Tag: Climate

Posted on

Water Vapor: Now You See it, Now You Don’t

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.  

Greenhouse Gases, created by Jay Lehr, Ph.D., Senior Policy Analyst for International Climate Science Coalition

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.  

Posted on

And the Confusion Begins

Climate Part 4

One would think a neophyte could look up the properties of greenhouse gases with ease. Nope.  Not even close. How much heat each greenhouse gas has the potential to absorb is a foundational element of global warming theory. This should be a straightforward measurement with results communicated in a scientific manner.  Instead I have found highly contradictory statements and opinions. More research is needed to present the various positions adequately so please bear with me as I take a step back and continue peeling back the layers.  Meanwhile the graphic below illustrates the volume of the greenhouse gases. Since water vapor is clearly the predominant greenhouse gas, an understanding of its properties is key.

Greenhouse Gases, created by Jay Lehr, Ph.D., Senior Policy Analyst for International Climate Science Coalition

Note: There is significant disagreement over the quantity of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere attributable to manmade activities but all agree that the majority is of natural origins. Many also believe that manmade carbon dioxide exerts a notable impact on warming even though the total percentage is extremely small compared to water vapor. We will be getting into all of this after delving into the properties of water vapor.

Posted on

More Boring Stuff

Climate Part 3

We all learned the composition of the atmosphere in grade school but with recent news I thought carbon dioxide and methane had increased so dramatically the earth was going to burn up.  So perhaps a refresher is in order: 

“The atmosphere is composed of a mix of several different gases in differing amounts.  The permanent gases whose percentages do not change from day to day are nitrogen, oxygen and argon.  Nitrogen accounts for 78% of the atmosphere, oxygen 21% and argon 0.9%.  Gases like carbon dioxide, nitrous oxides, methane, and ozone are trace gases that account for about a tenth of one percent (0.1%) of the atmosphere.  Water vapor is unique in that its concentration varies from 0-4% of the atmosphere depending on where you are and what time of the day it is.  In the cold, dry artic regions water vapor usually accounts for less than 1% of the atmosphere, while in humid, tropical regions water vapor can account for almost 4% of the atmosphere.  Water vapor content is very important in predicting weather.”[1]  

What is a greenhouse gas? When energy leaves earth on the way to outer space, it is in the form of infrared radiation (IR radiation).  Some atmospheric gases can absorb IR radiation and some cannot. The ones that do are called greenhouse gases.  When a greenhouse gas molecule absorbs IR radiation, the molecules vibrate faster and become “hotter”.  They cool off when they reemit the IR radiation.  There is a process of absorption and reemission until the gas reaches the upper atmosphere and escapes into space. Repeated absorption and reemission of IR radiation slows down the passage of IR radiation through the atmosphere and it is warmer than it would be otherwise.[2]This is commonly called the greenhouse effect. Global warming theory suggests that increased concentrations of greenhouse gases increase the greenhouse effect and therefore warming.    

Keep in mind the greenhouse effect is what makes our planet habitable.  Without greenhouse gases temporarily trapping warmth, earth would be one big ball of ice. 

The primary greenhouse gases are water vapor, carbon dioxide, methane, nitrous oxide and ozone.  The most plentiful greenhouse gas in the atmosphere is water vapor at 27,000 ppmv (parts per million by volume), followed by carbon dioxide which is approximately 415 ppmv and methane at 2ppmv.  The figure below graphically displays the composition of the atmosphere. Note there is debate on how much carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is man-made. We will dig into that in a future blog.

What I either did not know or forgot is:

  • Carbon dioxide and methane are a miniscule part of the total atmosphere at .04% and .0002% respectively.   
  • Water vapor is the primary greenhouse gas by a long shot and has an average concentration over the earth of 2.7%.  
  • There are 70 times more water molecules in near-surface air than carbon dioxide molecules and 14,000 more than methane.[3]

Learning that carbon dioxide and methane concentrations are miniscule compared to water vapor was rather eye opening. Then I discovered that everyone seems to agree that fluctuations in carbon dioxide do have an impact. The climate wars rage over the nature and magnitude of the impact.  We are now at the end of consensus.  It’s a free for all after this…  

Composition of Atmosphere, created by Jay Lehr, Ph.D., Senior Policy Analyst for International Climate Science Coalition

[1]https://climate.ncsu.edu/edu/Composition

[2]“The Mythology of Global Warming” by Dr. Bruce Bunker

[3]“The Mythology of Global Warming” by Dr. Bruce Bunker

Posted on

The Boring Stuff

Climate Part 2

The Sun Clocks in for Work

The following excerpt dragged me hook, line and sinker into climate research.  Is the author a Worrier, Prepper or Grubber? Hard to know. “Saturday’s carbon dioxide measurement of 415 parts per million at Hawaii’s Mauna Loa Observatory is the highest in at least 800,000 years and probably over 3 million years. Carbon dioxide levels have risen by nearly 50 percent since the Industrial Revolution.”[1]

Whoa. Pull the handbrake. The highest in 800,000 years?  Inquiring minds want to know, what jacked up the CO2 800,000 years ago?  Clearly it was not fossil fuel emissions being belched into the atmosphere.  And what brought it down?  Certainly not the Green New Deal.  What were the temps then vs now?  

