Five Quick Links to Understanding Anthropogenic Climate Change

 

B22264 / Tue, 13 Mar 2007 16:14:39 / Environment

Become a visionary seeing is believing.

Discounting the fact that this valley had the lowest annual precipitation of all of the deserts of North America at just 1.2 inches, the impact of albedo differences alone, increasing the amount of solar radiation absorbed by the surface should be immediately obvious.

Then factor in all that additional water, 3.1 million acre ft. annually supplied by the IIP alone, being evapotranspirated into water vapor by the transformation of solar energy to latent heat energy instead of increasing sensible heat and initiating convection.

The mean annual average of latent heat production for the land use change maintained by the IIP is on the order of one trillion/btu/hr.

As you can see, this water vapor isn’t condensing in the immediate vicinity, this latent heat energy is being carried away by the winds to further impact the regional climate and increase the overall greenhouse effect of water vapor over the southwestern North American continent.

Incidentally. This little water vapor factory never shuts down, but is altering the climate of the region year round as it is home to much of our wintertime supply of fresh vegetables.

And if you take a look just north of this Green Giant valley you’ll notice another little man-made climate changing influence,
The Salton Sea.

It is the only surface feature with an albedo even lower than the irrigated topsoil and row after row of growing crops.

This 376 sq. mile lake is the largest in California, not a permanent natural feature; the Salton Sea is a man-made whoops, constantly replenished by the agricultural runoff of those hundreds of thousands of irrigated acres.

Ho, Ho, Ho as they say on the valley.

Maybe it’s time to think frozen, before there’s no ice left.

Incremental increases in atmospheric CO2 pale in comparison with the ability of agricultural irrigation to increase the amount of water vapor in the atmosphere.

According to NASA water vapor is the 800 lb. gorilla of climate change.

Be guerilla.

Don’t let the lie of the CO2 centric theory blind you to the actual causes of anthropogenic climate change.

Justice, then Peace.

RECENT COMMENTS

GWHunta @ 03/13/07 17:00:35

Jesus Christ, you still haven’t found primary sources? How hard is it to search Google Scholar?

Snark @ 03/13/07 19:51:21

Snark, everybody can search Google Scholar.

I’m trying to open some minds to the possiblity that the IPCC is somewhat slanted and that Gore is covering up the fact that the agricultural industry in this country is a huge vested interest and that when the true cause of anthropogenic climate change is determined to be land use change, agriculture generally and agricultural irrigation specifically, you’ll see why I’m not taking the scholarly and PC approach to this.

Peace,

GWHunta @ 03/13/07 21:05:17

Could “Big Al” Gore telling his favorite part of the global warming story serve to protect powerful agricultural interests such as those found in the Imperial Irrigation District?

Will anybody acknowledge that there has to be an environmental and climate altering impact from dumping a mean average annual of approximately 950,000,000,000 BTU per hour of latent heat into the sky in the form of additional water vapor.

In 1942, the All-American Canal became the sole water source for Imperial Valley residents and area farmlands.

With more than 3,000 miles of canals and drains, the Imperial Irrigation District (IID) is the largest irrigation district in the nation. As a consumer owned utility, IID strives to provide the highest level of service at the most economical price while still preserving the unique ecosystem associated with this working landscape. The IID Water Department is responsible for the timely operation and maintenance of the extensive open channel system, and effectively delivers up to 3.1 million acre-feet of IID’s Colorado River entitlement annually to nearly one-half million irrigated acres. Of the water IID transports, approximately 97 percent is used for agricultural purposes, making possible Imperial County’s ranking as one of the top ten agricultural regions nationwide. The remaining three percent of its water deliveries supply seven municipalities, one private water company and two community water systems as well as a variety of industrial uses and rural homes or businesses.

This is the extreme North American case study, but examples such as this are to be found on the millions upon millions of irrigated acres found throughout California and much of the North American agricultural belt and around the world.

Water vapor is a GHG. This public works project delivers for vaporization an annual average of over 120 cubic meters of water per second.

The heat of the sun that fuels this vaporization process is stored in the form of latent heat that doesn’t radiate out of the atmosphere back to space and the reduction of sensible heat reduces convection, keeping this “stealth” heat energy closer to the terrestrial surface.

A trillion BTU/hr. is nothing to HO, HO, HO about.

That’s just from the IID.

315 TW globally of this “stealth” heat and addtional water vapor is changing our climate.

Sometimes no Peace,

GWHunta @ 03/15/07 07:41:34

Established in 1902, the Bureau of Reclamation is best known for the dams, powerplants, and canals it constructed in the 17 western states. These water projects led to homesteading and promoted the economic development of the West. Reclamation has constructed more than 600 dams and reservoirs including Hoover Dam on the Colorado River and Grand Coulee on the Columbia River.

Today, we are the largest wholesaler of water in the country. We bring water to more than 31 million people, and provide one out of five Western farmers (140,000) with irrigation water for 10 million acres of farmland that produce 60% of the nation’s vegetables and 25% of its fruits and nuts.

GWHunta @ 03/16/07 23:25:55

More than 53,000,000 acres nationwide. That’s a lot of water.

90% of the total water used in the West and 80% in the Eastern U.S.

Irrigated cropland is an important and growing component of the U.S. farm economy, accounting for almost half of total crop sales from just 16 percent of the Nation’s harvested cropland in 1997 (USDA, 2001).

That’s also a lot of water vapor, latent heat and reduced convection.

Hundreds of trillions of BTU/hr on a July summer day. Energy that would have otherwise been turned to sensible heat in the lower atmosphere, convected upwards on rising air currents and irradiated back into the blackness of space.

Instead this “stealth” energy remains nearer the surface in the form of water vapor, the primary greenhouse gas, travelling great distances awaiting the opportunity to condense and return this energy as sensible heat far from its place of origination. And repeat this cycle if precipitated over land until this water eventually is returned to the sea.

This is the primary “greenhouse” effect.

Increased agricultural production generally and exponential global increases in agricultural irrigation are the primary cause of anthropogenic climate change.

GWHunta @ 03/16/07 23:57:32

I would add to this, that water vapor is heavily influencing the lower troposphere, and that the impacts are not necessarily homogenous in the areal sense. Your Imperial Valley example – I envisage a plume of water vapor over it and sprawling down wind. Also some interesting effects in our intermontaine valleys here through the US West – especially when we have a marine layer or other types of thermal inversions in place.

GWHunta @ 03/17/07 00:23:15

Related:

“World renowned scientist Dr. Rosalie Bertell confirms that US military scientists are working on weather systems as a potential weapon. The methods include the enhancing of storms and the diverting of vapor rivers in the Earth’s atmosphere to produce targeted droughts or floods.

Marc Filterman, a former French military officer, outlines several types of ‘unconventional weapons’ using radio frequencies. He refers to ‘weather war,’ indicating that the U.S. and the Soviet Union had already ‘mastered the know-how needed to unleash sudden climate changes (hurricanes, drought) in the early 1980s.’ (3) These technologies make it possible to trigger atmospheric disturbances by using Extremely Low Frequency (ELF) radar [waves].

