about an open system?
Ah, so geology, plate tectonics, evolution , et cetera are all bunk. Each is characterized by relying on direct observations dating back about 200 years or less-- all other data is extrapolated. We can't KNOW that earthquakes are caused by movements of the plates that compose the Earth's crust, because we've only been observing the correlation for a short time. Darn, better not put in that tsunami warning system.
I've already listed several statements from the most major scientific organizations in the field, all of which find an overwhelming consensus on the existence of anthropogenic climate change. Yes, you can find a handful of cranks who believe otherwise, just like how you can find a handful of cranks who believe any stupid position imaginable.
Yet, that doesn't stop people from coming right out and saying that all scientists agree, that people are causing a catastrophic climactic change with environmental pollution.
Nice strawman. Let me rephrase it so that it actually represents a reasonable position:
"An overwhelming majority of climate scientists agree, anthropogenic climate change exists and could potentially impose some (unknown magnitude of) costs upon humanity."
Something more like that is about right.
Because global warming is the modern, secular, version of original sin. People just know that there has to be some horrible price to pay for eating from the tree of knowledge, and destroying all life on the planet sounds just about right to them as the price we have to pay. Therefore, it makes perfect sense that we surely must be killing the very planet in order to live our comfy lives.
Obviously you haven't eaten from the tree of knowledge [ooh, snap]. Go read the scientific literature on the topic, starting with the NAS Study to which I linked in my aforementioned post. Your psychoanalysis is a cute ad hominem [as is this paragraph], but it contributes nothing to the debate.
The simple fact is that there has been a very slight rise in temperatures globally over the past blink of a global eye that we call a century. If anyone knew why, they could probably also reliably tell you if it was going to rain tomorrow, where the next tsunami will hit, and what day the next big earthquake would hit California. They can't tell you any of those things because there are actually some things that are so complex that the human brain can't properly model them, even with the help of all the fancy supercomputers in the world.
Yes, because all those systems are equivalent, and those predictions are all equivalent in nature. Except not. Please explain how several climate models have actually proven quite accurate at predicting global average temperature, if your claim is true. Or, better yet, go think long and hard about why it's possible to predict average values with much higher reliability than one can predict point values.
[The rest of your political crap]
I don't care about you, nor do I care about the politics of the issue. I do care that you're polluting the conversation with your nonsense claims that we don't understand the basics of the issue. I also care about the policies that grow out of the scientific consensus on the issue-- but, at present, I can't say for sure exactly what, if anything, we should do. Perhaps some people do take global warming to be some sort of moral tale, but their existence does not devalue the position taken by those who are compelled by the overwhelming sc
Ignoring everything else (like, uh, we can predict if it will rain tomorrow. :-)
Because global warming is the modern, secular, version of original sin. People just know that there has to be some horrible price to pay for eating from the tree of knowledge, and destroying all life on the planet sounds just about right to them as the price we have to pay. [...] We are the most important thing on the planet, and obviously there isn't anything that we can't do. If we are destroying the planet, then all we need to do is renounce our evil ways, and we can save the planet. That makes much more sense. That is how the universe really works. If we want to destroy a planet, then we can, and likewise if we want to save a planet, then we can do that too. We aren't just a bunch of insignificant specs crawling around the surface of some giant system totally beyond our control. We are the center of everything, and all that matters is what we choose to do. Yeah, that sounds much better.
I think it's a little ironic that the power elite in previous eras burned 'scientists' (or naturalists, or heretics all depending on your point of view) at the stake for similarly ego-deflating theories... The 'Father of Science' even recanted Copernican theory (under the threat of torture and death of course) and was still imprisoned for the remainder of his life.
"What? We aren't the center of the Universe? We live on a ball of rock that orbits a fiery gas-ball in some obscure corner of an unfathomable expanse? We weren't divinely created? Intelligence isn't uniquely human?" and on and on.
