Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Water vapor accounts for a whopping 90% or more of Earth's greenhouse effect! CO2 very minor player
several sources

Posted on 02/15/2010 5:52:36 AM PST by ETL

click here to read article


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-8081-86 next last
To: ETL
Ok folks, another thinking cap question: I was taught that gases do absorb energy. See the below reference. Now, what does the gas do with the absorbed energy? I was taught that it did not increase the temp of the gas but that the electrons were stepped up to another level. Eventually the gas molecule would want to settle down and would release the energy as a photon again? If random, half would be release back to outer space and half transmitted to earth. Ok, the below says CO2 is a good absorber of infrared energy but NOTE THAT THE STAEMENT STOPS THERE. What happens to that absorbed energy.? My mind says that half goes down to earth and half goes to space. Do the “models” assume it all goes back to earth? It is more complex than this as I remember pigments (not gases) absorb higher spectrum and release lower spectrum.

Greenhouse Gas Absorption Spectrum
http://www.meteor.iastate.edu/gccourse/forcing/spectrum.html
Figure 4 gives the amount of energy absorbed by greenhouse gases in various wavelength regions, from ultraviolet radiation on the left, to visible light in the middle, to infrared radiation on the right.

The CFCs are not plotted here but will be considered separately. For each gas is given a plot of the absorptance of the gas, ranging from 0 to 1, for each wavelength.

As an example, if we look at the plot for oxygen and ozone, we see that the absorption is very high in the ultraviolet region but essentially zero in the visible and infrared regions, except for isolated peaks. We interpret this to mean that this gas absorbs essentially all radiation in the ultraviolet but is transparent in the visible and mostly transparent in infrared portions of the spectrum. This gas then is responsible for shielding earth-based biological systems from lethal ultraviolet radiation, radiation with wavelengths less than 0.3 micrometers (or 300 nanometers), but allows visible light and infrared radiation to pass through without much absorption.

Other gases have much different absorption properties. Methane (CH4), for example, has a couple of very small wavelength regions in which it absorbs strongly and these occur at about 3.5 and 8 microns, which are in the infrared region. Nitrous oxide, N2O, having peaks at about 5 and 8 microns, absorbs in fairly narrow wavelength ranges.

Carbon dioxide has a more complex absorption spectrum with isolated peaks at about 2.6 and 4 microns and a shoulder, or complete blockout, of infrared radiation beyond about 13 microns. From this we see that carbon dioxide is a very strong absorber of infrared radiation. The plot for water vapor shows an absorption spectrum more complex even than carbon dioxide, with numerous broad peaks in the infrared region between 0.8 and 10 microns.

The total spectrum of all atmospheric gases is given in the bottom plot. This shows a “window” between 0.3 and 0.8 microns (the visible window), which allows solar radiation (without the lethal UV component) to reach the earth's surface. “Earth radiation”, the upwelling infrared radiation emitted by the earth's surface, has a maximum near 10 microns. The total atmosphere plot shows that a narrow window (except for an oxygen spike) exists in the range of wavelengths near 10 microns.

41 posted on 02/15/2010 7:44:01 AM PST by PeterPrinciple ( Seeking the truth here folks.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Right Wing Assault
I hope they don't read this. They'll probably try to do it.

Sounds shovel-ready to me...

42 posted on 02/15/2010 7:44:14 AM PST by paulycy (Demand Constitutionality. (Hi Mom.))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]

To: ETL
Get caught up with the program here. There hasn't been any "greenhouse effect" for 15 years. Don't take my word for it, the leading global warming scientist, Phil Jones, just said so.

If there is no greenhouse effect there also can't be a greenhouse gas. Unless you are Algore or you work at the EPA water vapor is called evaporation, precipitation, weather...not greenhouse gas.

It is true that generally the climate changes when nature adds or subtracts water vapor...you know, like when it rains, or it's foggy...or not.

43 posted on 02/15/2010 7:46:32 AM PST by lewislynn (What does the global warming movement and the Fairtax movement have in common? Disinformation)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: PeterPrinciple
If we look at that graph...

We see that water vapor not only absorbs more wavelengths, those wavelengths are shorter than those absorbed by CO2. Shorter wavelengths have higher energy than longer wavelengths. Thus H20 absorbs much more energy than does CO2. These higher energies are then converted into kinetic energy; heat.

