Is it possible for water vapour to become the main driver without CO2?
If CO2 were dropped to specified levels tomorrow, would water vapor follow suit automatically? Yes or no?
Epic Anti-Global Warming Monologue
- Thread starter Locutus
- Start date
If CO2 were dropped to specified levels tomorrow, would water vapor follow suit automatically? Yes or no?
Tonington could give you a better answer. It would not be possible for water vapour to change its atmospheric content without change in temperature, though. At least, I do not know the way it could. I do not see even a temporary change if there were some freak of nature that increased wv content since it could not stay in the atmosphere long.
Do some poking around on your own. Try this lead: dig up some graphs (i know you folks like grapshs) on the increase in irrigation and compare it to water vapour increases over the same time period.
What on Earth does that have to do with anything. I can easily give you the answer, btw, but, as a non scientist it would be better for one who can explain it thoroughly to do so.
I do not have to do any poking around. I have poked around at this stuff. for more than fifteen years.
For something slightly different and for those who think we have not been warming, try this. A seventeen year record in somewaht different form. 326 months in a row that have been warmer than the twentieth century average. Half the population of the world has never experienced an average month.
326 consecutive months of above average global temperatures | The Energy Collective
Let me guess, you poked around and didn't like what you saw? Want correlation between agricultural land use and ocean acidification? There are cool graphs for that too.
The water vapour would drop as the temperature dropped. Automatically, yes. As the temperature dropped to a level that would fit with the CO2 concentration. If the temperature dropped it would rain.
But CO2 will not drop just like that. It can stay in the atmosphere for hundreds of years - depending on a few other things. And that is why this is no light matter. The temperature is going to remain high for a long time no matter what we do. We have to stop it going higher.
How would water vapour drop when man is irrigating ag land at an ever increasing pace? We have 7 billion to feed and irrigation is the key to it all. Then we have the natural water vapour issues to contend with on top of it all.
Water vapour....
Irrigation increases....
What is coming out of these stacks, water or CO2?
How would irrigation have anything to do with the water vapour content of the atmosphere. Irrigation, even if the water vapour were not controlled by temperature, is just moving water from one place to another.
When you take a lake and distribute it over a desert to grow crops does the water run back into the lake or does it evapourate?
Yeah irrigation. Do some poking around and compare irrigation to water vapour over the same time period. Cabbagefarts is too lazy to look it up or didn't like what it saw.
Of course you don't. Ideologues can't see anything after they've been challenged.
Wrong. But that isn't surprising.
No, you parrot science you don't understand and add emotion.
There you go, proof you are an ideologue.
LOL, wait for it...
There you go, contradicting yourself again.
But I digress, here's a peer reviewed paper that was printed in the Journal of Geophysical Research.
Influence of the Southern Oscillation on tropospheric temperature
http://www.climatedepot.com/a/2117/...rming-and-cooling-can-be-attributed-to-humans
Just because I love proving you wrong.
Now that's some good fear mongering!!!
"Won't somebody think of the children!!!"
Last edited:
No...the atmosphere has physical constraints for how much water it will hold... you've been told this a number of times now. Without CO2, then something else would have to warm the planet (or increase the pressure) to get more water vapour in the atmosphere. More transpiration from plants absent a warming atmosphere just means more rain.
Do you know what a phase diagram is? Look it up.
No...because carbon dioxide is well-mixed, stays in the atmosphere for some time. Therefore the radiative forcing is still there. Therefore the temperature response is still there, and therefore the water vapour can maintain a higher concentration in the atmosphere.
Durp. Go find a phase diagram already.
Notice where it says vapour or gas? The line curves downward as you move along the x-axis towards the origin. As temperature goes down, so too does the amount of vapour a parcel of air can hold.
Is there a key word I need to add to the Google search?
All I Googled was "phase diagram". The term seems to be used in all manner of sciences. Remember, I don't have your level of post secondary education, lol.
Is this what you're referring to?
Oh, well here's the one wiki gives you for water:
That blue line? That's the phase boundary for water vapour. As the temperature goes up, along the x-axis, the curve bends up. As temperature goes down, the curve bends down. If you add more water vapour without increasing temperature or pressure, enough to put the amount of water vapour above the phase boundary, then the excess will condense into liquid, to bring the total fraction of water as vapour in that parcel of air back to the boundary.
Is there a key word I need to add to the Google search?
All I Googled was "phase diagram". The term seems to be used in all manner of sciences. Remember, I don't have your level of post secondary education, lol.
Is this what you're referring to?
Well that is actually a phase diagram for carbon dioxide.
It would help matters if you would just present your case without the snarkiness. Then I would treat you more seriously and give more attention to your educational needs.
Here is the rebuttal to MacLean, De Freitas and Carter. Quoting those three is not a credible argument. All have been totally discredited for all their work on climate. Notice the gentle reproach that the three stooges use "inappropriate filtering." A euphemism for either gross negligence or outright fraud.
http://www.jamstec.go.jp/frsgc/research/d5/jdannan/comment_on_mclean.pdf