Imagine the persecution to come of scientists that create sentient machines, artificial life, weather manipulation, terra-forming, etc. Any discovery that steps on God's domain is unquestioningly derided, claimed as heresy; the incursion is used as evidence against ideas and their proponents who are otherwise deeply passionate, spiritual, and religious.
Godless Scientist is a stereotype as bad (and probably more widely held than) any of the others prevalent today.
Nothing personal, I'm not one to judge if you hold these views.
Read Heinlein's 1953 Revolt in 2100, now more than ever.
This is due to the incredibly short residence time of water in the atmosphere of ~10 days.
And what does that have to do with the price of tea in China? Who cares that it is only in the atmosphere for 10 days, its affects on the climate are much higher than CO2.
What happens when we go to a hydrogen economy?
:-p It's all in and around us. :-D
... WATER) is going to alter the equilibrium one whit.
;-)r yId=4453&contentId=7004951
Lots of extra water vapor.
Moderation fails again.
This isn't insightful. It's pretty much wrong (or was maybe meant to be humorous). This is like saying that if it rained more we'd all get killed (by the intense global warming that would results from all that water vapor! Clouds!). Water is a cycle that's basically at equilibrium. We aren't gaining or losing any to/from space (except tiny, tiny, insignificant amounts). We aren't going out of our way to find, dig up, and then burn billions of gallons of water every year.
I don't see how the burning of hydrogen (created by and large from the electrolysis of
Now, what would alter the current balance, is if a bunch of CO2 that had been buried (and hence locked out of the atmosphere) for like 100 million years was being routinely sought, found, dug up and then burned in huge volumes every year.
The problem with the 'hydrogen economy' is that as it's currently envisioned it's still just a petrochemical economy -- except the gas pump is hidden to the consumer. It's still just coal plants and natural gas plants and whatever else we can dig up and burn to generate electricity to split hydrogen out of water or whatever else. Of course then we'll package and transport it with plastics and other petrochem-derived goodies. Until we get over ourselves and stop burning the oil and coal and using nuclear and other alternatives hydrogen is just a facade.
If it wasn't the big oil companies wouldn't be promoting it
http://www.bp.com/sectiongenericarticle.do?catego
Read Heinlein's 1953 Revolt in 2100, now more than ever.
Oh what I wouldn't give for a few more godless scientists! That is exactly what we don't have enough of.
How I long for the days of skeptical scientists who didn't trust anything but what they could observe, and replicate. Unfortunately, ever since Hiroshima and Nagasaki, more and more scientists have been worshiping at the altar of science itself as the new religion, with mathematical models as the new infallible demigod that trumps all observable evidence.
Far too many scientists, and even a larger number of their science enamored acolytes, have become convinced that math is a magic window into the soul of the universe. A perfect cabalistic language that can tell no lies, and which is by its very nature able to conjure up the true essence of all things. Far too much skepticism has been lost, and more and more experiential evidence is being discarded as anecdotal, if it does not agree with the writ of math, the one true perfect language.
Sure, when pressed to the wall, all scientists will spout by rote the now almost meaningless tenants of science being innately skeptical, and all about testing and attempting to disprove theories. Yet, far too many, in their unguarded moments, will blithely throw around phrases like "impossible," "we know" and "it's just a fact." In many circles skepticism has become a mere formality, or something you trot out of the closet when attacking someone else's beliefs, but never something that is applied to one's own theories.
No, we have far too many true believers in science. If there are any godless scientists still out there, I beg them to never repent!
Oh, and I don't know where you live, but most of the places I've lived in my life, you would be just as well served assuming the exact opposite of whatever the weatherman said. Sure, here in LA, you are pretty safe saying "warm and sunny," but when I lived in Texas, the old guy at the convenience store had just about the same accuracy as all the Doppler radar in the state:-)
It has always been understood that global warming is complex.
.. no it isn't. I think you mean from so-called 'fossil' fuels. Well, heres a surprise. There were oil fires before we started putting the stuff in automobiles. There are coal seams that have been burning for at least thousands, but perhaps hundreds of thousands of years. Volcanoes spew CO2 by the ton, and all of the non=photosynthetic organisms are breathing the stuff into the atmosphere as you read this. Perhaps if you stop breathing, my childrens future is assured?
