Water Vapor Causing Climate Warming 434
karvind writes "According to BBC, new studies suggest that water vapor rather than carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is the main reason why Europe's climate is warming. The scientists say that rising temperatures caused by greenhouse gases are increasing humidity, which in turn amplifies the temperature rise. This is potentially a positive feedback mechanism which could increase the impact of greenhouse gases such as CO2. Even though 2005 will probably be warmest year, climatologists still differ in opinion"
Um... duh? (Score:4, Insightful)
Title and Summary are misleading (Score:5, Insightful)
This isn't a story that undermines or changes the prevailing scientific view. This may allow some fine tuning of the models. Some skeptics had argued with the results of the models because they didn't believe the contribution of water vapor. This may force them to reevaluate their view. (Yeah right).
Isn't this like saying: (Score:1, Insightful)
?
Here's the Deal (Score:5, Insightful)
Our climate changes- it has for billions of years and it will for billions of more years.
Our climate is *incredibly* complex, so accurate prediction either way is nigh impossible (and I think it's arrogant to imply we know enough about our climate to even try to control it).
Global warming *is* happening, but factually only in the sense that our planet has been getting warmer- the debate is over whether or not man is to blame. Keep in mind, we just came out of an ice age several thousand years ago, so global warming is basically a given until we enter the next ice age.
There is NO consensus on whether or not man-made global warming is happening- anyone who claims to have "climatologist" friends who say it most definitely is or isn't real and that all the real scientists agree are just pulling stuff out of their ass (and it's pretty obvious, too, so don't even try to do it).
Not everyone who believes global warming is caused by man is a crazy hippy and not everyone who believes it isn't caused by man is some money-grubbing republican. It's that kind of black and white approach to this and other topics, both by the people and especially the media, that has trivialized the issue at hand.
Please try to keep this in mind.
-Moses
Re:Title and Summary are misleading (Score:1, Insightful)
Yeah, but it wastes precious alcohol! Much better to drink the stuff instead, and make your body so toxic that germs die off naturally.
Re:Here's the Deal (Score:2, Insightful)
Actually, there is a consensus, among scientists.
The debate over global warming has essentially been one with scientists on one side, and ideological conservatives and their paid pressure groups on the other. This is neatly demonstrated by the way in which people trying to brush off the scientific evidence invariably do so not by responding to the scientific evidence in a scientific way, but by relying on non-scientific, philosophical arguments like "we can't know anything about the climate".
Not everyone who believes global warming is caused by man is a crazy hippy and not everyone who believes it isn't caused by man is some money-grubbing republican.
Certainly not everyone who believes global warming is not caused by man is a money-grubbing republican. Crazy hippy libertarians also believe that global warming is not caused by man.
worst summary ever (Score:4, Insightful)
So greenhouse gases are causing the earth to get warmer, thus increasing the rate of evaporation of water above previous levels.
And somehow its the water vapor that is released from this evaporation, from increased heating, that is warming the earth?
If I hit my tumb with a hammer, and it starts bleeding. It would be like saying it is the blood that is causing the pain.
Worst article summary ever!
Re:IT'S BUSH'S FAULT!! (Score:5, Insightful)
Yes. All of them. Find an atmospheric science textbook. It's in there.
and there's really not anything we can do to affect it, or stop it.
You're asking whether atmospheric scientists, people who study the atmosphere and its behavior, think that the manner in which earth's chaotic, multi-factored atmosphere behaves over time is fixed, unchanging, and can never be effected by anything.
No, none of them think that. The cycles themselves, which are quite erratic, demonstrate that changes can happen: For one thing, the cycles obviously happen for some kind of reason. For another thing, the cycles to which you refer haven't always happened. Further back in the past the climate's cycles operated differently. [scotese.com]
The way in which the atmospheric cycles have operated for the last 2 billion years or so-- long stable periods followed by slowly increasing, then sudden and dramtic shifts-- suggest not that climate is some preplanned externally determined thing, caused by the hand of God moving a knob on a thermostat somewhere. What they suggest is the idea of the earth's atmospheric state having a number of equilibrium points, and we are moving back and forth between those equilibrium points. This is exactly what the article slashdot links here is about-- feedback mechanisms. The idea is that as you move further away from a stable equilibrium point, positive feedback mechanisms come into play which move you further and further away from that equilibrium point, and negative feedback mechanisms which were keeping you stable at that equilibrium point shut down. Once you nudge things away from the place where they were, the more the mean temperature rises the more the mean temperature is inspired to rise further, and the more the CO2 concentration rises the more the CO2 concentration is naturally inspired to rise even further. The lesson to take away here isn't to blame the cycles; the cycles themselves need that nudge to start. The lesson to take away is, you don't want to nudge the atmosphere out of that stable state, because once you start it may be too late to nudge it back.
