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"
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
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).
(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
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'm just curious how many scientists have looked at the possibility that the earth warms and cools in cycles,
Yes. All of them. Find an atmospheric science textbook. It's in there.
and there's really not anything we can do to affect it, or stop it.
You're asking whether atmospheric scientists, people who study the atmosphere and its behavior, think that the manner in which earth's chaotic, multi-factored atmosphere behaves over time is fixed, unchanging, and can never be effected by anything.
No, none of them think that. The cycles themselves, which are quite erratic, demonstrate that changes can happen: For one thing, the cycles obviously happen for some kind of reason. For another thing, the cycles to which you refer haven't always happened. Further back in the past the climate's cycles operated differently.
The way in which the atmospheric cycles have operated for the last 2 billion years or so-- long stable periods followed by slowly increasing, then sudden and dramtic shifts-- suggest not that climate is some preplanned externally determined thing, caused by the hand of God moving a knob on a thermostat somewhere. What they suggest is the idea of the earth's atmospheric state having a number of equilibrium points, and we are moving back and forth between those equilibrium points. This is exactly what the article slashdot links here is about-- feedback mechanisms. The idea is that as you move further away from a stable equilibrium point, positive feedback mechanisms come into play which move you further and further away from that equilibrium point, and negative feedback mechanisms which were keeping you stable at that equilibrium point shut down. Once you nudge things away from the place where they were, the more the mean temperature rises the more the mean temperature is inspired to rise further, and the more the CO2 concentration rises the more the CO2 concentration is naturally inspired to rise even further. The lesson to take away here isn't to blame the cycles; the cycles themselves need that nudge to start. The lesson to take away is, you don't want to nudge the atmosphere out of that stable state, because once you start it may be too late to nudge it back.
Irritable, left-wing and possibly humorous bumper stickers and t-shirts
Volcanic activity is likely to provide a cooling effect, so it is unlikely to be that.
Second, what temp. is the correct temp. for the Earth?
The question you should ask is not what the correct temperature is (there isn't one) but how a change in climate will affect the world, or more specifically you. If it means that there will be a rise in sea level and you live in a coastal area it might affect to adversely. If you live in a frigid area and it turns it into a lush garden, good for you. What it will likely do, though, is require change in human activity to cope with the changing geography on the world which may impose additional costs on the economy above any possible additional advantage for some nations (and vice versa for others).
I love how two incredibly outspoken scientists making a wager is translated here as "climate scientists differ". The fact is that climate scientists who agree that long-term anthropogenic global warming is a reality versus those who don't are in the same sort of the same sort of ratios as between biologists who believe in sevolutionist and those who don't.
And it's not a surprise. Vostok and other core data show two very telling things: 1) Global temperatures are extremely tied in to CO2 levels, and 2) barring natural catastrophes (such as major volcanic events), this is among the fastest climate changes in recorded history. You then factor in the fact that the balance of CO2 outflux to influx is computable and we're very obviously putting out CO2 faster than it can be consumed (and while higher CO2 levels increase CO2 consumption, that capability is limited), and factor in climate modelling... well, it's no real surprise that the ratios are so extreme.
He's just being nice so my real father won't freeze him in carbonite and sell him for spice.
By producing "this magic fuel" in a powerstation and not in every car on the planet, at least the polution :
- is in one place (a small number compared to the amount of cars)
- can be monitored more exactly
- can be improved at any time without having to replace every car
- can be filtered more effectively (carburetors are only effective after being warmed up for about 10 minutes, which is a shorter time period than many journeys)
- can be polution free (see iceland)
- moves polution from population centers thus improving health
I'm sure i could go on / get sources for all these statements, but i can't be arsed
"In a time of universal deceit - telling the truth is a revolutionary act." - George Orwell
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
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.
This is a very outdated view. The anthropogenic nature is no longer much disputed. There have been major climatic swings, before but they have rarely occurred so fast. The only reasonable causative factor for this one is CO2 increase in the atmosphere. Recently, the only other sensible possibility - solar activity changes - has been shown to have some contribution to global warming, but insufficient to explain more than a fraction of it.
So, there is global warming co-inciding with a major CO2 increase which is almost all due to human activity. This is compelling evidence.
The Intergovernmenal Panel on Climate Change says "most of the warming observed over the last 50 years is attributable to human activities".
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.
No. Recorded climatic history goes back a very long way. Ice cores show a huge amount about climate and give information over thousands of years.
As for your statements about CO2 release and plankton, this just doesn't fit. Atmospheric CO2 levels have risen over a long period matching the increase in human output. The Solar Dimming effect has been over too short a period.