No, it hasn't. There is even now wide spread thinking that it's simple.
However it is not a good idea to mess about seriously with any of the factors that influence climate.
Damn, we better plug those volcanoes then! Until recently they put more CO2 into the atmosphere than we did.
It is potentially damaging to dump large amounts of CO2 into the atmosphere no matter how complex things are.
How do you know this? Every living organism on this planet that uses photosynthesis (such as plankton and trees) inhales or absorbs CO2. Maybe if we stopped killing those organisms, then they would suck up the CO2 like good uns?
In a way, it is worse because we know it is complex - so the long term effects can't be easily predicted.
It's not worse at all. It's exactly the same. The earth (for some reason) maintains a dynamic equilibrium. By putting more CO2 into the atmosphere, other systems will respond to that, and change the weather in ways we can't really predict on a micro scale, but have some idea of what will happen on the macro scale.
Not dumping CO2 into the atmosphere is definitely within our control.
Er
CO2 is a non-issue. A red herring to get the Greens chasing the wrong path. The greatest threat to us humans comes from lack of oxygen and poisonning, something the Powers That Be want to continue doing with impunity. So lets get the hippies riled up about Carbon Dioxide so that they forget that Rachel Carson ever existed.
>>
I am the director, and this is my movie
I have to say, that this is one of the most honest, intelligent points I've seen in this entire debate!
You see, I don't personally believe that the current global trend to warmer weather is being caused by man, nor do I know if this trend will continue, for any great amount of time. I have heard just as much argument over the years suggesting that in the slightly longer term, it might even be an ice age we are heading into.
What I do know, is that at least at the moment, temperatures are going up, fossil fuel dependency is causing major economic and social problems, and smog is a major problem in every city in America, and most major cities in the rest of the world. I agree that what we should be focusing on is how to make our lives more sustainable, and thus more pleasant. I think there should be a lot less talk about what is causing this or that, and a lot more talk about what we, as individuals, can do to reduce the dependency on fossil fuels. That would certainly have the effect of cutting down on pollutants, just as the global warming proponents want, and whether or not there is any connection between the use of fossil fuels or not, it would make life better for everyone involved.
I would suggest, however, that there is a fair amount of FUD coming from both sides of the argument, not just one side. I think that a lot of good initiatives have died a horrible death because people on both sides are so caught up in their vilification of the other side, that there can't be a rational discussion about how to make our lives better.
I think that a lot of what your average environmentalist says they want to accomplish, could easily be put into terms that most people, and even a fair amount of businesses would agree with. Unfortunately, instead of even trying to make arguments about better quality of living, health benefits, cost savings, the long-term stability of domestically available renewable energy sources, and so forth, the argument quickly devolves into
"Your killing the planet, you greedy fat cat!"
"No we aren't you communist hippy!"
I think that for better or worse, the movement towards sustainable, renewable, and clean energy is going to be a very slow process, until the anti-corporate rhetoric can be removed as an integral part of any discussion about the topic. By the same token, people have to have it made clear to them that the choice is theirs.
A quick example of what I mean: I live in LA, and I hear a lot about how the greedy corporate types are killing the planet, yet I am the only person I know in the entire city of LA who doesn't own a car. Yes, I have heard the argument that it is the big corporations that are creating 90% of the pollution, so what car you drive doesn't really matter. However, you can't ask others to do something you aren't willing to do yourself. If you aren't willing to give up your car for what you believe in, then why should a company change the way they do business just because you tell them it is bad? I don't even believe that we are killing the planet, and I can still see the sense of not driving up to the convenience store when I could walk, or taking a $3 train ride instead of paying $3 a gallon for gas!