“A simulation study of future defense “scenarios” commissioned for the US Air Force calls for: “US aerospace forces to ‘own the weather’ by capitalizing on emerging technologies and focusing development of those technologies to war-fighting applications. From enhancing friendly operations or disrupting those of the enemy via small-scale tailoring of natural weather patterns to complete dominance of global communications and counterspace control, weather-modification offers the war fighter a wide-range of possible options to defeat or coerce an adversary. In the United States, weather-modification will likely become a part of national security policy with both domestic and international applications. Our government will pursue such a policy, depending on its interests, at various levels.

I made reference to the almost universal failure of everyone talking about the GHG situation in mentioning ‘other’ contributors such as DIRECT manipulation in this thread

Oh and if you don’t believe they have solutions to the earth’s problems… you may like to watch this

emissary71 @ 03/17/07 00:41:00

Snark,

This is an example of scientific dialigue.

If you are interested, please PM me.

Peace,

Anthropogenic global warming and climate change is caused by increased water vapor in the atmosphere and the solar energy sequestered by the latent heat of vaporization from increased agriculture generally and agricultural irrigation specifically, not rising levels of atmospheric CO2.

Farming for fuel exacerbates this problem, it doesn’t mitigate it. Biofuels are not a solution to stemming global warming and mitigating climate change.

Increasing the efficiency of irrigation systems currently in use and eventually reducing our agricultural dependence upon intensive irrigation totally will do far more to mitigate climate change than any scheme to reduce CO2 emissions.

Increased water vapor and latent heat are the anthropogenic cause of climate change, not the increase of atmospheric CO2 concentrations from .0300% to .0380% of total volume.

This .0080% increase in atmospheric CO2 couldn’t possibly account for a nearly 2% increase of the earth’s natural “greenhouse” effect.

However the 12 cubic kilometers of water that is transformed on a mean daily global average to water vapor by agricultural irrigation consumes 314 TWt of solar energy and sequesters this heat in the lowest layers of the atmosphere in the latent heat of vaporization and at least temporarily reduces convection.

This water vapor, a potent GHG in and of itself then continues to warm the surface until this additional heat is given up to the troposphere or surface when this water vapor then condenses to precipitation, to again repeat this cycle.

This return of the solar energy that has been transformed to latent heat by evapotranspiration could be considered a “stealth” heat since it isn’t irradiated back to space while it is sequestered in the form of water vapor.

While the residence time of this water vapor is generally considered to be short, days or possibly weeks, depending upon atmospheric conditions at the source region and movement within the troposphere; even this relatively short period of time allows this energy to be transported large distances from its point of origination, essentially without loss to irradiation, until condensation takes place as precipitation in the troposphere or on the surface when this latent heat once again becomes sensible heat.

There is quite simply no other anthropogenic impact on the climate as powerful as the alteration of the hydrological cycle that has been made by damming countless rivers and redistributing what would have been runoff to the sea over the land to repeat this cycle, possibly many times before finally arriving in the sea.

The impact of the Imperial Irrigation District in California alone is responsible for a mean daily average of nearly one trillion btu/hr that is swept by the winds to further warm and impact the climate elsewhere.

While this is an extreme example of the efficiency with which agricultural irrigation can transport solar irradiance far from its source to impact weather and climate in other regions, million upon millions of acres of irrigated farmland are doing likewise around the globe on a nearly continuous basis.

Once there, this additional water vapor and energy alters the climate in ways best left to climate scientists to determine, but that this is the anthropogenic impact on climate should be immediately obvious to anyone, layman or scientist, who looks at the full range of impacts.

The latent heat of evapotranspiration, which can be transported long distances without loss, of one cubic meter of irrigation water has the potential energy from the incoming solar irradiation it sequestered becoming water vapor to melt seven cubic meters of ice.

Comment by Wade Roberts — March 15, 2007 @ 11:55 am

What does not flow to the sea, is returned to the sky.

This alteration of the hydrological cycle is the primary anthropogenic impact on the weather and the climate.

Comment by Wade Roberts — March 15, 2007 @ 12:01 pm

I would add to this, that water vapor is heavily influencing the lower troposphere, and that the impacts are not necessarily homogenous in the areal sense. Your Imperial Valley example – I envisage a plume of water vapor over it and sprawling down wind.

Also some interesting effects in our intermontaine valleys here through the US West – especially when we have a marine layer or other types of thermal inversions in place.

Comment by Steve Sadlov — March 16, 2007 @ 3:23 pm

(Minor redactions for typos and improved clarity.)

GWHunta @ 03/21/07 13:20:37

Just some follow-up on water vapor in the atmosphere: climatologists are saying the extra water vapor is a feedback predicted from greenhouse gases – not a forcing per your suggestion GWHunta.

As the paper you refer to says:
“In short, if water vapor is the 800-pound gorilla of the Earth’s greenhouse effect, then carbon dioxide is the steroid pill that helps water vapor lift temperatures even higher.”

here’some good link:

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=142

Also, it would be important to look at how the ubiquitous anthropic gases (CO2, methane, nitrous oxide, & CFC’s) absorb infrared in places where atmospheric water vapor is greatly reduced normally– i.e. over low humidity deserts.

And, oceans and seas cover 71% of the Earth. So it’s not rocket science that most global water vapor will come off the oceans, not from extra evaporation via much smaller areas of irrigation and dam covered land.

Also, oceans are warming.

The Scripps Institute of Oceanography says research indicates that average sea temperatures have increased.

http://scrippsnews.ucsd.edu/Releases/?releaseID=149

And quote:

“The initial results are certainly compatible at the 95 percent confidence level with the hypothesis that the warming observed in the global oceans has been caused by anthropogenic sources,” said Barnett, a research marine physicist in the Climate Research Division at Scripps.

While I wouldn’t say that land-based regional effects don’t exist, warming oceans seem likely to be the major source of extra atmospheric water vapor.

Further, ocean warming is very unlikely to be related to regional land-based anthropic forcing (i.e irrigation and dams) because water vapor has a short atmospheric life, and land based water vapor is likely to condense before it can influence the temperature of core ocean regions.

A longer lived and ubiquitous greenhouse gas is a more likely candidate for atmospheric warming over oceans. CO2, methane, nitrous oxide, & CFC’s fit the part perfectly.

Also, another factor in industrial regions: sulphates are effecting the ability of water vapor to condence and form rain. It seems that sulphates increase water vapor life in the atmosphere. This would seem to enhance H2O forcing and feedbacks over industrial areas.

Anyway that’s an outline, but obviously the basic figures are needed.

pete_moss @ 03/23/07 10:47:51

Thanks Pete.

But I have to ask you how pumping out billions of gallons of water from underground aquifers could possibly be considered a feedback effect of CO2.

I’d also ask you to consider the fact that the irrigation factor as .8% of the global total is calculated based on first use only.

