Is Water Vapor an important greenhouse gas?
Вставка
- Опубліковано 4 чер 2024
- Many climate deniers climate that climate scientists are ignoring the most important greenhouse gas, water vapor. In this video we’ll discuss the context around this question and understand when water vapor is important, and when it isn’t.
If you'd like to support my work, you can buy me a beverage
www.buymeacoffee.com/Decarbonize
Water vapour: a more powerful greenhouse gas than CO2
• Water vapour: a more p...
Reference for temperature plot in the above video.
www.scribd.com/document/43557...
The greenhouse effect
www.bgs.ac.uk/discovering-geo....
The Atmosphere: Getting a Handle on Carbon Dioxide
science.nasa.gov/earth/climat...
Attribution of the present‐day total greenhouse effect
web.archive.org/web/201110221...
Why Does Atmospheric CO2 Peak in May?
keelingcurve.ucsd.edu/2013/06...
Timestamps
Intro 0:00
Greenhouse effect 2:45
How water vapor is different 5:40
Climate Change 6:18
Why we don’t talk about water vapor 7:30
High five for an excellent explanation 🎉
Thanks for another informative video about a topic we didn't know enough about!
Thx for sharing
Great job! Thanks for the good explanations of the chemistry and data
This ties into Lindzen's work where he over-emphasizes the cloud cooling.
It's important to understand that clouds both cool (during the day) and heat (during the night). More clouds does not simply mean it's cooler.
@@Decarbonize11 that's not true. The clouds don't heat during the night, they simply allow less previously acquired heat to escape. Unless there's a mechanism by which they do create heat energy? I'd like to see an explanation of this.
@@deyemeracing8795trapping heat that would otherwise escape into space leads to a warmer planet. That’s what is meant by heating.
Even IPCC acknowledge that doubling CO2 only results in a decrease of 3 W/m2 less radiation to space or about 0.71 K. I.e., a 100% increase in CO2 only results in 1% less radiation.
Doubling again from 800 to 1600 ppm only results in another 3 W/m2 less radiation which means radiation and concentration is a log2 based curve and that CO2 as a Green House Gas (GHG) is saturated. In fact CO2 was saturated millions of years ago. CO2 is doing its job as a GHG but increasing it, even by doubling or tripping has an extremely small effect on heating.
You are partly right in that it has an extremely small effect on heating - per square metre. However you are missing two things. Firstly the temperature of a body finds a balance based on energy inputs and outputs. If you increase the energy inputs, even slightly with respect to the outputs, the temperature will rise until the outputs rise and the balance is restored. Secondly, there are a lot of square metres involved.
The overall effect is that the climate temperature is increasing. Slowly in human timescales, but faster than it has ever risen before on a planetary timescale. It will continue to increase until the energy inputs and outputs are balanced once more.
Regarding arguments over CO2 saturation - this is being empirically proven not to be the case by satellite measurements of downward long wave infra-red radiation. which is still increasing. If CO2 were saturated, this would not be the case.
@@gavinminion8515 It's not normal for the Earth to have such little CO2 in the atmosphere. The last time it got below 1000 ppm was the Carboniferous period 300 million years ago. If you look at CO2 concentration on a geologic scale and know the minimum amount of CO2 required for plant life it looks like we were headed for a mass extinction event if it wasn't for the industrial revolution replenishing the the depleted levels of CO2 in the atmosphere.
@@opossumlvr1023 I am afraid that the idea that CO2 levels are 'abnormal' is simple climate denial. CO2 concentration has been below 300ppm for eight hundred thousand (800,000) years, the idea that 'normal' existed half a million years before homo sapiens existed is not a scientific position.
Equally, the argument that CO2 emissions are 'replenishing the depleted levels' is an major misrepresentation of what is happening. CO2 levels have been balanced (for millennia - see above) and did not need 'replenishing'. Plant life was abundant 1000 years ago, and 2000 and 3000 and so on. Even when CO2 levels were as low as 200 ppm (Still 50ppm above the minimum for plants btw). Whilst some plants may use the extra CO2, many will suffer from lack of ground nutrients and be unable to 'take advantage' the likely result is more invasive species and less biodiversity.
However, it is this comment: "we were headed for a mass extinction event" which I find hardest to reconcile with any science I have read.
To be totally clear on this - we are currently in the Holocene Extinction event. An extinction event we created.
The video above uses the phrase "Climate Denial" and I believe that the points you raised fit into that category.
