CO2 is not the only factor at play in global warming, but it determines, among other things, the concentration of water vapor in the atmosphere. CO2 is the trigger, and H2O is the bullet. In any discussion about climate change, there is a definite chance that someone will ask, “Why CO2 only?” or, equivalently, “Why isn’t H2O taken into account in the warming mechanism?” The implication is that it is all a conspiracy of the PTB to demonize the oil industry and force us to freeze in darkness.
Thank you for this explanation. It makes sense on a global level, and my understanding is models have been accounting for this feedback for a long time. But the local and regional effects of water cycles still seem left out. For example, in the Western Mediterranean Basin, Millan Millan showed that, due to water-cycle damage, water vapor that should have been converted to rain in afternoon summer storms, instead recirculated back out over the Mediterranean Sea, creating a local greenhouse effect that warmed the water and supercharged storm in central Europe. The models "can't see it" was his steady lament.
Yes, perfectly possible. Excess water vapor must eventually condense into water droplets, but to do that it needs condensation nuclei, often provided by forest transpiration. So, water vapor can remain in the atmosphere as supersaturated vapor and warm the area creating a strong greenhouse effect. Another reason why we shouldn't cut the forests!!
When I began studies (biology) CO² was at 333ppm. Now it is about 440ppm.
Parts per million.
And we learned that the sun was primarily responsible for the energy contained in the atmosphere.
And, too, that CO² concentration in the air was supoptimal for plant growth, being thus one of the limiting factors. One reason for gassing greenhouses for bigger harvest in crops.
I don't think this knowledge has since changed a lot. Climate is ever changing. Globally and locally. Earth has seen oceans rising and falling, and were are still living in a warm period of an ice age. Cities have been submerged in the past and coastal lines have drastically changed.
This will happen again. Perhaps we'll see some tiny bit of it, and then we'll have to adapt.
And this is the gist of it all: we have to adapt to our planet earth, we can not adapt the earth to our biddings.
I'm amazed that you can talk about the greenhouse warming potential of CO2 versus H2O and never mention methane, nitrous oxides, or other greenhouse gases. I guess most "do one thing" like CO2, but I've heard that hydrogen, the newest darling of the greenwashing community in the US at least, while not a direct GHG, slows the breakdown of other GHG like methane and there is a warming gas.
It is all right, Mary, you don't have to be amazed. CO2 is by far the most important greenhouse gas, the others, anyway, have the same effect. Let me add a sentence to clarify this point...
Thank you for this explanation. It makes sense on a global level, and my understanding is models have been accounting for this feedback for a long time. But the local and regional effects of water cycles still seem left out. For example, in the Western Mediterranean Basin, Millan Millan showed that, due to water-cycle damage, water vapor that should have been converted to rain in afternoon summer storms, instead recirculated back out over the Mediterranean Sea, creating a local greenhouse effect that warmed the water and supercharged storm in central Europe. The models "can't see it" was his steady lament.
Yes, perfectly possible. Excess water vapor must eventually condense into water droplets, but to do that it needs condensation nuclei, often provided by forest transpiration. So, water vapor can remain in the atmosphere as supersaturated vapor and warm the area creating a strong greenhouse effect. Another reason why we shouldn't cut the forests!!
When I began studies (biology) CO² was at 333ppm. Now it is about 440ppm.
Parts per million.
And we learned that the sun was primarily responsible for the energy contained in the atmosphere.
And, too, that CO² concentration in the air was supoptimal for plant growth, being thus one of the limiting factors. One reason for gassing greenhouses for bigger harvest in crops.
I don't think this knowledge has since changed a lot. Climate is ever changing. Globally and locally. Earth has seen oceans rising and falling, and were are still living in a warm period of an ice age. Cities have been submerged in the past and coastal lines have drastically changed.
This will happen again. Perhaps we'll see some tiny bit of it, and then we'll have to adapt.
And this is the gist of it all: we have to adapt to our planet earth, we can not adapt the earth to our biddings.
Thanks for laying out these mechanisms more clearly than we usually see them, Ugo.
I do think we face greater threats than global warming, even from out "own" political "leaders", for instance.
This world has never had such a stable climate as in the past couple hundred years. We got lulled into complacency.
I'm amazed that you can talk about the greenhouse warming potential of CO2 versus H2O and never mention methane, nitrous oxides, or other greenhouse gases. I guess most "do one thing" like CO2, but I've heard that hydrogen, the newest darling of the greenwashing community in the US at least, while not a direct GHG, slows the breakdown of other GHG like methane and there is a warming gas.
It is all right, Mary, you don't have to be amazed. CO2 is by far the most important greenhouse gas, the others, anyway, have the same effect. Let me add a sentence to clarify this point...