on the importance of water vapor and CO2

Robert Wagner (OD optometry) correctly recognizes that water vapor (what Robert Essenhigh refers to as “water gas”) is a key Greenhouse gas. Quoting the IPCC Fourth Assessment report: “Water vapor is the most important gaseous source of infrared opacity in the atmosphere, accounting for about 60% of the natural greenhouse effect for clear skies (Kiehl and Trenberth, 1997), and provides the largest positive feedback in model projections of climate change (Held and Soden, 2000).”

If Wagner read the published peer reviewed science that IPCC summarizes, he’d know that direct observations from balloon soundings show  that The average atmospheric water vapor content has increased since at least the 1980s over land and ocean as well as in the upper troposphere. The increase is broadly consistent with the extra water vapor that warmer air can hold. See IPCC 2007 Chapter 3 Section 3.4.

Meanwhile, CO2 concentrations are also increasing. Elevated CO2 concentrations have an associated net warming affect on climate. Of all the “well mixed” greenhouse gasses, CO2 has by far the largest warming effect. See figure SPM.2 in the IPCC 2007 Summary For Policy Makers.

Climate change deniers seek holes in the science instead of seeking the truth. The science by definition aims for truth.  There is no conspiracy. Climate change deniers waste the time of climate scientists and block progress. We should instead be united to protect future generations from our trashing of the environment. United we stand, divided: the rest of the world sells us technologies America should sell them.

10 Responses to “on the importance of water vapor and CO2”

  1. Robert Wagner Says:

    “Robert Wagner PhD (optometry) correctly recognizes that water vapor (what Robert Essenhigh refers to as “water gas”) is a key Greenhouse gas. Quoting the IPCC Fourth Assessment report: “Water vapor is the most important gaseous source of infrared opacity in the atmosphere, accounting for about 60% of the natural greenhouse effect for clear skies (Kiehl and Trenberth, 1997), and provides the largest positive feedback in model projections of climate change (Held and Soden, 2000).””

    1) Correction: I don’t have a PhD, I have an OD, MA and CFA.

    2) Unless my eyes are lying to me, water vapor absorbs far more than 60% if you adjust for overlap. For instance if CO2 absorbs at 15nm and H2O does too, given the much greater abundance of water vapor, CO2 becomes irrelevant. Anyway, thanks for proving to everyone that water vapor is far more important than CO2. Most people don’t know that.

    Here is the chart to prove my point: Note how water vapor overlaps most other green house gasses.
    http://www.iitap.iastate.edu/gccourse/forcing/images/image7.gif

    More to come:

  2. Robert Wagner Says:

    “Climate change deniers seek holes in the science instead of seeking the truth. The science by definition aims for truth. There is no conspiracy. Climate change deniers waste the time of climate scientists and block progress. We should instead be united to protect future generations from our trashing of the environment. United we stand, divided: the rest of the world sells us technologies America should sell them.”

    1) Denier? Real science is founded in skepticism. I am a skeptic.

    2) Don’t claims a conspiracy, I claim the IPCC is incompetent with huge monetary incentives to prove CO2 causes global warming. BTW, the IPCC was founded to push a political agenda, not to perform good science. That is covered in my presentation.

    3) Blocking progress? Don’t forget the “progressive” theory of the early 1900s was Eugenics. The politicization of science lead to the Holocaust and millions of deaths in the Soviet Union and China. The politicization of science isn’t progress, it is dangerous. Don’t forget what the IPCC stands for, the I is interGOVERNMENTAL. This is a POLITICAL organization. Not surprising the solution of the IPCC is to transfer wealth from the developed Nations to the undeveloped ones. Don’t take my word for it, just look it up. It is called the UN’s Clean Development Mechanism, or basically Marxism 101.

    Here is the link:
    http://cdm.unfccc.int/index.html

    Who wins:
    http://www.newint.org/features/2006/07/01/391-facts-1.gif

    One world government people love this:
    http://www.newint.org/features/2006/07/01/carbon-offsets-facts/

    Basically, the scientists working for the IPCC are what Lenin called useful idiots. Whether they understand it or not, they are doing the job of the communists to undermine the free market economy of the US.

