Page 17 of 18

Re: Climate Change

PostPosted: 19 Sep 2019, 19:40
by Strategus
V wrote:Yes, it is the contribution to change that interests me. I understand that the existing warming in the north has exposed tundra that emits methane. I also understand methane is a far more powerful green house gas than CO2. If the planet is now unavoidably emitting lots of methane into the atmosphere, CO2 emissions could become of little interest.
On water vapour, I have also heard it is a much more powerful green house gas than CO2 & my assumption is as the climate gets warmer we will get more water vapour due to simple evaporation. Again if that’s true then the process of global warming will proceed irrespective of CO2 emissions.

I fear global warming is now a given. What caused it (many blame CO2) will become only of historical interest. If methane & water vapour are both now unavoidably increasing in the atmosphere & contributing more to global warming than CO2, then I think the old phrase “that horse has already bolted” becomes relevant...

This is mostly what I have been saying, so .i agree.

Re: Climate Change

PostPosted: 23 Sep 2019, 15:52
by V
https://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/greenhouse_data.html

I just read this step by step calculation & found it very useful. Water vapour looks the culprit, which will make it very hard for humans to alter the outcome of climate change.
I never did buy into the CO2 story & following this evidence I’ll not accept it now. Water vapour is causing global warming & we had better hope the planet can cope, because I think we are probably spectators now.
I read a very interesting piece elsewhere, suggesting that depending on circumstances (& level of condensation) water vapour can both cause & mitigate the greenhouse gas effect. You never know, we may get lucky & water vapour is actually our thermostat!

Re: Climate Change

PostPosted: 23 Sep 2019, 19:10
by DavidMaletsky
The reason water vapor is customarily ignored is that it’s fairly constant. The study you posted fails to give any information whatsoever regarding variance in water vapor proportions over time, likely because the intent is to present a disingenuous conclusion.

Re: Climate Change

PostPosted: 23 Sep 2019, 19:54
by The O
Yeah it was tough to find much about geocraft, which automatically makes it suspect. Most science organizations have transparency about funding etc. At the very bottom of that link, it says that this page is brought to you by Monte Hieb. I looked him up and you'll never guess where he works.
Sources matter in science. I would recommend that you read more reputable publications.

Re: Climate Change

PostPosted: 23 Sep 2019, 20:14
by Strategus

Re: Climate Change

PostPosted: 23 Sep 2019, 20:17
by V
DavidMaletsky wrote:The reason water vapor is customarily ignored is that it’s fairly constant. The study you posted fails to give any information whatsoever regarding variance in water vapor proportions over time, likely because the intent is to present a disingenuous conclusion.



With my limited knowledge of climate science I am given to understand that the total quantity of water vapour in the atmosphere is dependent on the temperature (importantly not vice versa), so if we have caused a modest increase in temperature by “other” means, my understanding of this evidence is that it is amplified & maybe perpetuated by water vapour.
Given this reasoning it could be said CO2 was the initial problem (although I’m still dubious) but the current problem has become resultant increase in water vapour & that will be very hard to stop further increases now they’ve started.
As I’ve said before I am not one that denies human activity has caused climate change. I seriously doubt we understand how we did it however & wonder if concentrating on fossil fuel usage is now really that relevant to the future.

Re: Climate Change

PostPosted: 23 Sep 2019, 20:22
by V
The O wrote:Yeah it was tough to find much about geocraft, which automatically makes it suspect. Most science organizations have transparency about funding etc. At the very bottom of that link, it says that this page is brought to you by Monte Hieb. I looked him up and you'll never guess where he works.
Sources matter in science. I would recommend that you read more reputable publications.



I cannot be bothered to research & pass judgement on the source of those that wish to contribute towards the environmental debate. It’s not “them vs us” in my opinion, though many frame it that way.
I do try to judge the content of the contribution based on limited scientific knowledge (I’m a biochemist). This work looked solid although as was pointed out the change in water vapour content was not stated. It’s probably hard to determine, although the odds are it’s rising along with the temperature (evaporation isn’t that complicated).

Re: Climate Change

PostPosted: 24 Sep 2019, 17:50
by DavidMaletsky
“With my limited knowledge of climate science I am given to understand that the total quantity of water vapour in the atmosphere is dependent on the temperature (importantly not vice versa), so if we have caused a modest increase in temperature by “other” means, my understanding of this evidence is that it is amplified & maybe perpetuated by water vapour.
Given this reasoning it could be said CO2 was the initial problem (although I’m still dubious) but the current problem has become resultant increase in water vapour & that will be very hard to stop further increases now they’ve started.
As I’ve said before I am not one that denies human activity has caused climate change. I seriously doubt we understand how we did it however & wonder if concentrating on fossil fuel usage is now really that relevant to the future.”

Fair; it could be the case that we have already steamrolled past a theoretical tipping point due to the effect on water vapor that global warming has. Hopefully not, though. Looking at our body of knowledge, it seems we have a better chance in the short term of keeping Earth livable than figuring out space travel. Long way to go on propulsion, radiation shielding, sustainable food supply, sustainable power, etc.

Re: Climate Change

PostPosted: 24 Sep 2019, 17:53
by The O
Did I just read correctly that you are a scientist and that you don't care about the source of information? How is that possible?

You do realize that anti-climate change science is 100% backed up by one particular family? Not somewhat backed up, but 100% backed up.

As a scientist, do you accept all papers, data, and sources as equal? I honestly can't believe that is correct. Did you think that smoking tobacco was not dangerous because the tobacco industry financed reports that stated that it was not cancer causing? If this is true, I have some nice property to sell you for cheap.

Re: Climate Change

PostPosted: 24 Sep 2019, 18:35
by schocker
O there are many scientist that do not back the current climate predictions and science. They are not all backed by one family. That is a false statement.