44 posted on 02/15/2010 7:54:06 AM PST by Redcloak (Messin' up threads since 1998)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies]

To: listenhillary

That’s the only ‘science’ chart that needs ‘believed’! The rest are junk science, corruption, political ‘science’, cult, religion, etc. Algore is 99.72% snake oil salesman.


45 posted on 02/15/2010 8:00:11 AM PST by CRBDeuce (here, while the internet is still free of the Fairness Doctrine)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: Redcloak

These higher energies are then converted into kinetic energy; heat.


I don’t think that is true and that is the point I am trying to determine.


46 posted on 02/15/2010 8:17:41 AM PST by PeterPrinciple ( Seeking the truth here folks.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 44 | View Replies]

To: lewislynn
Get caught up with the program here. There hasn't been any "greenhouse effect" for 15 years.

There is ALWAYS a greenhouse effect taking place, be-it almost entirely due to water vapor, despite the fact that we've been in a cooling trend for the past 11-12 years. Without greenhouse gases, the planet would be freezing.

47 posted on 02/15/2010 9:26:24 AM PST by ETL (ALL (most?) of the Obama-commie connections at my FR Home page: http://www.freerepublic.com/~etl/)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 43 | View Replies]

To: ETL
Long before the Global Warming hysteria blew up when the conspiracy of fraud came unraveled, there were serious voices questioning and documenting opposition to the global warming fraud. All of it based on studies and commentary by serious scientists in all the disciplines upon which "Climate Science" is presumably based.

Here is one from 2007!

MAN-MADE GLOBAL WARMING BITES THE DUST

What does it take?

Two things are increasingly frustrating :

"Science" commentators on hundreds of TV stations still seem unaware that there has been a massive fraud for 20 years, and that the fraudsters have been "found out" beyond debate. These "readers" are science idiots who continue hawking "green energy", CO2 panic and business-as-usual neuroses about the discredited anthropogenic global warming."

Similarly, politicians at all levels seem impervious to reality, fraud and real scientists everywhere shouting at the top of their lungs that the onslaught of hysteria by politicians, and other non-scientist have brainwashed the equally ignorant populace with, is based on lies, ignorance and an agenda based on control, not pursuit of the truth.

Taxes confiscated from working Americans can be used more productively on other things; Trillions$ are being wasted and budgeted for future waste as we speak.

How can we stop these idiots?

48 posted on 02/15/2010 9:27:46 AM PST by Publius6961 (You can't build a reputation on what you are going to do)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ETL
Are you sure, pound for pound, water vapor is a more effective greenhouse gas than CO2?

In the lab, perhaps.
In the atmosphere, under the dynamics of complex weather, sunlight, cosmic rays and other solar system nasties we may not even know about, apparently not.

One of the qualities of real scientists is the ability to make a distinction between isolated lab experiments, and the identical few substances interacting with the thousands of different elements, compounds and factors in a real-time atmosphere.

The arrogance and ignorance of those claiming to mimic the complexity of weather, climate and the atmosphere on computer models which they write themselves --- is mind boggling.

Climate models, until recently, were claimed to be predicting future weather.

Since they have all failed, 100% of the time to do so, the claim has now changed to "projections!"

... which will continue to be wrong 100% of the time!

Hello?

49 posted on 02/15/2010 9:41:19 AM PST by Publius6961 (You can't build a reputation on what you are going to do)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: ETL
There is ALWAYS a greenhouse effect taking place, be-it almost entirely due to water vapor, despite the fact that we've been in a cooling trend for the past 11-12 years. Without greenhouse gases, the planet would be freezing.
Nice try, greenhouse gas and greenhouse effect is a term you global warming pinheads coined and for some reason you choose to keep using it.

We haven't always had greenhouses. What was the natural order of things called before anyone knew what a greenhouse was? Condensation and evaporation?

50 posted on 02/15/2010 9:56:46 AM PST by lewislynn (What does the global warming movement and the Fairtax movement have in common? Disinformation)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 47 | View Replies]

To: ETL
There is no "pound for pound" about it, since it isn't a linear relationship. Water vapor contributes nearly all greenhouse power, but the sky is largely saturated with water vapor - meaning, opaque from below to the wavelengths of infrared light that are absorbed by water. There are marginal differences tied to weather from variations in humidity (e.g. in deserts the sky is not opaque to those wavelengths, unless covered by cloud cover).

