"Water vapor is a far more effective green house gas than CO2. Water vapor is over 25 times more abundant in the atmosphere than CO2. If that's the case, then how could an increase in CO2 levels bring the world to a meltdown, but all that water vapor isn't?"
The rational is that increasing CO2 levels will "force" an increase in water vapor.
Example:
"Climate model projections summarized by the IPCC indicate that average global surface temperature will likely rise a further 1.1 to 6.4 °C (2.0 to 11.5 °F) during the twenty-first century."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_warming
The large uncertainty of 1.1 to 6.4 is largely due to the uncertainty of how much increase in water vapor will occur from rising CO2 levels.
The PROBLEM is that there is no evidence that the rising CO2 that has already occurred, has had any affect upon the amount water vapor in the Earth atmosphere.
If increasing CO2 level doesn't cause a significant increase in global vapor, then a doubling of CO2 would be predicted to cause about a 1 C rise in CO2.
Of course we don't actually know that even a doubling of CO2 would cause a 1 C rise in global temperature. And it should be noted that doubling of CO2 is the terminology normally used rather than some specific numbers. This politically useful because they could mean doubling from pre-industrial levels [and they sometime say this]. Or one can assume it a doubling some more current number, like 380 ppm.
It's unlikely we will have 680 ppm before the end of the Century, but doubling of some pre-industrial level may be possible- assuming the trend holds. Which with the last 10 years of non-warming and the very recent cooling casts a fair amount of doubt on any predictions they are making.
Current Events » in reply to Think about this.
re: Think about this.
The whole thread (128 posts)
- just the link in text form
- Such high-pitched emotions
- Hansen's latest paper
- re: just the link in text form
- "SourceWatch.org"? Sounds very reputable.
- It's "A Convienient Lie"
- re: It's not just the blogs
- As TB so helpfully pointed out...
- re: Why shouldn’t I believe these scientist?
- re: Why shouldn't I believe these scientist?
- re: Still, there are quite a number of "wait a minute" things out there in the science, work done by real and responsible scientists, and these need to be discussed on a case-by-case basis, not by si…
- I have never claimed that science was a democracy...
- Okay, let's skip to the politics
- It is a political issue
- re: Which facts
- A good place to start
- re: Already seen it
- re: Already seen it
- "What proof is there that CO2 is causing the earth to warm?"
- re: That's not true
- LOL I encourage everyone to look at the link- It really makes my point
- Ummm, ooookaayy... just one thing before I reply
- re: That's not true
- Break it down.
- re: Break it down.
- never mind (n/t)
- re: Break it down.
- We're talking parts per million
- "THe effects on temperature are negligible at best. "- That is nonsense, the science says otherwise...
- No we are not talking parts per million. And anyway, how would you know SteveS' objection till he has voiced it.
- CO2 levels are around 380 ppm (parts per MILLION)
- More used to seeing it as a percent. (n/t)
- CO2 levels are around 380 ppm (parts per MILLION)
- re: Break it down.
- "What proof is there that CO2 is causing the earth to warm?"
- A good place to start
- I have never claimed that science was a democracy...
- re: Still, there are quite a number of "wait a minute" things out there in the science, work done by real and responsible scientists, and these need to be discussed on a case-by-case basis, not by si…
- re: Why shouldn't I believe these scientist?
- Most of those organizations don't put the question to a vote by their members.
- re: Why shouldn’t I believe these scientist?
- That won't work.
- re: It's not just the blogs
- As TB so helpfully pointed out...
- re: It's "A Convienient Lie"
- Global warming.
- "for some reason believe that the issue of Global Warming is a political one"
- re: It's not just the blogs