When it comes down to it, we need companies to provide products and services that are less dependent on fossil fuels. Running around talking about how evil corporations are, and how excessive American are, the whole while consuming fossil fuels yourself, is not the solution. Creating a market for alternatives, and voting with your wallet is the quickest way to get a company to change its focus. If tomorrow 15% of America got rid of their gas-burning cars, and either started taking public transportation, or buying alternate energy vehicles, companies would be climbing all over themselves to figure out how to cash in on this new green craze! They wouldn't care why you were doing it, they wouldn't care what you thought about the environment, those would all be things for their marketing department to worry about. They would
It's the end of the world as we know it,
and I feel fine...
- great song.
That is always a possibility. Any country that feels threatened has historically done unsavory things. However, if you follow the internal politics of the United States, then you would know that actions like that cause huge problems for the people in power, at the time. Our country is pretty split on many issues and it takes a lot to get things like that done.
Contrary to the Bush administration's bungling of the Iraq situation (which is what I assume you are alluding to), the "fact" of weapons of mass destruction are *not* the reason that the US should have gone in to Iraq. The fact is the original Iraq War was NEVER over. We, the Coalition, had a cease fire, in place, with a country, Iraq, that lost a war of aggression against Kuwait. Iraq violated the terms of that cease fire (not allowing WMD inspectors the free access that was stipulated in the cease fire to ensure that there are no weapons of mass destruction). The post September 11 environment in the United States was very intolerant of states like Iraq that had already demonstrated a willingness to simply invade another country and claim it. The continued rhetoric and actions of the Iraqi government were not tolerable to the United States and to several other countries. On the basis of the legal cease fire, the Coalition meted out the consequences of Iraq's disobedience.
Now, I personally think that we should have let Hussein continue to run the country rather than basically turn over Iraq to Iran, which is what is happening. Iran is a far greater threat. Hussein was and is a stupid delusional man with more ambition than means to accomplish it. Iran, on the other hand, offers real instability to the region. Evidence is mounting that they are actively working on a nuclear weapons program combined with their political leaders openly pronounced that Israel should be wiped off the face of the earth. That is a real threat.
In the Cold War conflict, the Soviet Union and the United States both had the capability to create mass destruction. The the concept of MAD (Mutually Assured Destruction) worked. Neither side had any desire for the death and destruction of their own side. However, with the martyrs that run religious states like Iran, there is not such concept holding them back. Ending their own lives and the lives of others (millions if possible) only mean greater glory for them in heaven.
You run around telling everyone on the planet that Americans are dangerous, and we yankees look at people like you and say, see, there's proof that the world hates us. Screw them!
Even though American mainstream media did not run stories of Chirac's Asia trip and his continual insults of the United States, the conservative press picked up on it and it was everywhere. Same deal with Shroeder.
Europeans cannot condemn the United States in local politics and then pretend they are our allies on the world stage. We know who our friends are, and if we do not have any, then so be it.
This is my sig.
Does this mean that the catalytic converters on our cars, which produce water vapor and acid, are contributing more to global warming than the unmodified gasoline engines?
"It has always been understood that global warming is complex"
No, it hasn't. There is even now wide spread thinking that it's simple.
Not by those who have really understood it. Models of global warming have always involved CO2, methane, sulphates, water vapour, solar intensites etc.
Damn, we better plug those volcanoes then! Until recently they put more CO2 into the atmosphere than we did
And the CO2 level was stable up to that point. It isn't now.
How do you know this? Every living organism on this planet that uses photosynthesis (such as plankton and trees) inhales or absorbs CO2. Maybe if we stopped killing those organisms, then they would suck up the CO2 like good uns?
We aren't killing the ones that such up most of the CO2. The main CO2 uptake is via plankton, which precipitate CO2 as carbonates on the sea floor.
It's not worse at all. It's exactly the same. The earth (for some reason) maintains a dynamic equilibrium.
You are right. It does. But on a timescale of millenia. The problem is that during that timescale there can be sea volume increases and climatic change. Even a sea rise of a few metres would inundate major cities and cause major disruption. But I guess that this is all OK if it settles back in a few thousand years?