CO2 can matter (though only marginally because it is so trace a gas) because the sky is largely "clear" in those wavelengths. But this changes as the CO2 level rises. The response is log rather than linear; the second doubling of the concentration does much less than the first. Close your window shades. How much would it matter if you hung 4 more sets of shades behind them?

51 posted on 02/15/2010 9:58:07 AM PST by JasonC
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: JasonC

Thanks! Are you in the field, or did you just sleep at a Holiday Inn last night? :)

Seriously. Thanks. Sounds like you know what you’re talking about.


52 posted on 02/15/2010 10:02:57 AM PST by ETL (ALL (most?) of the Obama-commie connections at my FR Home page: http://www.freerepublic.com/~etl/)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 51 | View Replies]

To: The Old Hoosier
Where does that chart come from?

Why do you ask?
Are you from the Bernie Ward School of argumentation?
And too lazy to find a refutation?

Or are you really and honestly eager to learn?

I should remind everyone that the criminal fraud "documenting" AGW was perpetrated by scientists who stonewalled legitimate FOIA requests to release the weather data and adjustments made to the world wide data observations made over the last 120 years; on which the IPCC based all their 100% wrong conclusions and their purely political recommendations.

53 posted on 02/15/2010 10:03:28 AM PST by Publius6961 (You can't build a reputation on what you are going to do)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: Publius6961

It’s always a good idea to provide links along with info like that. Adds credibility and a chance for people to read more about it if they choose to.


54 posted on 02/15/2010 10:05:29 AM PST by ETL (ALL (most?) of the Obama-commie connections at my FR Home page: http://www.freerepublic.com/~etl/)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 53 | View Replies]

To: JasonC
Re: CO2 greenhouse gas analogy...

Close your window shades. How much would it matter if you hung 4 more sets of shades behind them?

Expotentially less and less with each additional shade. Excellent point. Thanks again.

55 posted on 02/15/2010 10:19:13 AM PST by ETL (ALL (most?) of the Obama-commie connections at my FR Home page: http://www.freerepublic.com/~etl/)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 51 | View Replies]

Exponentially


56 posted on 02/15/2010 10:19:43 AM PST by ETL (ALL (most?) of the Obama-commie connections at my FR Home page: http://www.freerepublic.com/~etl/)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 55 | View Replies]

To: ETL
It’s always a good idea to provide links along with info like that. Adds credibility and a chance for people to read more about it if they choose to.

Although I totally agree, how many times does the same simple question be answered before it becomes simply a tool for distraction and delay? The ultimate pastime of the ignorant?

Perhaps a global warming "sandbox" is in order, for those honestly and seriously beginning science kindergarten.

57 posted on 02/15/2010 10:22:42 AM PST by Publius6961 (You can't build a reputation on what you are going to do)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 54 | View Replies]

To: ETL
"Exponentially less" is traditionally known as "log"...

;-)

58 posted on 02/15/2010 10:28:06 AM PST by JasonC
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 56 | View Replies]

To: lewislynn
Nice try, greenhouse gas and greenhouse effect is a term you global warming pinheads coined and for some reason you choose to keep using it.

I somehow missed this strange response of yours. First of all, what in hades makes you think I believe in man-made global warming?? Are you new to this site? I merely stated the fact that greenhouses gases do exist. Earth's temps fluctuate over time for many different reasons, ALL of them natural. Natural greenhouse gases, almost entirely water vapor, plays a major role, as does solar activity, cloud cover, orbital deviations, ocean current cycles and volcanoes.

59 posted on 02/15/2010 10:39:27 AM PST by ETL (ALL (most?) of the Obama-commie connections at my FR Home page: http://www.freerepublic.com/~etl/)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 50 | View Replies]

To: JasonC

I know. But not everyone here knows how logarithms work, or what the abbreviation “Log” stands for. :)


60 posted on 02/15/2010 10:43:09 AM PST by ETL (ALL (most?) of the Obama-commie connections at my FR Home page: http://www.freerepublic.com/~etl/)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 58 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-8081-86 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson