Climate Part 5
Strong coffee and a nap first may be required to get through this one…
Have you ever had to convince anyone of anything? If so, you have discovered that presentation is key to success. Should you just lay out the facts or should certain things be emphasized, glossed over or omitted all together?
Another rule in presentation is to keep it simple. Pretty hard to do with climate prediction, a subject that is complex, scientific and poorly understood. And simplicity becomes even more necessary with a nation that feeds on sound bites. What does this have to do with the climate wars you ask.
Let’s demonstrate with water vapor. A quick review – of the greenhouse gases 95% is water vapor, 3.6% is carbon dioxide and the remaining 1.4% includes nitrous oxide, methane and other trace gases. Of the carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, only a small portion is from manmade sources. I believe everyone agrees to these scientific facts. Regardless, how the various factions present the quantity and properties of the greenhouse gases is vastly different, so much so that one might conclude one side or the other is being economical with the truth.
Do a google search for pie charts of greenhouse gases. Here is a screen shot of my search. Of 420 pie charts guess how many included water vapor? Two charts. That’s it. Most are geared towards emissions, not the big picture of what natural and manmade gases exist in the atmosphere. My initial thought was, that’s weird, how is it treated in a couple of my reference books:
The Thinking Person’s Guide to Climate Change by Robert Henson – Mr. Henson falls into the Prepper category. He does mention water vapor as a greenhouse gas but leaves out the fact that water vapor is 95% of the total. Mr. Henson states “water vapor isn’t a very strong greenhouse gas but it makes up for this weakness in sheer abundance” and water vapor only acts as a feedback not a driver of climate. The positive feedback loop theory suggests the atmosphere can accommodate more water vapor when the air is warmer. Therefore when temperatures increase as a result of increased levels of CO2, water vapor will also increase. More water vapor means more warming thereby amplifying the effects of CO2.
The Mythology of Global Warming by Bruce Bunker – Dr. Bunker falls into the Debater category. The percentage of each greenhouse gas is outlined as is the methodology used to calculate the ability of each gas molecule to absorb infrared radiation. In other words, how much does each greenhouse gas contribute to the greenhouse effect. Dr. Bunker states that “a single water molecule absorbs over twice the heat of molecules of either carbon dioxide or methane which are nearly identical in their ability to absorb infrared radiation”. Hmmm, that’s the opposite of what Mr. Henson said. Since there are so many more water vapor molecules than carbon dioxide or methane molecules, the impact of water vapor on global warming far outweighs the impact of carbon dioxide or methane. “On a percentage basis atmospheric carbon dioxide absorbs less than 0.74% of the heat absorbed by atmospheric water, while methane absorbs less than 0.004%.” Dr. Bunker does not mention the potential feedback loop of water vapor.
If Dr. Bunker has outlined the properties of water vapor correctly, one would think it belongs in any conversation of global warming. In case the Prepper book above was an anomaly, I hit google. Articles are organized from Debater through various levels of Prepper.
https://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/greenhouse_data.html “Water Rules the Greenhouse System”. This article presents the relative impacts of greenhouse gases with and without including water vapor in the calculation and begins with this sentence. “Just how much of the “Greenhouse Effect” is caused by human activity? It is about 0.28%, if water vapor is taken into account– about 5.53%, if not. This point is so crucial to the debate over global warming that how water vapor is or isn’t factored into an analysis of Earth’s greenhouse gases makes the difference between describing a significant human contribution to the greenhouse effect, or a negligible one.” The rest of the article explains how the author came to this conclusion and the chart below depicts the author’s claim graphically. Even though it was written in 2003, I chose this article since it is clearly written.