A .8% increase before consideration of the fact that some if not most of this water vapor again precipitates over land to further fuel increased evapotranspiration.

And no matter the length of residence as the additional evapotranspiration is continuous, providing a steady and consistent forcing.

There is a seasonal imbalance and consideration must be given to the fact that most irrigation is done in the northern hemisphere.

When the additional impacts (residence time forcing and latent heat) and cauntless feedback effects are factored in you’ll quickly come to a percentage of increased “greenhouse effect” that accounts for the increased temperature that is established as fact.

That the .007% increase in atmospheric CO2 is a primary factor forcing this level of increase in global temperature is simply not plausible.

Peace,

GWHunta @ 03/23/07 15:22:59

Thanks GWHunta for the response.

There’s a couple things that you don’t point out, that are really critical

1.CO2 absorbs infrared at frequencies that water does not.
2.Regardless of CO2 being small in quantity, it’s responsible for 9-26% of the total greenhouse effect, because of the above.
3.No one disputes that water vapor is a significant greenhouse gas, but in regards to forcing it’s not the greenhouse gas that is rising – at this stage.
4.However, climatologists do express concern that water could be a significant concern, as a RESULT of greenhouse forcing primarily caused by rising CO2.

Also, in your blog you refer to the article, “Does the Earth Have an Iris Analog?”:

http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Study/Iris/

But you ignore what the author David Herring actually wrote:
“But what makes carbon dioxide so interesting is that the gas absorbs energy in some small segments of the thermal infrared spectrum that water vapor misses. This extra absorption within the atmosphere causes the air to warm just a bit more and the warmer the atmosphere the greater its capacity to hold more water vapor. This extra water vapor then further enhances the Earth’s greenhouse effect, far more even than the small warming forced by the added carbon dioxide. Scientists estimate that doubling levels of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere would be about the same as a 13 percent increase in water vapor, because water vapor is roughly eight times more effective than carbon dioxide as a greenhouse gas (Hartmann 1994). In short, if water vapor is the 800-pound gorilla of the Earth’s greenhouse effect, then carbon dioxide is the steroid pill that helps water vapor lift temperatures even higher.”

You don’t agree with the above?

On the “ irrigation factor as .8% of the global total” . I’m open, but is that .8% of total greenhouse forcing, or total GH effect, or total atmospheric water vapor? And it would be great to have a reference. (sorry …I might have missed something)

And also, to say that the short residency time of water vapor in the atmosphere is irrelevant is not tenable, given that you are arguing that anthropic land based water use is a more likely source of global warming.

Further to this, most anthropic water vapor would be logically located around highly populated and industrialized regions of the globe (i.e. East Asia, SE Asia, North America, Europe) where water use is at its highest. But all these regions are subject to some cooling from global dimming resulting from sulphates. So logically sulphates would also be masking the extra warming from anthropic water vapor as well.

On this:
“That the .007% increase in atmospheric CO2 is a primary factor forcing this level of increase in global temperature is simply not plausible.”

I yoyally agree, the increase in atmospheric CO2 is actually 105 ppm – 37.77% – above the pre-industrial average – and climatologists consider this as the primary source of GH forcing.

Cheers, Pete.

pete_moss @ 03/24/07 02:58:20

Great post Pete_moss.

tango @ 03/24/07 10:07:13

I recently asked a friend of mine about this – Karen Smith, who obtained her Ph.D. for studying the role of agricultural water vapour in climate change.

I’ve posted about the short residency time of H2O in the atmosphere and the role of H2O as a feedback (not a forcing) of CO2 here before. But, these usually get brushed aside, so I wanted to ask someone who is an expert in the field. Here’s what she said, I thought it was interesting:

Hi Dave,

In IPCC 2001 and the IPCC SPM 2007 the description of the various contributors of radiative forcing seems well supported. From the data presented well-mixed greenhouse gases of anthropogenic origin account predominantly for the increase in radiative forcing that has been recorded.

There has not been much net increase of water vapour in the atmosphere to rapid turnover, and that in terms of climate change water vapour can be thought of as more of a feedback of greenhouse gas increase, and not a forcing unto itself.

Water vapour is considered a feedback and most climate models generally report that as the climate warms the relative humidity will stay relatively constant, i.e., there will be more water vapour in the air but as the troposphere warms it will also develop a greater capacity to hold water vapour and thus the relative humidity stays constant.

Precipitation on the other hand will change as the climate warms – ~20% increase globally over the next 100 years. Precipitation involves not only the amount of water vapour in the atmosphere but also water vapour distribution and transportation. Precipitation is one of the key aspects of climate change that policy makers are interested in.

The water vapour feedback is fairly well understood and is included in all models. What is less understood and not accurately captured in models are clouds. Water vapour distribution will affect cloud distribution and clouds have a huge impact on climate. Whether clouds are high or low can dramatically affect the radiation budget.

Current models simply don’t have the resolving power to accurately model clouds. There are ways that we simulate clouds in models but we do not have global scale cloud-resolving models yet. In addition, the role of vegetation and land use change in water vapour transfer from the boundary layer to the troposphere is not well understood. It is somewhat difficult to model vegetation as it must be simplified such that plants are lumped into vegetation categories that do not reflect the full extent of plant diversity.

This is again done primarily because large global climate models (GCMs) do not have the resolution to capture small scale ecosystems. But vegetation models actually don’t do too badly when compared to paleoclimate records. Recently, there have been efforts to better understand coupled vegetation-atmosphere systems but there’s not much there yet.

Hope this helps 🙂

Karen

tango @ 03/24/07 10:22:28

Thanks for the post.

Of course agricultural irrigation is not and could not possibly be considered a feedback.

As I’ve mentioned before, the water sequestered in the Ogallala aquifer now being pumped from the ground and evapotranspirated has nothing to do with increasing levels of anthropogenic originated trace gases.

Nor do the over 45,000 large dams worldwide that prevent the 12 cubic kilometers of water from reaching the sea on a daily mean global average and redirect this vast quantity of water to the sky.

I am glad your friend acknowledges the shortcomings of the climate models.

They are many.

I have also sought the opinion of some respected climatologists and the “feedback” I’m receiving is positive and I’m told my approach to this issue is worthy of further investigation and quantification.

When asking these questions do go beyond simply asking the impact of agriculture as they currently understand them and try to frame it in the context that I am presenting so they can more fully understand the implications.

Papers I’ve read recently on the topic of evapotranspiration and H2O forcing vary widely in their reported impacts and all concede further refinement is a necessary.

Glad you’ve entered the dialogue again.

Peace,

GWHunta @ 03/24/07 14:48:35

Hi again GWHunta …and Tango,

I found a few things which make your hypothesis more implausible re land-based anthropic water
vapor being the cause of global warming.

Research has found that evaporation levels over the last 50 years have actually DECREASED in industrial regions, especially in the US and Russia. Interestingly, the researchers think this is a result of global dimming. Further, this has happened in the same period where significant global warming has occurred.

http://www.abc.net.au/science/news/stories/s727003.htm

Also, deforestation has greatly reduced land-based evaporation and this balances-out the volume of water vapor from irrigation.

“Deforestation has decreased global vapor flows from land by 4% (3,000 km3/yr), a decrease that is quantitatively as large as the increased vapor flow caused by irrigation (2,600 km3/yr). “

Gordon L.J. et al, Human modification of global water vapor flows from the land surface, Environmental Sciences, 2005.

http://www.pnas.org/cgi/content/abstract/102/21/7612

I think the above – and other points raised in previous posts – makes land-based water vapor unlikely as the primary source of global warming.

However, it’s not without effect: “Although the net change in global vapor flows is close to zero, the spatial distributions of deforestation and irrigation are different, leading to major regional transformations of vapor-flow patterns.”

Note: “REGIONAL” – not global.

The main source of water vapor globally is from oceans, not land-based:

“Approximately 70-80% of the total global evaporation and precipitation occurs over oceans. Moreover, latent heat release into the atmosphere over the oceans is the major heat source driving global atmospheric circulations, with the moisture transported by these circulations from oceanic to continental regions being the major source of water precipitating over land.”

http://www.crces.org/research_gwc.php

I think the hypothesis that anthropic land-based water vapor is causing global warming has more holes than a Swiss cheese : MYTH BUSTED.

It’s been an interesting ride.

Thanks GWHunta.

pete_moss @ 03/25/07 06:18:07

I think the hypothesis that anthropic land-based water vapor is causing global warming has more holes than a Swiss cheese : MYTH BUSTED.

I think not, pete_moss.

You grossly underestimate the amount of water vapor released by irrigation and the amount of additional evapotranspiration on a global level.

The figures you site (2,600 km3/yr.) account for only roughly 2/3’s of the amount of water that is actually being used for irrigation.

And new dams are being constructed as we speak.

The IPCC reports that continental precipitation has increased and this trend is predicted to continue.

Show me a single study of the major river systems on the globe that reports an increase in mean flow and runoff to the sea.

This can only leave one to conclude that anthropogenic influences such as damming rivers and using this water for irrigation have increased the continental evapotranspiration rate.

What does not flow to the sea is redirected to the sky.

Reduced transpiration due to deforestation doesn’t impact the climate unless it equates to an increase in runoff. So long as this water is either evaporated or transpirated to the atmosphere it is inconsequential whether it came from forest of not.

The more than 45,000 large dams in operation around the world increase the specific heat capacity of the terrestrial surface and the surface of a body of water has one of the lowest albedos of any surface feature.

They also cause fundamental changes in the biochemistry of the rivers impounded.

Calculations for the evapotranspiration from forests are also quite rudimentary, based on assumptions derived from low albedo, incoming solar radiation and the availability of water. Negated is the impact of the thermal mass within a forest system as the tree as opposed to other surface vegetation is heavily invested in its stem or trunk and this thermal mass and undercanopy “sink” is not generally calculated when considering the evapotranspiration from a forested region.

Another serious flaw in the global climate models.

As for fully fleshing out the impact of agricultural irrigation and its total effect on the climate system, there are aspects of my argument yet unheard.

Stay tuned. The “ride” is far from over.

And thanks for your input.

Peace,

GWHunta @ 03/25/07 10:47:30

But you ignore what the author David Herring actually wrote:

“But what makes carbon dioxide so interesting is that the gas absorbs energy in some small segments of the thermal infrared spectrum that water vapor misses. This extra absorption within the atmosphere causes the air to warm just a bit more and the warmer the atmosphere the greater its capacity to hold more water vapor. *This extra water vapor* (*from where?*) then further enhances the Earth’s greenhouse effect, far more even than the small warming forced by the added carbon dioxide.”

But what you and the author apparently fail to understand is that the slight warming effect that this slightly higher concentration of atmospheric CO2 does not increase the amount of water available to be evapotranspirated nor does it contain sufficient energy to fuel this evapotranspiration.

Therein lies the “hole” in this block of cheese.

This slight warming would reduce the relative humidity slightly and cause a slight increase in convection, which would offset the impact of this forcing by taking this energy upwards into the troposphere to be radiated back to space.

Warming the atmosphere only increases the carrying capacity for additional water vapor in real terms if the atmosphere is already at or very near the saturation point.

This is seldom the case, though precipitation is relatively common in most vicinities, air masses that are at H20 saturation are by far the atmospheric exception, not the rule.

The slight increase in the sensible heat of the atmosphere attributable to the incremental increase of atmospheric CO2 does not automatically create an increase in the volume of water vapor available to be carried by the atmosphere and because of the increased convection that would be associated with this forcing it would have a self dampening impact.

However, damming rivers, pumping aquifers and redirecting this water to crops growing on more than 53,000,000 acres of farmland in the U.S. alone certainly does increase the availability of this water vapor to the atmosphere as well as harness the incoming solar energy to fuel the process.

Peace,

GWHunta @ 03/25/07 12:10:33

Oh GWHunta, you just don’t understand hydrology.
This is what you wrote:

“You grossly underestimate the amount of water vapor released by irrigation and the amount of additional evapotranspiration on a global level.
The figures you site (2,600 km3/yr.) account for only roughly 2/3’s of the amount of water that is actually being used for irrigation.”

Don’t you get it?

The reason why the research shows lower evaporation from irrigation than the total amount is because NOT ALL THE WATER USED IN IRRIGATION EVAPORATES BACK INTO ATMOSPHERE.

You just assumed that it did. And there lies your error!

In fact, in regards to irrigation water, up to 84% can go into “deep percolation”. Deep percolation is considered a water loss because it’s beyond the root zone.

http://www1.agric.gov.ab.ca/$department/deptdocs.nsf/all/agdex1339

Further:

“The deep percolation loss was 32% in sorghum, 57% in maize, and 70% in tomato and potato fields.”

http://www.springerlink.com/content/q552×35835v75633/

“More than half the water consumed in rice production is often used to prepare the land – and most of this is lost in the process through percolation and seepage.

Rice is usually grown in clay soil, and alternate soaking and drying produces deep and wide cracks in it. In fields with permeable subsoil, up to 60% of the water applied for soaking flows through these cracks. About 30% of the flow recharges the water table below, while 70% is lost through lateral drainage.”

http://www.irri.org/publications/annual/looming.asp

Come on GWHunta, do some homework! DOUBLE BUSTED!

And this:

“But what makes carbon dioxide so interesting is that the gas absorbs energy in some small segments of the thermal infrared spectrum that water vapor misses. This extra absorption within the atmosphere causes the air to warm just a bit more and the warmer the atmosphere the greater its capacity to hold more water vapor. This extra water vapor (from where?) then further enhances the Earth’s greenhouse effect, far more even than the small warming forced by the added carbon dioxide.”

Hello …The point that David herring makes surely is that the extra water vapor is a result of warming from CO2, which he states. And given that oceans are warming, and that evaporation levels are actually DROPPING over land, then it makes warming oceans the logical source the extra water vapor, and this is what climatologists are saying.