By putting more CO2 into the atmosphere, other systems will respond to that, and change the weather in ways we can't really predict on a micro scale, but have some idea of what will happen on the macro scale.
We aren't sure what happens on the macro scale. We don't know if increased overall global warming will even create localised cooling!
There were oil fires before we started putting the stuff in automobiles. There are coal seams that have been burning for at least thousands, but perhaps hundreds of thousands of years. Volcanoes spew CO2 by the ton, and all of the non=photosynthetic organisms are breathing the stuff into the atmosphere as you read this. Perhaps if you stop breathing, my childrens future is assured?
The problem is that we are now dumping far, far more CO2 into the atmosphere from industrial processes than from volcanoes, coal seams etc. Not just a little more, but orders of magnitude more. If this were not the case, the CO2 level would be stable. It isn't.
CO2 is a non-issue.
Having the concentration of a major greenhouse gas potentially double within a few decade is a non-issue? Not by my definition.
"Thousands of years" is too short of a frame of reference when we are talking about hundreds of millions, if not billions of years
From the National Ice Core Laboratory:
Even the *oldest* ice core sample is estimated to be only 750K years old. That is still a blink of an eye in geologic time. It can only tell us about recent times. That is not enough to establish normality. How do we know that the last 750K is not abnormally cold or abnormally warm or abnormally volatile? We don't. Consequently, there is no reasonable baseline to establish "normal", unless we make the anthropocentric leap to conclude that our own short time on earth establishes normality.
What we do know, is that there have been repeated wild swings in global climate and CO2 levels (along with other atmospheric gases). Atmospheric CO2 levels were 10 times higher than today's levels at the end of the Triassic and the beginning of the Jurassic. According to this site:
So, if anything, the currently levels of CO2 are abnormally low. However, our anthropocentric bias causes us to see it a normal. Our anthropocentric hubris also assigns importance to our own actions.
BTW... Here are the current concentrations of greenhouse gases.
I don't dispute that we are in a warming trend. Objective evidence establishes that we are. But nature has an established history of going through these gyrations without our help. Are our actions adding fuel to the fire? Perhaps. But the evidence simply does not conclusively establish that man alone is the moving force behind warming trends generally or this one specifically.
We are not out of the woods yet - we will likely never be. In fact, I would say the situation is worse today than it was 20-30 years ago. Why?
First off, it isn't that "we're all going to die". Death isn't the issue: Extinction of the human race, by a minority of the population, is a very real possibility as long as mass numbers of nuclear warheads and missles remain. If it isn't an "extinction level event", it will most certainly be a "back-to-subsistence-level-event", should an all out global nuclear war occur. We really don't know what would happen in such an event, either during or after. We have, at best, guesses based on extrapolated data and post WW2 nuclear tests, not to mention the data gathered from the wartime (WW2) nuclear bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki (albeit small yields compared to today's nukes), and the conventional firebombings of Dresden and Tokyo during the same war.
I hope we never have to find out what the reality is. If we ever do, we will have failed as a sentient and reasoning species. For all we know, we may have failed the universe if such an event happens before we get off this rock. We will have failed all of humanity, from the dreamers and doers of the past to those of the cut-short future. Total, utter, complete, abject FAILURE.
Today, the threat remains, but it is larger than before. In the past, we had the concept of MAD - Mutually Assured Destruction. Basically, the concept that if my society dies, yours will die with it. Works fine in principle and practice, as long as neither force sees itself in a better position than the other, and feels it needs to attack first. Or, as long as neither side has a means to defend itself against the attack in a highly successful or complete manor (aka a working missle defence program). Furthermore, it requires that both sides exist at the same power level, and that both have reasoning, logical and determined leaders at their helms...
This is all out the door today. Today, there is really only one "superpower", the United States - and its role is slipping, while currently being headed by a man who thinks he has God's ear, with an administration who still mostly backs him (though this is changing rapidly, too). Even so, he doesn't seem fanatical about it - although I would hesitate to call him "reasoning and logical", unless you redefine those terms to fit, of course...
On the other side - there is no other side. We have various groups out, for their own purposes, seeking to control and/or destroy the western governments and nations, with the U.S.A. being at the top of the list. These groups are likely trying to gain access to nuclear weapons, etc - and will not hesitate to use one should one be acquired. Now, such an event of destruction would be localised, and wouldn't be seen as the epic events outlined above. However, what if such an event was carefully structured to make it look like China or Russia (or both?) were behind the bombing? Possible? Practical? Who knows - but what if?
Something that also made the concept of MAD work was that of communication - anytime something was done, however "iffy", which could have been perceived as a threat - lines of communications between our President and his counterpart in Russia were quickly opened, to establish whether it was real, a real threat, etc. This communication - dead man's diplomacy, midnight-hour chat - was done all the time, in various ways. It was real, it was necessary. In a few cases, it helped to prevent the disaster scenario. We came close more times than can be counted - and that is just what I know of the public scenarios that occurred. Who knows wh
Reason is the Path to God - Anon
We aren't killing the ones that such up most of the CO2. The main CO2 uptake is via plankton, which precipitate CO2 as carbonates on the sea floor.
Errp. Wrong answer. We are killing the oceans as we speak. We are depleting them of biodiversity (reducing nutrient density) and poisoning them with industrial waste.
The problem is that we are now dumping far, far more CO2 into the atmosphere from industrial processes than from volcanoes, coal seams etc. Not just a little more, but orders of magnitude more.
Can you give a citation for that figure. I can believe double, but not an order of magnitude more. I am happy to be proved wrong, but would need scientfic data to back it up.
>>
I am the director, and this is my movie
Errp. Wrong answer.
Great way to debate.
We are killing the oceans as we speak. We are depleting them of biodiversity (reducing nutrient density) and poisoning them with industrial waste.
This is irrelevant to the argument. We are killing some species (such as via overfishing), and reducing some biodiversity. However generally, we are having no negative impact at all on nutrient density - if anything we are increasing it due to run-off and nitrogen-based fertilisers. But even then, this is of minor significance compared with natural nutrient supplies.
Can you give a citation for that figure. I can believe double, but not an order of magnitude more. I am happy to be proved wrong, but would need scientfic data to back it up.
Sure. Obviously, the exact amount depends on the year, but typical annual CO2 production by volcanic and similar activity (including natural fires) is of the order of several hundred million tons. Human activity currently produces billions of tons.
(http://www.answers.com/topic/carbon-dioxide)
You asked:
And exactly which simulation has been accurate at predicting the future in which specific way? [my bold]
And I responded:
Several. One that I found impressive was Hansen's GISS Model II, which accurately predicted the effects on global average temperature of Mount Pinatubo's eruption, as well as the overall trend for the past 15 years. [still my bold]
Then you said:
Are you serious? There have been huge advances in Computational Fluid Dynamics over the past 20 years, and you choose a model from the '80s as your best example of an accurate simulation? There are some quite significant things that had not been worked out yet in CFD back when that model was made. I don't know if you are pulling my leg, testing me, or just plain serious about picking that as what you think is one of the more accurate models?
Consider the question you asked and what I stated. You're trying to put words in my mouth. Did I say it was my "best" example of an accurate simulation? No.
I didn't pick it as one of the more accurate models. I picked it as one rather impressive example of a model that, even twenty years ago, was successful at predicting the temperature record, inclusive of a major climactic event. I couldn't pick a recent model, because by definition, a recent model can't have predicted the future, because the future hasn't happened yet. I picked something that was old enough to have a long track record for comparison and was tested by an anomalous event-- and it proved itself to be quite accurate.
Yes, you're absolutely right. There have been many significant advances in climate research in the past 20 years. The models today are considered to be far more accurate than the GISS II model. Your point being... that they've gone from being able to accurately predict average global temperature... to being able to predict it even more accurately?