https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/monitoring-references/faq/greenhouse-gases.php#intro “Greenhouse Gases”. The intro explains that greenhouse gases exist in the atmosphere naturally but due to our interference in the carbon cycle via fossil fuel emissions, forest burning and mining we artificially move carbon from its solid state to a gaseous state thereby increasing the CO2 in the atmosphere. This article describes each greenhouse gas and states that water vapor is the most plentiful greenhouse gas. The positive feedback loop is discussed but the article also states that “huge scientific uncertainty exists in defining the extent and importance of this feedback loop”. This is one of the few articles I read that also mentions the possibility of a negative feedback loop or the potential cooling associated with additional water vapor in the atmosphere. The theory suggests higher temperatures result in higher water vapor which leads to increased cloud formation. Clouds reflect solar radiation, therefore less radiation actually reaches the earth’s surface and the temperature actually cools rather than warms. The article states that we do not have the ability to accurately measure the quantity of water vapor in the atmosphere. This is huge if true. It seems to me that if scientists can’t measure water vapor accurately, there is no way to prove the feedback loop theories, positive or negative. If this were the only article you read, you would have no idea that water vapor represents 95% of greenhouse gases with twice the infrared radiation absorbance potential on a molecule by molecule basis compared to carbon dioxide (assuming the absorbance information is true of course, sigh…).
https://www.nasa.gov/topics/earth/features/vapor_warming.html – This NASA article recognizes water vapor as an important greenhouse gas but only because it creates a positive feedback loop related to CO2 increases. “The heat-amplifying effect of water vapor is potent enough to double the climate warming caused by increased levels of carbon dioxide.” This treats the positive feedback loop as fact and does not mention any scientific uncertainty regarding feedback loops as in the NOAA article above. Nor does it address the concentration of water vapor in relation to carbon dioxide and their relative ability to absorb infrared radiation.
https://www.eartheclipse.com/climate-change/effects-of-greenhouse-gases-on-climate-change.html “Effects of Greenhouse Gases on Climate” This article describes the greenhouse gases. The first sentence of the section on water vapor states “water vapor doesn’t actually have any effect on temperature so it is not rated with a Global Warming Potential”. Two sentences later the article describes the feedback loop: CO2 increase = temperature rise = water vapor increases = water vapor amplifies temperature increase. Confusing at best.
https://www.epa.gov/ghgemissions/overview-greenhouse-gases “Greenhouse Gas Emissions, Overview of Greenhouse Gases”. There is not one mention of water vapor. I clicked on the Global Warming Potential link and also no mention of water vapor.
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2005/04/water-vapour-feedback-or-forcing/langswitch_lang/in/ and https://www.yaleclimateconnections.org/2008/02/common-climate-misconceptions-the-water-vapor-feedback-2/ Since it makes no logical sense to me that water vapor can only raise temps after CO2 raises them first, I tried to find articles to explain this theory. Good luck getting through the first article unless you are a climate scientist. They attempt to explain why water vapor should not be included as a greenhouse gas. One of the theories suggests that water vapor is not in the atmosphere long enough to drive climate. This is my question. Water vapor increases and decreases naturally due to normal weather events. Even though the individual molecules come and go, does water vapor’s overall concentration remain reasonably consistent? I will keep digging into this question.
The goal of this exercise was to determine if presentation tricks were occurring. Yes they most certainly are and not just with water vapor. Hopefully as this process continues we will understand why. Let’s sum up the water vapor issue. The Debaters are the only warriors who clearly outline the quantities of each greenhouse gas and water vapor’s ability to absorb infrared radiation. Presenting in this manner shows that the impacts of manmade carbon dioxide are miniscule compared to the warming properties of water vapor and natural carbon dioxide. The Preppers gloss over the quantity and properties of water vapor and believe water vapor’s primary role involves a positive feedback loop initiated by increases in manmade carbon dioxide. The Debaters believe the feedback loop is bad science, NOAA says the feedback loop is unsettled science and the Preppers says it is fact. Confused yet?
The Preppers rarely include water vapor in a chart depicting the atmospheric composition of greenhouse gases. Is this because a chart without water vapor is far more impactful? Or are they trying to keep it simple? Do the Preppers gloss over water vapor because they believe that even in very small quantities carbon dioxide has a huge impact on warming and including water vapor is a distraction? Or are they neglecting one of the many important factors in climate? Same question in reverse. Many Debaters include water vapor which graphically minimizes carbon dioxide. Do they do this to discount the impact of carbon dioxide? And of course the big question is, whose theories are accurate???
Are these presentation tricks utilized for altruistic or nefarious reasons? I don’t know the answers yet. My guess is this. The Grubbers have ulterior motives so convincing the public is critical to avoid, shall we say, an existential threat to their power and cash, ie nefarious. I reckon the rest of the climate warriors truly want everyone to believe what they believe and are doing whatever is necessary to put the best foot forward.