Also Hunter, you are confusing the increase in precipitation over the land with land-based evaporation rates. The two are not the same.

Hunta, you based your hypothesis on a load of erronious assumptions and misunderstandings about the water cycle.

You challenged reality. And reality has bitten back. It’s over.

pete_moss @ 03/26/07 05:54:00

Nice work Pete. Good to have you here.

Szamko @ 03/26/07 08:13:20

Nice work Pete. Good to have you here.

Go ahead and crow, good to hear from you again as well.

How about some reality. First off, go back to the blog from which the thread originates and view the first link.

I’ll make it easy for you. Link

That’s an anthropogenic water vapor factory. That is more water vapor than the .007% of CO2’s additional warming could possibly contribute to the atmosphere.

The reality is, you don’t understand the hydrological cycle.

There isn’t enough energy or “heat” if you choose in all the atmosphere to fuel a significant increase in evaporation, let alone the “slightly warmer atmosphere due to increased CO2.”

The specific heat of the atmosphere is far too low and that is not how the water cycle works in the real world.

Set a pan of water in the full sun and another in the shade. The air temperature will be close to same over both pans, but you know which will evaporate first.

CO2 driven atmospheric warming will in theory cause the atmosphere to become warmer, capturing the long wave infrared leaving the earth contributing to a warmer overall global average temperature and a warmer climate.

The oceans will moderate this impact for a time as they have a far greater capacity for heat than the atmosphere. This is called lag.

Until an equilibrium is reached with the impact of the additional CO2 in the net atmospheric evaporation from the oceans would be somewhat reduced, because of an increased average temperature differential between the oceans and the atmosphere.

Need an example. Two consecutive Saturdays in the same vicinity of Lake Superior the largest fresh water body of water in the world (by area, not volume).

This was 03/17/07, St. Patrick’s Day. I took this photo to document the lack of ice cover on this greatest of lakes and the early arrival of this ore boat to Marquette harbor.

Notice it is a clear day. Full sun. You can literally see the “steam” rise on the horizon and the entire lake surface is obscured from above by a low cloud cover once you are a few miles offshore. This is evaporation fueled by the relative warmth of the near freezing water on a clear day with temperatures in the upper 20’s F.

The sun is having little impact offshore due to the cloud cover. But near shore, the sun and the relative warmth of the water is fueling the evaporation that is creating the blanket of cloud cover. On shore it is clear.

This second picture was taken last Saturday 03/24/07 and was for the purpose of documenting the exact opposite effect.

Onshore it was in the mid-50’s F and clear with full sun. No wind whatsoever once you were a mile or two inland.

Near shore it was a cool breeze coming in from off the lake. You can see the surface wind shadow from the turbulence created by the small ice covered island.

Notice the layer of fog over the horizon. The lake is now relatively much cooler than the atmosphere and convection is reversed, the air falling over the water and rising onshore.

As the air moves over the water it is giving up some of its heat to the lake slightly warming the surface, but as this happens the water vapor within the air mass begins to condense and you see this layer of fog over the water.

There is no net evaporation taking place even with full sun under these conditions, the lake is actually picking up not just additional energy, but moisture as well from the atmosphere.

Until the oceans reach an equilibrium with the net forcing impact any additional increase in atmospheric temperature that increased CO2 contributes, this warmer atmosphere will not carry additional water vapor due to this increase in atmospheric warmth.

That is the reality of ocean lag.

This is not the case over land which heats up more under full sun and cools off again relatively quicker because of the lower specific heat of most surfaces as compared to a body of open water.

Vegetative cover by virtue of evapotranspiration significantly alters this equation especially irrigated crops in a desert environment.

Agricultural irrigation in what used to be a dry desert, the lowest annual precipitation in North America, so over watered that the excess water maintains a 376 sq. mile man made salt water lake in what used to be a sometimes muddy sinkhole similar to Death Valley, fuels more evapotranspiration and additional water vapor that any “slight increase in atmospheric temperature” caused by CO2.

These are just a few million of the over 53,000,000 acres in the continental U.S. alone.

That’s reality.

Peace,

GWHunta @ 03/26/07 12:49:20

Humph.

I was just saying hello.

Szamko @ 03/26/07 12:58:38

No negative intent Szamko.

Just haven’t heard from you for a bit and the nice work isn’t the flavor of most of the feedback I’ve been receiving.

I’m glad pete_moss is posting as well.

I do enough monologue. I’m also a bit testy for personal reasons outside of the GNN circle .

I’d hope to have a comprehensive article pieced together at this point in time, but am besieged with a law suit and the complexity of dealing with that, though it is of my own initiation.

Nonetheless, please forgive any trespass I’ve made on your intent.

Peace,

GWHunta @ 03/26/07 13:30:08

“the nice work isn’t the flavor of most of the feedback I’ve been receiving.”

I wonder why that is.

athena @ 03/27/07 00:01:21

“Increased water vapor and latent heat are the anthropogenic cause of climate change, not the increase of atmospheric CO2 concentrations from .0300% to .0380% of total volume.

This .0080% increase in atmospheric CO2 couldn’t possibly account for a nearly 2% increase of the earth’s natural “greenhouse” effect.”

An increase of CO2 from .0300% to .0380% is a 26% increase not a .008% increase

Disenchanted @ 03/27/07 07:03:38

I wonder why that is.

Trace Gas Hysteria?

An increase of CO2 from .0300% to .0380% is a 26% increase not a .008% increase

Not in total atmospheric volume and that is made abundantly clear.

.0380% – .0300% = .008% of total volume

The actual figures are .0383 for 2007 and .0313 for 1960 the increase for the past 57 years has been.

.007% of total atmospheric volume.

For practical purposes nearly insignificant.

The increase in agricultural irrigation and dam building in the past 50 years has been exponential and the increase in water vapor and its impact on climate forcing is far greater than this relatively minor incremental increase in atmospheric CO2.

Does the example I point out, the Colorado River, as being almost entirely redirected from the sea to the sky and the vision of hundreds of square miles of vegetative solar panels and a man made inland sea redirecting millions of cubic meters of water in the form of water vapor into the sky 24/7/365 elude you.

How could this not impact the climate?

Water vapor is the principal GHG.

Peace,

GWHunta @ 03/27/07 10:48:41

Insignificant in increasing atmospheric volume/mass perhaps, but as oxygen and nitrogen have little or no greenhouse effect, an increase of over 20% in a gas which has a significant greenhouse effect is relevant.

Disenchanted @ 03/27/07 10:59:52

It is worthy of consideration and investigation. Certainly relevant.

That said, water vapor almost entirely negates or masks the impact of CO2 because it is a far great percentage of the troposphere. In all but a few very narrow frequencies the H20 and CO2 molecules have identical impacts as green house gases.

Regarding the whole realm of latent heat which is the primary greenhouse effect, this is all water and water vapor.