Incorrect. Since before the dawn of man, CO2 concentrations have been lower. If we were dinosaurs you might have a point.
today.tamu.edu/2021/06/14/ancient-deepsea-shells-reveal-66-million-years-of-carbon-dioxide-levels/
The question never addressed: Even if you truly believe that a trace gas, just 42 thousandths of 1% of the atmosphere is the control knob of the climate, how much of it is due to human activity? The answer is easily found using google. This from MIT:
"The Earth’s natural carbon cycle moves a staggering amount of carbon dioxide (CO2) around our planet, says Daniel Rothman, MIT professor of geophysics. Some parts of the planet, such as the oceans and forests, absorb carbon dioxide and store it for hundreds or thousands of years. These are called natural carbon sinks. Meanwhile, natural sources of CO2 such as undersea volcanoes and hydrothermal vents release carbon. Altogether the planet absorbs and emits around 100 billion metric tons of carbon through this natural cycle every year, Rothman says.
That’s equivalent to over 350 billion tons of CO2. (Scientists often measure the carbon cycle in terms of the weight of carbon atoms, not whole molecules of carbon dioxide, because the carbon has the same weight no matter what form it takes as it moves between plants, ocean, atmosphere, and other parts of the natural world.)
This natural movement of carbon dwarfs humanity’s contribution: it amounts to ten times as much CO2 as humans produce through activities such as burning fossil fuels."
Our annual emissions equate to no more than a couple of extra CO2 molecules per tree leaf on the planet, let alone every other type of plant, and phytoplankton covering the oceans all absorbing CO2 from the air. Then consider that all the fauna on the land, in the sea and in the air is composed of carbon compounds that were once in the air as CO2. The claim that it is only our "emissions" that remain in the air and accumulate year on year, nature cannot cope with our contribution or that the carbon cycle was somehow magically in perfect equilibrium before we started to burn coal and oil is a complete fairy tale designed to fool the gullible. Oh, and methane? The infra red response spectrum of methane is entirely covered by that of water vapour, which is variable, but usually in the range of 2-4% of the atmosphere (or 20,000-40,000 parts per million to put it in "climate speak"). Methane is just 1.9 ppm.
You took the quote from Dan Rothman out of context. The subtitle of that article is "The planet naturally releases and absorbs far more carbon dioxide than humans emit by burning fossil fuels. The problem is that human activities have thrown the Earth’s carbon cycle out of balance."
climate.mit.edu/ask-mit/how-much-carbon-dioxide-does-earth-naturally-absorb
The issue is one of equilibrium. Prior to the industrial revolution, the sources and sinks were in equilibrium. But by adding fossil carbon to the mix, we are no longer in stasis.
climate.mit.edu/ask-mit/how-much-carbon-dioxide-does-earth-naturally-absorb
@@Decarbonize11 The good doctor over estimated. Let's run some numbers, shall we? We are told that CO2 is currently around 420 parts per million, (google it) increased, they tell us, from 280 ppm in 1850. That's a difference of 140 ppm, or in terms more readily understood by the layman, the composition of the atmosphere has changed by 0.014% (14 thousandths of 1%) in the last 170 years. LESS THAN 1 THOUSANDTH OF 1% PER DECADE. And despite claims to the contrary, even that amount is not entirely due to human activity. Studies show that our contribution is around 4% of that increase, so 4% of 14 thousandths of 1%. I know you won't believe that, so in the interests of not starting a futile argument, let's accept that it's all our "fault". An article can be found on NASA's website that reports that their satellites have detected that the planet has "greened" by about 18% since the turn of the century, equivalent to twice the area of the continental USA. Remember, ALL life is composed of carbon compounds that were once in the air as CO2. All that extra flora is supporting extra fauna. Put simply, more trees can hold more monkeys. All that extra growth has mass, and it easily outstrips the mass of CO2 that we have "added" to the atmosphere. So where has the extra come from? Understand that we are midgets in the carbon cycle. Nature circulates more CO2 in a few days than our annual contribution, rendering our "emissions" into background noise. Do you really think that a variable trace gas can be calculated to the precision of less than one part per million (average) per year? Buy yourself a CO2 meter, you can get one for about £10 ($15) on ebay. It won't be a precise scientific instrument, but it's good enough for government work. You will find that levels can fluctuate by more than 140 ppm in a couple of hours, sooner if the wind changes. Anyone that thinks the IPCC can pick out the "human fingerprint" from all the variable sources and sinks is delusional.
The graph a 1:0 shows that economic growth, rising life expectancy, population increase, etc., correlates with rising CO2.
That's not what the graph at 1:00 shows, but in the past that's been true. Starting with the transition from coal to gas and then from gas to renewables, that correlation has been weakening and is no longer true.
www.iea.org/commentaries/the-relationship-between-growth-in-gdp-and-co2-has-loosened-it-needs-to-be-cut-completely#
Your use of the terms Climate Deniers and Climate Communicators is divisive and insulting to a significant number of intelligent, thoughtful scientists. Your claim that CO2 is the "primary driver" of climate is not a fact. I recommend you bring a reputable person on the other side of this claim to your program and debate this point. That would truly be educational.
I don't say that CO2 is the primary driver of climate, but the primary driver of climate change.
Can you recommend a "reputable person on the other side of that claim"? I'm not aware of any.
@@Decarbonize11 in your video, you also make a claim that there are people that deny the existence of climate. Your terminology is very specific. You call them "climate deniers." How many people do you know that actually deny the existence of climate?
@@deyemeracing8795 I apologize for my sloppy shortcut. What I meant was "anthropogenic climate-change deniers". Do you have a preferred term for people who reject the scientific consensus?
I sometimes hear skeptic, but that only counts if they dig into the issue and can be swayed by data. An example of this is Prof Rich Mueller of UC Berkeley (www.nytimes.com/2012/07/30/opinion/the-conversion-of-a-climate-change-skeptic.html), but I'm not aware of any others.
@@deyemeracing8795 Though, to be clear, everyone knows what is meant by the term "Climate Deniers" so it is best to avoid using straw man arguments like "How many people do you know that actually deny the existence of climate?". It is common to use abbreviated terms to describe viewpoints, for example the term "Flat earthers" is used to describe people who clearly acknowledge there are mountains.
The problem with a 'debate' on this issue is that it wouldn't be a debate. Science does not 'prove facts', science only provides evidence to support or reject an idea. In the case of anthropogenic climate change, there is a large body of evidence which indicates that CO2 is the primary driver. There is some evidence that other gases such as methane are also involved. There is no good evidence that I know of which refutes this.
In fact it is getting difficult to find any scientist who disputes this - many deniers in the scientific community now accept that CO2 is causing climate change and that humans are responsible. They instead focus on denial of the harmful impacts of climate change.
But in any case, such a debate would be a case of the false balance fallacy. It would not be educational, but might be sensational. Plus, anyone viewing might come away with the false impression that the science is not settled.
This is why climate deniers (and science deniers in general) often pretend to 'debate'. Because they know it is easier to present a thousand falsehoods than it is to attempt to refute them. And any way they can muddy the waters is beneficial to themselves.
History isn't your thing huh?
I find history interesting, but my focus is more STEM and public policy. Why do you ask?
I think what he's getting at is that climate is complex. In the past CO2 and temperature have gone in completely opposite directions, or in the same direction. It's a stretch to believe that over 4.5 billion years of climate change, including times much colder and warmer than now with CO2 levels 20 or 30 times higher than now, that we are the main cause.
What makes us think that the majority of the recent warming is human caused? And somehow warming or cooling in the past if not caused by CO, was caused by...?
I'm an environmentalist who's been worried about climate change for 30 years or so, and all I've seen is life on Earth get better and the rhetoric get worse. Eventually we start questioning things and looking into things. All I know is I've seen more lies from climate communicators than deniers.
As a former environmental scientist (which probably makes me more of an expert that a lot of so-called climate communicators), I didn't find anything particularly questionable in your video though, except for the falling into the trope of demonizing people who question the impact, cause and severity of climate change by comparing them to Holocaust deniers.
First, if anyone thinks I was comparing those who question climate science to Holocaust deniers, I apologize. That was not my intent.
There are lots of reasons for the climate to change other than anthropogenic increases in CO2, but none of them act as quickly as what we've seen in the last 150 years.
When looking at the climate record I think it's best to look at the last 10,000 years, when the climate has been well suited to human civilization. It's been hotter, but that was before the rise of mammals.
I didn't realize you were going to be debunking this.... I was getting progressively more angry until you showed up... almost blocked the channel
I’m glad you didn’t block the channel. The comments on this video is much more active and negative than my other videos. I like active. I like questioning. But I don’t like the negativity.
@@Decarbonize11 maybe for next time put an intro clip letting us know you don't agree with the message...
I think my perspective is pretty clear across the videos. And I have an intro video.
@@Decarbonize11 yeah but this is the first video of yours that I've seen
@@Decarbonize11 oh I see you do have an intro... but listening to these guys (the climate deniers)was so extremely frustrating I forgot. Watching it again I realize it's a small part but I lost my cool and allowed myself to upset