Re:So what can we do then? (Score:3, Insightful)
As for me I always look at the car. If a guy is drving a fice year old honda or a subaru (or even biking) he is more likely to tell me the truth then if he is driving a brand new BMW or a Mercedes.
Yes I know both BMW and Mercedes make junky cheap cars too now but you get the idea. Take a look at the car.
Re:Welcome to ten years ago (Score:5, Insightful)
Volcanic activity is likely to provide a cooling effect, so it is unlikely to be that.
Second, what temp. is the correct temp. for the Earth?
The question you should ask is not what the correct temperature is (there isn't one) but how a change in climate will affect the world, or more specifically you. If it means that there will be a rise in sea level and you live in a coastal area it might affect to adversely. If you live in a frigid area and it turns it into a lush garden, good for you. What it will likely do, though, is require change in human activity to cope with the changing geography on the world which may impose additional costs on the economy above any possible additional advantage for some nations (and vice versa for others).
Re:News Flash! (Score:5, Insightful)
And it's not a surprise. Vostok and other core data show two very telling things: 1) Global temperatures are extremely tied in to CO2 levels, and 2) barring natural catastrophes (such as major volcanic events), this is among the fastest climate changes in recorded history. You then factor in the fact that the balance of CO2 outflux to influx is computable and we're very obviously putting out CO2 faster than it can be consumed (and while higher CO2 levels increase CO2 consumption, that capability is limited), and factor in climate modelling... well, it's no real surprise that the ratios are so extreme.
Re:It was so warm in London yesterday... (Score:3, Insightful)
As usual, the posters suck. (Score:3, Insightful)
Slashdot becoming worse than usenet (Score:2, Insightful)
- democrats hate freedom of speech http://yro.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=05/11/03/1
- Korean Lab Worker Forced to Donate Her Own Eggs (meaning: those stem cell research are babykilling backstabbing immoral bunch) http://science.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=05/11/
- This article post above that's striving to reach a conclusion that global warming is in much debate and CO2 is pretty innocent
Something needs to be done about this. I don't read rightwing blogs because I don't need their lies, I prefer my news to be reliable and not twisted and if slashdot continues like this it will be pretty unfortunate.
I have seen a lot of such trolltastic rightwing article posts lately and the editors seem either oblivious to them or otherwise. If you can remember some more of them then do post links in your reply to this post.
Re:magic fuel (Score:4, Insightful)
- is in one place (a small number compared to the amount of cars)
- can be monitored more exactly
- can be improved at any time without having to replace every car
- can be filtered more effectively (carburetors are only effective after being warmed up for about 10 minutes, which is a shorter time period than many journeys)
- can be polution free (see iceland)
- moves polution from population centers thus improving health
I'm sure i could go on / get sources for all these statements, but i can't be arsed
Water is a "feedback", not a "forcing" (Score:3, Insightful)
The important point to remember is that in the lingo of the climate scientists, water is a "feedback" rather than a "forcing". CO2 is considered a forcing because you can affect the climate by adding to or removing it from the environment -- the levels of CO2 in the environment are not affected much by climate processes.
Water is completely different: there is so much water available on the surface of the earth that adding extra water to, or removing it from, the environment -- say, by building big condeners that feed storage tanks, or by building pumps that spray water into the air -- won't make much difference, at least once you turn the pumps or condensers off.
You can read all about it here [realclimate.org].
Correlation is not necessarily causation (Score:3, Insightful)
This could also be written to imply the opposite of what you intended: CO2 levels are extremely tied to global temperatures. How do you tell which caused which?
The argument against global warming (Score:5, Insightful)
1. Weather is complicated. The models aren't perfect.
2. No matter how much of a scientific consensus there may be, there will always be a few guys who don't agree.
Conclusion: We don't really know anything about climate or global warming.
Rinse, lather, repeat.
The wonderful thing about these arguments is that no matter what we may discover in the future about climate, they will remain valid (well, as valid as they are today), so you can safely trot them out any time anybody dares to suggest that you should be inconvenienced in any way to reduce global warming.
Comment removed (Score:5, Insightful)
And to REPEAT the question I've been asking... (Score:3, Insightful)
Lots of extra water vapor.
A little water is good for you. A lot of water will kill you.
A few cards using hydrogen are probably good for us. All cars using hydrogen needs to be investigated to see if it puts out significantly more water vapor than our current gasoline cars (which also put out water as a part of burning the fuel).
Re:Here's the Deal (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Anthropogenic Warming == Hubris (Score:4, Insightful)
This is a very outdated view. The anthropogenic nature is no longer much disputed. There have been major climatic swings, before but they have rarely occurred so fast. The only reasonable causative factor for this one is CO2 increase in the atmosphere. Recently, the only other sensible possibility - solar activity changes - has been shown to have some contribution to global warming, but insufficient to explain more than a fraction of it.
So, there is global warming co-inciding with a major CO2 increase which is almost all due to human activity. This is compelling evidence.
The Intergovernmenal Panel on Climate Change says "most of the warming observed over the last 50 years is attributable to human activities".
Recorded human history is merely a blink of an eye in geologic terms. Recorded *climatic* history has only started in the modern times (last 500 years). Our frame of reference is short.
No. Recorded climatic history goes back a very long way. Ice cores show a huge amount about climate and give information over thousands of years.
As for your statements about CO2 release and plankton, this just doesn't fit. Atmospheric CO2 levels have risen over a long period matching the increase in human output. The Solar Dimming effect has been over too short a period.
Re:What if.. (Score:3, Insightful)
No, it means that the *atmosphere* is changing, not the entire Earth. There's a reason it's called the "solar constant" because it very nearly is (and a good thing, too, or we'd not be here to argue about it
If the atmosphere heats up, it's capacity for holding vaporized water increases...
SB
That's Nonsense (Score:3, Insightful)
Ah, so geology, plate tectonics, evolution , et cetera are all bunk. Each is characterized by relying on direct observations dating back about 200 years or less-- all other data is extrapolated. We can't KNOW that earthquakes are caused by movements of the plates that compose the Earth's crust, because we've only been observing the correlation for a short time. Darn, better not put in that tsunami warning system.
I've already listed [slashdot.org] several statements from the most major scientific organizations in the field, all of which find an overwhelming consensus on the existence of anthropogenic climate change. Yes, you can find a handful of cranks who believe otherwise, just like how you can find a handful of cranks who believe any stupid position imaginable.
Yet, that doesn't stop people from coming right out and saying that all scientists agree, that people are causing a catastrophic climactic change with environmental pollution.
Nice strawman. Let me rephrase it so that it actually represents a reasonable position:
"An overwhelming majority of climate scientists agree, anthropogenic climate change exists and could potentially impose some (unknown magnitude of) costs upon humanity."
Something more like that is about right.
Because global warming is the modern, secular, version of original sin. People just know that there has to be some horrible price to pay for eating from the tree of knowledge, and destroying all life on the planet sounds just about right to them as the price we have to pay. Therefore, it makes perfect sense that we surely must be killing the very planet in order to live our comfy lives.
Obviously you haven't eaten from the tree of knowledge [ooh, snap]. Go read the scientific literature on the topic, starting with the NAS Study to which I linked in my aforementioned post. Your psychoanalysis is a cute ad hominem [as is this paragraph], but it contributes nothing to the debate.
The simple fact is that there has been a very slight rise in temperatures globally over the past blink of a global eye that we call a century. If anyone knew why, they could probably also reliably tell you if it was going to rain tomorrow, where the next tsunami will hit, and what day the next big earthquake would hit California. They can't tell you any of those things because there are actually some things that are so complex that the human brain can't properly model them, even with the help of all the fancy supercomputers in the world.
Yes, because all those systems are equivalent, and those predictions are all equivalent in nature. Except not. Please explain how several climate models have actually proven quite accurate at predicting global average temperature, if your claim is true. Or, better yet, go think long and hard about why it's possible to predict average values with much higher reliability than one can predict point values.
[The rest of your political crap]
I don't care about you, nor do I care about the politics of the issue. I do care that you're polluting the conversation with your nonsense claims that we don't understand the basics of the issue. I also care about the policies that grow out of the scientific consensus on the issue-- but, at present, I can't say for sure exactly what, if anything, we should do. Perhaps some people do take global warming to be some sort of moral tale, but their existence does not devalue the position taken by those who are compelled by the overwhelming sc
"The Hydrogen Economy" is a sham (Score:3, Insightful)
Lots of extra water vapor.
Moderation fails again.
This isn't insightful. It's pretty much wrong (or was maybe meant to be humorous). This is like saying that if it rained more we'd all get killed (by the intense global warming that would results from all that water vapor! Clouds!). Water is a cycle that's basically at equilibrium. We aren't gaining or losing any to/from space (except tiny, tiny, insignificant amounts). We aren't going out of our way to find, dig up, and then burn billions of gallons of water every year.
I don't see how the burning of hydrogen (created by and large from the electrolysis of
Now, what would alter the current balance, is if a bunch of CO2 that had been buried (and hence locked out of the atmosphere) for like 100 million years was being routinely sought, found, dug up and then burned in huge volumes every year.
The problem with the 'hydrogen economy' is that as it's currently envisioned it's still just a petrochemical economy -- except the gas pump is hidden to the consumer. It's still just coal plants and natural gas plants and whatever else we can dig up and burn to generate electricity to split hydrogen out of water or whatever else. Of course then we'll package and transport it with plastics and other petrochem-derived goodies. Until we get over ourselves and stop burning the oil and coal and using nuclear and other alternatives hydrogen is just a facade.
If it wasn't the big oil companies wouldn't be promoting it
http://www.bp.com/sectiongenericarticle.do?catego