40 PW of energy absorbed and released daily.

That is over half of the energy of the sun that reaches the surface of the earth. This capture and release of energy is the principal mechanism of the greenhouse effect and we have significantly altered it.

Although the damming of rivers and redirection of this water to the sky via irrigation only directly accounts for about .8% of this total volume, that alone is tremendously significant.

The impact of reduced runoff of other soil and water conservation efforts related to agricultural practices also make a significant contribution to our alteration of the water cycle.

When water vapor is formed and absorbed by the atmosphere it somewhat reduces the density of the air mass because the H2O molecule has a lower molecular weight (18) than does air (28.6)

The air mass becomes more buoyant because of the additional vapor.

This latent energy then becomes disbursed widely throughout the atmosphere increasing the total greenhouse effect because atmospheric H20 is a potent and increasingly abundant GHG.

Water vapor is the principal GHG.

It is also the only one that absorbs, stores and redistributes the sun’s energy throughout the biosphere via phase changes from solid to liquid to vapor and vice versa.

(And then there’s sublimation and deposition.)

Anthropogenic climate change and global warming is due primarily to our alteration of the hydrological cycle, not the relatively minor anthropogenic increase of atmospheric CO2.

More on this soon.

Peace,

GWHunta @ 03/27/07 11:41:02

Hunta, you failed to mention that evaporation actually COOLS the air, not heats it up. In fact, it’s called evaporative cooling, and it’s not insignificant.

The more water vapor in the atmosphere, the lower the evaporation rate. Hence a dry desert air will have greater evaporation potential, so irrigation in a desert REDUCES temperature.

Hence researchers found in California:
“…..irrigation causes the mean temperature in summer months to drop, even as greenhouse gas emissions drive temperatures upward.”

“It gives a false sense of security,” Kueppers said, “because the irrigation makes it really difficult to assess the effects of greenhouse gases.”

Kueppers and her colleagues used a computer model to look at California, which essentially became a look at the Central Valley, the state’s largest irrigated area.

Their model indicates that August’s mean temperature in irrigated areas has dropped by about 6.5 degrees Fahrenheit, while greenhouse gas emissions are expected to warm the Earth about the same amount.

http://www.ucmerced.edu/news_articles/02082007_professor_s_research_shows.asp

Water vapor in the atmosphere is complicated. It can either cool or heat, depending on the situation. It is not simply a greenhouse gas, although it is the major greenhouse gas. Water is a coolant as well.

Also, you are exaggerating regional effects. The research papers that I cited in previous posts have done the sums, AND LAND BASED WATER VAPOR HAS DECREASED.

You can theorize has much as you like, but these people have done the work, and written the paper.

Gordon L.J. et al, Human modification of global water vapor flows from the land surface, Environmental Sciences, 2005.

http://www.pnas.org/cgi/content/abstract/102/21/7612

The global map on this link shows the way that land-based water vapor gas has redistributed:

http://www.scidev.net/News/index.cfm?fuseaction=readNews&itemid=2083&language=1

Further, on land based water vapor emissions:

“The researchers found that, worldwide, deforestation has DECREASED the evaporation of water by four per cent.”

Come clean – it’s busted!

pete_moss @ 03/30/07 12:16:54

I’ve been all over the ICE effect and am entirely familiar with the concept of latent heat of vaporization as opposed to an increase in sensible heat.

On a global basis there is no ICE effect. The “cooling” of California turns up as “heat” somewhere else where the atmosphere or surface is cool enough to allow precipitation and or direct condensation or deposition on the surface.

As for less vapor from forests, that would make sense in light of deforestation.

But you cannot tell be that precipitation is down, for it is not. Run off has been reduced by the building of some 45,000 large dams worldwide. More land is currently in agricultural production than ever before and that which is in production is being farmed more intensely.

Irrigation has seen exponential growth and this will continue for the foreseeable future, if steps aren’t taken to mitigate and correct these land use problems the climate will continue to heat up because of this.

I don’t know what’s up with the I’m busted again and again. I’m not up to anything and for every study you can site, I can raise you two that say land use is a first order contributor to climate change and warming and that CO2 though admittedly is being impacted by anthropogenic influence is a bit player in the larger scheme of things and that without mitigation of the land use issues carbon credits, taxes and sequestration schemes are not going to alter the warming.

It is simple pete_moss.

If the rain is falling on the continents and is prevented from running back to the sea and is instead used to soak the dry deserts and semi arid plains around the globe, there is going to be more water vapor in the sky than there would have been otherwise and more water vapor in the atmosphere means more greenhouse effect. It also means the specific heat capacity of these millions upon millions or irrigated acres is going to be higher because of the increased water content as well as the reservoirs themselves. If the land holds more heat, which it does if its wet, this also serves to “trap” more heat and warm the surface.

If you think that reducing run off and increasing latent heat and water vapor in the atmosphere doesn’t result in warming, your all wet.

The scientists in your article are saying that increased agricultural irrigation and deforestation have roughly balanced each other out. I’m saying that’s not the case for the way evapotranspiration is estimated over forested regions is faulty and overestimates the amount of water vapor released. The efficiencies of a forest canopy are not factored in to account for the thermal mass of the trees and underlying soil. Most of the additional run off created by deforestation is simply surface water that is captured elsewhere and put to use for agricultural purposes downstream.

Globally, continental run off is down. Most of the major rivers are impounded as are the tributaries that feed them. More water held and used on the continents can only mean increased evapotranspiration. There are tens of thousands of large dams where there were none 50 years ago.

Last line of your article.

She underlines the need to start analyzing the role of water vapor flows in the global climate. ‘We need to see how big an effect this can have on a global scale,’ she says.

*Human activity changes global water vapour patterns*

Hello.

Peace,

GWHunta @ 03/30/07 13:26:15

Great discussion. Thanks all. This is what I had been hoping for.

GW: What’s been busted is the weakest part of your case, i.e. that Al Gore is knowingly misleading the public about CO2. Apparently he comes by his information honestly, whether erroneous or not.

Chickenma1 @ 03/30/07 15:56:00

Hunta said:

“But you cannot tell be that precipitation is down, for it is not. Run off has been reduced by the building of some 48,000 large dams worldwide. More land is currently in agricultural production than ever before and that which is in production is being farmed more intensely.”

Hunta, you’ve done it again. You’ve confused precipitation with evaporation.

But if you mean “evaporation”, well it’s the researchers who are saying that via their studies.

If you want to dispute that, show us the research that supports your argument. You say you have the reputable papers. Cite them – I’m evidence based.

Also, no researchers are disputing that land-based water vapor causes regional changes – but the serious issue appears to be from decreased evaporation.

“The resulting DECREASE in evaporation from the region [sub-Sahara Africa], say the authors, will affect atmospheric conditions and could create a ‘ring’ of highly modified vapour flows around the Indian Ocean, a key component of the Asian monsoon, which, in turn, is key to crop yields in Asia.”

But again, the emphasis is on DECREASE not increase in water vapor. This is a big worry.