What does all of this mean? Well the first thing it means is I know nothing about climate science and have no intention of going back to school.  So how do we the people make sense of it?  Let’s start with some oversimplified basics followed by the claims being bandied about by the competing factions.  Will it be obvious which claims are real, which are guesses and which are designed to influence?  Maybe. One thing I can guarantee, the upcoming blogs will create a desire to drink heavily.  

Before we get started, let’s talk about me.  I am sad that I have been yanked out of Sandhead status.  But because the claims of the Preppers are so dire, there is no choice but to give global warming serious consideration. Now that I am engaged, my natural personality puts me squarely in the Debater category.  I am skeptical of Preppers with claims of earthly doom in 12 years and have only disdain for Grubbers.  Everyone else I am good with.  This will shine through but unlike the news media, my primary goal is to inform, not influence.  Therefore, the positions of all sides will be presented fairly, and I will be clear when offering opinions or jokes or sarcasm or satire.  

The earth’s climate is driven primarily by solar energy.  It reminds me of a basic dieting principle – calories in, calories out. It is a similar concept with the earth – energy in, energy out and as with our bodies, balance or the lack thereof plays a role.  The earth’s energy cycle begins with solar energy entering our atmosphere which is absorbed or reflected.  The energy that is absorbed gets busy doing all sorts of things that drive climate and weather.  Then the energy radiates back to outer space in the form of infrared radiation (IR).  If incoming and outgoing energy are in balance, the earth’s temperature remains constant.[2]

The photo below is from “The Mythology of Global Warming” by Dr. Bruce Bunker and is a simplified version of the earth’s energy cycle which the author adapted from Primer on Solar Energy, Solar Energy Systems, Argonne National Laboratory.  Note the title clearly indicates the book was written by a Debater, but because the energy cycle is not a controversial topic and the author did an excellent job of simplifying the energy cycle, I chose to use only this figure and not present another from a Prepper.  Mr. Bunker’s far more detailed (and accurate) explanation of the energy cycle is worth the read.  

Why is the energy cycle important to understand?  Because it leads to the understanding of the basic premise of global warming…

The Energy Cycle from the Mythology of Global Warming by Dr. Bruce Bunker


[1]https://www.msn.com/en-us/weather/topstories/it-was-84-degrees-near-the-arctic-ocean-this-weekend-as-carbon-dioxide-hit-its-highest-level-in-human-history/ar-AABlBAQ

[2]https://climate.ncsu.edu/edu/Climate

Posted on

The Proper Labels

Climate Part 1

I decided to dive into climate change data to determine if an unscientific lay person can tease out the relevant facts from the rhetoric.  It’s time for regular people to figure this out rather than blindly listening to the head spinning chatter.  The proposed climate change solutions are certain to produce massive unintended consequences.  Ditto for ignoring pollution.  

Another reason to research is that nagging question of motive. I am always suspicious when issues become highly politicized, especially ones that are scientific, complex and impossible to prove.  With extreme polarization, chances are excellent that the movers and shakers on each side have an agenda that has zero to do with the topic.  The subject is simply the means of manipulation.  Is that happening now?  We the people must know the answer to this question.  

Since our society incessantly attempts to segregate us into groups, let’s follow suit:

Climate Ignorers– These folks have their heads in the sand which is really just fine.  They are probably the happiest people among us since they pay no attention whatsoever to the incessant rhetoric and do not stay up nights wondering how everything got so bizarre.  How about Sandheads for this group?  

Climate Deniers– Self explanatory.  One thing that I do know with certainty is that climate is changing, has always changed and always will. Many put the President in this category. Let’s call these folks the Dummies.  

Climate Realists– This group of scientists and possibly fossil fuel executives say the temperature and sea level are rising but debate how much, if any, of this rise is caused by human activities.   They do not believe the science is settled and question how much impact the increase in CO2 and methane have on warming.  They disagree with the projections of the IPCC (International Panel on Climate Change) and believe the solutions put forth by the Green New Deal would do very little to lower temperatures but would succeed in devastating the economy.  Interestingly some believe a small rise in temperature will have a positive impact on the planet.  They would say the opposite if the planet were cooling. Let’s go with the Debaters for this group.   

Climate Disciples – These folks listen to the news, accept everything and are scared.  It’s striking how so many things are a result of climate change and conversely how everything we do causes climate change.  Some are anxiously wringing their hands wondering when to sell their homes before the rising sea scares off potential buyers.  This is easy, they are the Worriers.

Climate Alarmists– The alarmists are the scientists, politicians, celebrities and reporters who say if drastic action is not taken, our planet is doomed.  Interestingly most democratic presidential candidates fall in this category.  Who knows if they really believe it, but like many politicians they realize that fear is a wonderful marketing tool.  They are the doomsday criers, the only ones who can save us, in control of the only “real” science and they feed on the Worriers without mercy.  The Green New Deal is the ultimate in doomsday preparation.  So let’s call these folks the Preppers.   

Climate Opportunists–  There is much overlap between the climate opportunists and the Preppers and it is hard to determine who is who.  We humans are an incentive driven species and the climate industry has opened many doors for those seeking financial gain.  Who on the climate stage is a money grubber?  In search of fame?  Clamoring for power?  These people have a date with karma in their future.  They are the Grubbers.  

So we have the Sandheads, Dummies, Debaters, Worriers, Preppers and Grubbers.  Let’s jump in, learn and have some fun.