Water World

Posted: May 23, 2015 by oldbrew in climate, Clouds, Emissions, radiative theory
Tags: , ,

Let’s put this up for discussion as the dominant role of WV often gets buried in all the focus on man-made carbon dioxide emissions.

Musings from the Chiefio

This posting just points to a very well done page that calculates the relative contributions to the greenhouse effect as used by the AGW thesis, by various gasses. In particular, it includes water vapor. The result is a conclusion that human caused CO2 is not relevant to global temperature. Something I have said before, but without the nice graphs and calculations.

It really is all about the water on our water world.


Water Vapor Rules the Greenhouse System

Just how much of the “Greenhouse Effect” is caused by human activity?

It is about 0.28%, if water vapor is taken into account– about 5.53%, if not.

This point is so crucial to the debate over global warming that how water vapor is or isn’t factored into an analysis of Earth’s greenhouse gases makes the difference between describing a significant human contribution to the greenhouse effect, or a negligible one.


View original post 2 more words

  1. Robin Heath says:


    Fred Hoyle cites WV as the main cause of any greenhouse effect in many of his popular books, written in the 1950s.

    Best wishes

    Robin Heath



  2. oldbrew says:

    Thanks To The IPCC, the Public Doesn’t Know Water Vapor Is Most Important Greenhouse Gas
    by Dr. Tim Ball (Guest Blogger / February 8, 2015)


  3. Oldbrew- worth discussing see my comment at the the Chiefio’s post https://chiefio.wordpress.com/2015/05/23/water-world/.
    water makes up roughly 70% of the earths surface and is the most important factor in energy absorption from the sun, Evaporation (heat & mass transfer) is the most important factor for energy transfer to the atmosphere. Then water vapor, precipitation, water droplets in clouds and ice particles in clouds are the controlling factors for climate around the world and climate changes.
    Those who ignore water and water vapor have no clues about the engineering subject of heat and mass transfer.

  4. oldbrew says:

    ‘temperature determines the maximum amount of water vapor that can exist in the air. The higher the temperature, the greater the potential percentages of water vapor in the air’


  5. catweazle666 says:

    Water Vapor Rules the Greenhouse System

    Go to a desert – say, the Sahara – where there is very low atmospheric water vapour.

    Watch the thermometer and determine how rapidly it goes down when the Sun sets.

    Now go and carry out the same observation at the same latitude in a rain forest where there is a similar atmospheric carbon dioxide concentration but a much higher water vapour concentration.

    What does the comparison of the two rates of change tell us about the thermal properties of atmospheric water vapour versus atmospheric carbon dioxide?

    Why are there people out there claiming to be scientists who are unable to understand the implications of that?

  6. Ron Clutz says:

    Enter the Blob:
    “The ocean circulation – that is, the currents – and the weather during the past year, which was unusual in its own right, combined to cause the blob to evolve into a wide strip of relatively warm water along the entire West Coast of North America.”

  7. oldbrew says:

    catweazle: I don’t like the word ‘trap’ in relation to gases but apart from that [re deserts]…

    ‘A somewhat less known fact about deserts is that the temperature swings from the high temperature to the low temperature are often extreme. The dry conditions that help contribute to high afternoon temperatures also contributes to cold overnight lows. Once the sun goes down, there is a relative lack of moisture in the air to trap outgoing long wave radiation. Thus, the ground cools rapidly. The clear skies, light wind and dry air helps the air temperature cool off significantly at night. Unbearable heat during the day can turn into unbearable chill at night.’


    No mention of (lack of) CO2😎

  8. craigm350 says:

    Put yourself in the sandals of the Roman legionnaires: marching all day across the hot sands of the Sahara Desert, with nothing but warm camel’s milk to slake their thirst. What’s a centurion to do when he gets a hankering for an iced frappuccino? How about making ice in the desert? Here’s how it might have actually happened:

    According to some historians, the Romans dug a broad, deep hole in the desert sand, and placed a broad container (like a bronze shield) in the bottom, filling it with water. At night, the water was left exposed to the clear skies, and cooled significantly due to radiational heat release. At the end of the night, the water was covered and then insulated with a deep bed of straw, which kept it cool through the hot day. At night, it was uncovered and the process continued, with the water cooling a little more each night than it warmed each day until it froze, putting a camel’s milk smoothie on the menu.

    While there is some disagreement as to whether this actually happened, it is certainly possible in theory.


  9. craigm350 says:

    OB – I’ve not been near the stuff lol


    The Egyptians also developed methods to cool beverages, but in lieu of using ice to cool water, the Egyptians cooled water by putting boiling water in shallow earthen jars and placing them on the roofs of their houses at night. Slaves would moisten the outside of the jars and the resulting evaporation would cool the water. The ancient people of India used this same concept to produce ice. The Persians stored ice in a pit called aYakhchal and may have been the first group of people to use cold storage to preserve food. In the Australian outback before a reliable electricity supply was available where the weather could be hot and dry, many farmers used a “Coolgardie safe”. This consisted of a room with hessian “curtains” hanging from the ceiling soaked in water. The water would evaporate and thereby cool the hessian curtains and thereby the air circulating in the room. This would allow many perishables such as fruit butter and cured meats to be kept that would normally spoil in the heat.[2][3] http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Refrigeration

    Yeah know it wiki

  10. Zeke says:

    I know our co2 emissions get washed out of the air by rain very frequently where I live. This is how some types of caves are theoretically formed.

    In the desert, the co2 has no water vapor to supposedly magnify its effects, so it cannot do any work there either.

    Plants emit co2 at night.

    Plant materials emit methane in the variable UV light from the sun.

    These are all natural cycles that NASA is trying to use to frighten people.

  11. tom0mason says:

    So it’s not the CO2 from burning fossil fuels, it all the extra water liberated from fossil fuels when they’re burned,, ….er no, I didn’t mean…oh!

  12. oldbrew says:

    IIRC the theory is the extra CO2 will create more ‘heat’ which in turn will cause more evaporation = more water vapour.

    Well they would say that wouldn’t they? But in the real world we don’t see that, hence the so-called ‘missing heat’ – because their models say so blah blah…

  13. Kristian says:

    oldbrew says, May 23, 2015 at 1:47 pm:

    “Thanks To The IPCC, the Public Doesn’t Know Water Vapor Is Most Important Greenhouse Gas
    by Dr. Tim Ball (Guest Blogger / February 8, 2015)”

    What is a “greenhouse gas”?

    [reply] anything you want it to be😉

  14. kuhnkat says:

    Oh my, The mammaries!!! Back in about 2006 when I was first getting into the climate debate I remember doing searches and finding this page. I was told by the alarmists that it was fake!!!!

    I hammered them with it anyway because the science was verifiable standard.

  15. kuhnkat says:

    Actually Oldbrew, what you never hear them talk about anymore is that the real problem would be from the reduced radiation from the alleged decrease in average radiating temperature due to the increase in average radiating height. This was all a package with the Hot Spot that has been MIA all along!! The water vapor feedback was based on the shonky set of physics “facts” from the models which caused the Hot Spot. No hot spot and there is no problem.

    What very few people noticed was that they got the models to do this by dumping in a doubled amount of CO2 and off they would go. The model runs they show us now apparently can’t replicate that disaster as there is time for the additions to equilibrate and there is no buildup to the hot spot. Of course, there were probably other issues with the catastrophy scenario, but, they never talk about them anymore!! It is just vague problems and maybe this or that but no actual hard facts to dispute.

    It has become a zombie that cannot be killed.

    [reply] as in: http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/quotes/h/hlmencke101109.html

  16. gbaikie says:

    So I guess the assumption is greenhouse effect increases average global temperature by 33 K.
    So H20 gas if 95% would adding 31.35 C and 400 ppm of CO2 adds 3.618% or about 1.2 C.

    Now have number problems with this idea.
    I don’t think H20 gas adds 31.35 C.
    And tend to think water droplets and ocean water adds a significant amount to greenhouse effect.

    Let’s start by looking at world without any greenhouse effect gases.

    So Earth has instead an atmosphere of nitrogen [1 atm]. In this world one get more direct sunlight
    as compared to our world as there would be chunk of solar spectrum which H2O removes as
    seen here::

    So the N2 only world would have more direct sunlight.
    The tropics of our world receives most of the sunlight.
    Therefore whatever the average temperature of Earth had, the tropics would the warmer region
    of the planet.
    If assume this planet had a average temperature of -18 C, then one colder average temperature of temperate zones as compared to tropics and coldest region would polar region.
    Or sun does shine on the pole for 1/2 the year- and that would make it cold on average, whereas
    Sun remains high in the sky at noon in the tropics- it’s constantly like summer in the tropics. Whereas outside the tropics one has about 4 months of a year which is similar to summer conditions.
    So average temperature on N2 only world would warmer in tropical zone and tropical zone is about 40% of entire surface. And if extend the tropical zone from 23 degrees north and south, to say 35 degree north and south, then about 1/2 the surface area of the world is in this zone and somewhere around 80 to 90% of all sunlight falls within this 1/2 of the world. Or this half of the world is warmer then two poleward region of the world. Or there not much of winter conditions at 35 degree latitudes. Now this regions around 35 latitudes would get cold because cool air flow from the poleward region. Or we have not eliminated weather effects. And deserts with your greenhouse effect does get temperatures below freezing at night. So one would same or colder nights, particularly near their winter season.
    And it’s possible that even at equator one has night which get at or near freezing, but one could expect because it’s getting more direct sunlight [than earth] the idea of an air temperature at freezing during the day is not possible. Instead the ground temperature could be over 70 C during the day and air temperatures 40 to 50 C.
    So in this tropical part of world one could expect an average temperature of about 10 C. And for average global temperature to be -18 C, this means the other half of the world has average temperature of -28 C.
    And Antarctica has average temperature of -50 C and everyone knows it’s being warmed by greenhouse effect, it’s not hard imagine that polar region not warmed by a greenhouse effect [and warm ocean currents] in the N2 only world to be colder.
    And a polar region is only about 5% of earth surface. But it’s 10% of half of the world and both poles would be 20% of this other half of the world. So having this part of the world having average temperature -28 C or colder is not unreasonable. On Earth with the greenhouse effect that part of world is on average below freezing. Or Canada or Russia are at or below freezing in terms of their average temperature.

    So in our world, everyone knows that the tropics warms the rest of the world and this is related to greenhouse effect. And in world without a greenhouse effect, the tropics does not warm the rest of the world as much [not anywhere near as much].

    And we know that ocean currents warm earth poles [and Europe]. And can’t have an ocean on our n2 only world as results in water vapor. Also what is fairly well known is the clouds prevent temperatures reaching below freezing in winter temperate zones.
    So ocean is liquid water, and clouds are condensation and droplets of water which are not greenhouse gases.

  17. oldbrew says:

    gbaikie says: ‘If assume this planet had a average temperature of -18 C’

    Then there would be ice nearly everywhere and the albedo would be a lot higher than it is today. Plus a lot of the vegetation would have been buried under the ice and/or died off in the cold.

  18. gbaikie says:

    –gbaikie says: ‘If assume this planet had a average temperature of -18 C’

    Then there would be ice nearly everywhere and the albedo would be a lot higher than it is today. Plus a lot of the vegetation would have been buried under the ice and/or died off in the cold.—

    Well as I explained, 1/2 the world would not be below freezing on average. But order to not have have greenhouse gas there can’t be any water or ice on the planet, and with no CO2, plants could not survive regardless of the temperature. Or anything below 150 ppm of CO2 would kill all plants and therefore all animals. Microbes could exist, if there was some water somewhere but they would also make methane- another greenhouse gas.
    But the low levels of CO2 on Earth [400 parts per million] is marker that there is life on Earth.
    Or Earth’s atmosphere had high percentage of CO2, before the plants evolved and ate it- and gave us an atmosphere with 200,000 parts per million of oxygen. Also any planet with such a high abundance of oxygen also an indicator that life probably exists on the planet.

  19. oldbrew says:

    Planets with atmospheres have a temperature gradient. That’s nothing to do with greenhouses.

  20. Fanakapan says:

    Obviously the Science if given even the briefest of perusals, by a person of average intellect throws immediate doubt on the proposition that the climate is going to experience Runaway Warming.

    Ultimately, the science wont make a bit of difference to what is a subject more closely bound to Politics, and ‘Lifestyle’😦

    What will of course make a difference, is the climate not doing what its supposed to do, and a Global Depression that makes the money demands of the Greenist’s untenable to politicians who rely on votes.

    You only have to look at the history of the Jehovah’s Witness cult, and the sheer number of failed predictions of Armageddon they have made, coupled with the fact that they still manage to attract followers, to see that there is a solid mass of humanity that prefers Superstition over Facts, even in the 21st century🙂

  21. oldbrew says:

    Fanakapan: ‘there is a solid mass of humanity that prefers Superstition over Facts, even in the 21st century’

    Superstition backed by vast sums of public money and appeals to supposed authorities who manipulate the data at every turn – and yet half the public still sees through their spin and empty nonsense.

  22. Fanakapan says:


    I sincerely hope you are right about half the public realising its nonsense.

    I’ve come across quite a few folk who are quite amenable to the idea of it being a vast scam, but keep quiet for fear of the potential ramifications. Which of itself is somewhat disturbing.

    At the end of the day, in the weather we can trust, it wont let us down🙂

  23. oldbrew says:

    Fanakapan: ‘I sincerely hope you are right about half the public realising its nonsense.’

    ‘The IPCC has told us in letters of fire for twenty years that humans are the dominant cause of climate change. But despite the unending propaganda 60% of Australians are not convinced. This fits with other better designed and much larger surveys by CSIRO showing that 53% of the population are skeptical, and a UK study which showed that 63% of British people were skeptical that storms and floods are probably man-made.’