But it’s certainly the opposite direction of your argument. But never-the-less, a concern.

In fact, when one looks at the global map on water vapor changes from human activity due to deforestation and irrigation, the distribution of change appears to be strongly towards a greater AREA of lower evaporation – in-line with widespread deforestation.

As far as the core of your argument that land-based irrigation causes global warming. It’s dead in the water, because the underlying research doesn’t support it.

Further, the Southern Oceans, Central Pacific, and North Atlantic are a long way from land. And the short residency of water vapor is not a tenable source for warming there, where-as CO2 has the long residency.

The Southern Oceans, which are warming, are especially a long way from irrigated zones, and tends to have it’s own climatic system – the Circum-polar Wave.

Besides, the required volume of land-based water vapor is simply not there.

Come on Hunta – time to walk the talk. Cite those papers that support your claim that land-based water vapor has increased globally.

pete_moss @ 03/30/07 18:50:51

As for the North Atlantic, the Gulf Stream is but 70 to 100 miles wide and runs just off the East Coast of the United States. Weather systems here generally run west to east. If the air mass coming off the East Coast is warmed and more humid because of first the agricultural irrigation of the desert Southwest, then irrigation across the Plains and then the heavily precipitated on farmland in-between and finally more even more agricultural land on the East Coast itself then this drastically alters the situation regarding the Gulf Stream being able to dissipate its heat as it travels northward along the North American East Coast.

The further this heat is carried northward, the more impact iit is going to have on warming the North Atlantic, the Arctic and of course Northern Europe.

That’s how regional climate change gains global reach.

Precipitation is up. Run off is down. What does not flow to the sea, is redirected to the sky.

Here’s another little land based regional climate tidbit.

Continental water vapor related.

Warm winter here in North America. Had some brutal cold, but nothing out of the ordinary. Winter began in earnest way late and spring for the most part has already sprung. 80’s in Chicago last weekend.

I’m sure agriculture and agricultural irrigation has local, regional and global impacts. You’re not.

Here’s a climate feedback for you. North America has inland seas. No salt water but seas just the same.

I live on the southernmost shore of the very greatest of the great lakes. I’ve pointed out some of the pictures I’ve taken recently above.

I took some more this evening. Barely had ice cover on the Great Lakes this winter. You know what that means? Evaporation. More global water vapor.

Lots of it. The impact I described above in the previous post regarding air temperature vs water temperature and how evaporation is impacted.

Had a lot of cold air, warmer water days this winter.

Open water and winds drive currents and currents mean the water continues to mix.

The mixing means that more heat leaves the lake. In the form of latent heat.

This stored sensible heat fuels evaporation.

Lots of it. Sight this.

Lake Superior water levels are as low as I’ve ever witnessed them. It’s a bit upsetting actually. How many cubic meters of water do think has gone missing here?

This first picture is of the Sand Point boat launch. The front wheels of that pickup would have at the waters edge late last summer. Jet skis and small boats were driven up to load onto trailers.

I’m out 75 to 80 yards to take this picture and didn’t get my shoes wet. Should’ve needed hip boots.

These rails used to be used to haul the Pictured Rocks Cruise Boats.

GWHunta @ 03/30/07 22:10:33

What’s been busted is the weakest part of your case, i.e. that Al Gore is knowingly misleading the public about CO2. Apparently he comes by his information honestly, whether erroneous or not.

“Big Al” pass a lie detector test here recently of what? We’re all just a little too grown up here to be caught up debating the integrity of politicians.

If you can buy into Al Gore’s sincerity and it leaves you warm and fuzzy that’s good for you. George and Al truly still make me want to Ralph. Works for me.

Maybe I know better, maybe not. I don’t usually present an argument unless I’m conviced in the end I’ll win it. I ocasionally learn a thing or two along the way and don’t presume infallibility by any means, but I’m rarely flat out wrong.

I think Gore’s a player, you think he’s sincere.

Carbon credits and CO2 neutrality? I knwo you’re too smart for that. Everbody can’t be carbon neutral in an economy that still uses carbon. Gore can’t use carbon and be neutral unless there are a lot of folks buying up his “green” investments.

Kind of a pyramid scheme.

If it won’t work for everybody, then everybody simply needs to ease up.

“Big Al” can fly commercial and turn his lights off when he goes out the door. Turn the pool down a few degrees and take a shorter swim. Telecommute instead of globetrot.

I like John Edwards even less since I heard about the estate he’s running. Maybe I’m a reverse snob, but I don’t want to hear about cutting back from people with 28,000 square feet of heated and air conditioned living space.

I don’t care how honest you came by it, it’s not fair to the rest of us to run through it like that whether you can foot the bill or not.

George Bush’s ranch in Texas is a better model of modesty and efficiency than the homes of Gore or Edwards. That’s scary.

GWHunta @ 03/30/07 23:23:15

Back to the Big Lake.

How far down is she?

Well where I went to bathe last summer and was up to my uh navel, yeah that’s it my navel, was today ankle deep.

Hows that figure into the “decreased” water vapor off the continents?

551 billion gallons per inch.

82,414 km² that’s the surface area of this big lake.

Bigger than South Carolina.

12,100 cubic kilometers volume. (last fall anyway)

That’s enough water to provide about 3 years worth of agricultural irrigation water.

Or cover the land mass of North and South America with a foot of water.

More on evaporation from the lakes without ice.

Sometimes no Peace.

GWHunta @ 03/30/07 23:57:00

Low water economic impact?

GWHunta @ 03/31/07 00:33:07

This apparatus was placed to allow the refilling of fire trucks directly from the lake and was designed to lie under about three feet under the surface of the lake.

The level is now the lowest since 1926 and still dropping for quite possibly a new all time low since men have intervened to control the levels of the Great Lakes.

Excess evaporation due to last summers additional warming and the relatively mild and late coming of winter and the near total lack of ice cover has dropped the lake by tens of trillions of gallons and released quadrillions of BTU’s to the global environment in form of latent heat and the principal and most influential of all GHG’s.

Water vapor.

How’s that for a “feedback effect.”

Peace,

GWHunta @ 03/31/07 22:59:25

This thread turned interesting. Pete, stick around, boyo.

Snark @ 04/01/07 17:23:08

Thanks Snark. Hoped to hear more after your extended absence, but I’m about to go on hiatus as well so it has been fun.

Peace,

GWHunta @ 04/01/07 18:24:32

You too pete_moss.

Read: Damming Evidence of Anthropogenic Climate Change

Maybe we’ll find we’re in agreement on something, “trace gas hysteria” or not.

Sometimes no Peace.

GWHunta @ 04/01/07 18:44:10

Hoped to hear more after your extended absence

Didn’t have a lot of GNN time today…getting caught up after a week incommunicado in a slot canyon is a bitch.

Snark @ 04/01/07 21:33:47

Getting caught up sounds tough. A week incommunicado might be just the ticket.

Thanks for dropping by.

Peace,

GWHunta @ 04/01/07 23:10:08

“Big Al” Gore “Nobel” Prize Bump.

Environmentalism FUBAR!

Sometimes no Peace

GWHunta @ 10/15/07 13:36:46

This just in:

Antarctica’s interior has been shielded from the global warming pattern because of the ozone hole above the continent. Two new studies reveal that climate change and ozone depletion are closely tied.

Poppycock.

Antarctica has been shielded from the impacts of anthropogenic climate warming because it is the least involved in the planet’s hydrological cycle, though it stores a vast quantity of water in the form of ice.

Most of Antarctica is without a doubt the driest continent on the planet, which is why it is so cold.

That’s why the “ozone hole” is where it’s at.

The Antarctic weather patterns and atmospheric circulation of the Southern Hemisphere prevents ozone from entering the region as fast as it is depleted during the dark months. Ozone is formed by incoming solar. That’s the reason the “hole” expands and contracts, a lot like the global carbon cycle, with the seasons.

Peace,

GWHunta @ 04/25/08 09:12:02

Humans tied to wetter Arctic

Meanwhile, in a separate paper in Science, researchers said human activities are at least partly responsible for the Arctic having become a wetter place over the last half century.

Seung-Ki Min of Environment Canada, and colleagues, studied rain and snowfall patterns in the arctic and the factors affecting them.

They concluded that human-induced greenhouse gases have contributed to the increased precipitation rates observed in the Arctic region over the past 60 years.

They warned that this “Arctic moistening” could occur more quickly than current climate simulations indicate.

Their work was supported by the U.S. Department of Energy and the Canadian International Polar Year Program.

You might utilize the explanation in this blog and thread instead.

Peace,

It’s a far better fit for the facts.

GWHunta @ 04/25/08 13:03:34

A ———- 1?

GWHunta @ 06/29/09 06:29:51

So is water floating out into space? No. Its either sunk under the soil sitting in subterranean basins and/or its shifted to other areas. Just like the Sahara was once a green plain and someplace like Greenland, now ice, was once green.

Energy isnt destroyed, only transferred. What they wont show in the news are the newly inhabitable areas that climate change is revealing. To share this information is to share economic power because land is the basis of wealth.

COS @ 06/29/09 15:04:59

COS,

My point in this blog and thread is to reveal the primary anthropogenic impact upon both the global climate and biosphere in general.

The IPCC, Al Gore et al and the global MSM would have us believe the primary, to the point of being the sole anthropogenic impact on climate, is rising atmospheric CO2 levels caused by the combustion of fossil fuels.

They ignore the fact that human beings have radically altered the planet’s natural hydrological cycle by virtue of land use change, water and soil conservation measures and most importantly the damming of rivers and diversion of these man made reservoirs for agricultural irrigation.

The damming of major river systems for flood control/navigation/irrigation purposes robs the sea of minerals and nutrients formerly carried to river deltas and coastal areas and is a principal factor in altering the ocean’s ability to process and sequester atmospheric CO2.

An excellent case in point would be the once mighty Colorado river, most of which now never even reaches the sea, but is diverted back to the atmosphere after irrigating millions of acres of land formerly too arid for agriculture.

Human agricultural activities have a far greater impact upon biodiversity, environmental degradation and our global climate than does the burning of fossil fuels.

Peace,

GWHunta @ 06/29/09 21:58:56

The difference is immediately obvious.

The trace gas hysterics, oblivious.

Sometimes no Peace

GWHunta @ 06/29/09 22:07:53

“To be truly radical is to make hope possible, rather than despair convincing.”
~ Raymond Williams

So…….

DON’T Do Something To Save The Planet

GWHunta @ 07/17/09 23:00:49
GWHunta @ 07/28/09 06:35:10

Natural gas combustion.

When we say that methane is combustible, it means that it is possible to burn it.

Chemically, this process consists of a reaction between methane and oxygen. When this reaction takes place, the result is carbon dioxide (CO2), water (H2O), and a great deal of energy. Chemists would write the following to represent the combustion of methane:

CH4[g] + 2 O2[g] -> CO2[g] + 2 H2O[l] + 891 kJ

That is, one molecule of methane (the [g] referred to above means it is gaseous form) combined with two oxygen atoms, react to form a carbon dioxide molecule, two water molecules (the [l] above means that the water molecules are in liquid form, although it is usually evaporated during the reaction to give off steam) and 891 kilajoules (kJ) of energy.

GWHunta @ 10/26/09 00:55:19

The complete combustion of fossil fuel using air as the oxygen source is summarized in the following chemical reaction, assuming the nitrogen remains inert:

where stoichiometric coefficients x and y depend on the fuel type. A simple word equation for this chemical reaction is:

GWHunta @ 10/26/09 01:10:45

Flue gas emissions from fossil fuel combustion refers to the combustion product gas resulting from the burning of fossil fuels [1]. Most fossil fuels are combusted with ambient air (as differentiated from combustion with pure oxygen). Since ambient air contains about 79 volume percent gaseous nitrogen (N2)[2], which is essentially non-combustible, the largest part of the flue gas from most fossil fuel combustion is uncombusted nitrogen. The next largest part of the flue gas is carbon dioxide (CO2) which can be as much as 10 to 15 volume percent or more of the flue gas. This is closely followed in volume by water vapor (H2O) created by the combustion of the hydrogen in the fuel with atmospheric oxygen. Much of the ‘smoke’ seen pouring from flue gas stacks is this water vapor forming a cloud as it contacts cool air.

GWHunta @ 10/26/09 01:21:06

“There is a certain sense of complacency that water vapor feedback is understood. And that comes from the fact that a lot of these global climate models agree with each other,” Folkins observes. But just because they agree, doesn’t mean they are all right.

GWHunta @ 10/26/09 01:54:59

Rhone Glacier, online at March 15,2004

from Will Runaway Water Warm the World?

“Specifically, the team found that if Earth warms 1.8 degrees Fahrenheit, the associated increase in water vapor will trap an extra 2 Watts of energy per square meter (about 11 square feet).

“That number may not sound like much, but add up all of that energy over the entire Earth surface and you find that water vapor is trapping a lot of energy,” Dessler said. “We now think the water vapor feedback is extraordinarily strong, capable of doubling the warming due to carbon dioxide alone.”

mancer @ 10/26/09 02:10:15

Rhone Glacier, online at July 30, 2006

mancer @ 10/26/09 02:13:00

Anthropogenic water vapor is the primary factor in anthropogenic global warming, not CO2 emissions.

Peace,

GWHunta @ 10/26/09 02:20:28

i just wanted to add one more pic .. not meaning to detract from your thread.

Rhone Glacier, 1850 (apparently). Glacier du Rhône vers 1850

mancer @ 10/26/09 02:25:48

No problem. No distraction. I’m no CCD’er, I’m a GW realist.

Peace,

GWHunta @ 10/26/09 02:27:52
Advertisements

3 Responses to Five Quick Links to Understanding Anthropogenic Climate Change

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s