    Here is a great video of a KGB defector. The outlined the strategy back in 1984, and the IPCC is implementing it today. Don’t take my word for it, just watch the video. The KGB agent tells you what they are doing.

    http://www.dailymotion.com/video/x32cxf_yuri-bezmenov

  3. Robert Wagner Says:

    Dr Box, many of my responses seem to be waiting moderation. Is there a problem?

  4. Robert Wagner Says:

    “If Wagner read the published peer reviewed science that IPCC summarizes, he’d know that direct observations from balloon soundings show that The average atmospheric water vapor content has increased since at least the 1980s over land and ocean as well as in the upper troposphere. The increase is broadly consistent with the extra water vapor that warmer air can hold. See IPCC 2007 Chapter 3 Section 3.4.”

    1) Dr Box, that point is covered in another one of my presentation. Here it is outlined on one of our videos:
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aumWn2PRNUc

    2) The problem you Global Warming believes have is that CO2 is evenly distributed around the globe. What that means is that in the short term CO2 is a constant. All these computer models use DIFFERENTIAL equations. That means that in the short term CO2 is a constant, and temperature is a variable. You can’t explain a difference with a constant.

    3) As you correctly identify, the atmosphere is holding more water vapor. What you fail to mention is that the majority of the increase in atmospheric precipitation is in the Northern Hemisphere. If my memory serves me right, the Southern Hemisphere is actually getting dryer.

  5. Robert Wagner Says:

    4) The reason precipitation is increasing in the Northern Hemisphere is because the main source of water vapor, trees and plants, are increasing. The Northern Hemisphere is greening relative to the Southern Hemisphere.
    Now, there is a DIFFERENTIAL.

    5) Now, what we see is that the Northern Hemisphere is greening, it then produces more water vapor, it then leads to warming. The Northern Hemisphere isn’t getting wetter, and therefore isn’t absorbing as much heat, and that is why you see the Northern Hemisphere warming and the Southern Hemisphere not. Trees are the cause of the warming observed in the Northern Hemisphere, not CO2. Now that is a differential equation that works in a differential model.

    6) As you can see, there are huge dangers in blaming greenhouse gasses in general and particularly CO2. 1) it won’t slow warming by addressing CO2 2) once people look at it, they will see Water Vapor is the problem and the logical conclusion is to cut down the trees. Do you really want to have that conversation Dr Box? Once again, look at this chart. Clearly we should focus on water vapor, not CO2.
    http://www.iitap.iastate.edu/gccourse/forcing/images/image7.gif

  6. Robert Wagner Says:

    7) Evidence of water vapor’s contribution to trapping heat can be see here. Note, no mention is made of CO2 trapping heat.

    “The extreme dryness of the air causes any heat that is radiated back into the atmosphere to be lost instead of being absorbed by the water vapor in the atmosphere.”
    http://www.antarcticconnection.com/antarctic/weather/index.shtml

    Dr Box, please point me to any empirical studies that show a flask of air with 280 PPM CO2 and one with 380 PPM CO2 that demonstrate a temperature differential. Don’t spend too much time looking, THEY DON’T EXIST. If there was any truth to this “theory” every child would run a simple experiment in science class where you change the CO2 level in a flask and measure the temperature change. The reason we don’t run the experiment is because it shows NO TEMPERATURE CHANGE.

  7. Robert Wagner Says:

    “Meanwhile, CO2 concentrations are also increasing. Elevated CO2 concentrations have an associated net warming affect on climate. Of all the “well mixed” greenhouse gasses, CO2 has by far the largest warming effect. See figure SPM.2 in the IPCC 2007 Summary For Policy Makers.”

    1) Where are the empirical studies. Where is the hard evidence? Where are the laboratory experiments? Theories aren’t evidence. Theories are fact. Where are the observable experiments?

    2) CO2 is not the major greenhouse gas. Either my eyes or the IPCC is lying to me, and I trust my eyes. Here take a look.
    http://www.iitap.iastate.edu/gccourse/forcing/images/image7.gif

  8. Robert Wagner Says:

    3) If you haven’t noticed, temperatures are cooling rapidly on a global scale. CO2 continues to increase. The IPCC’s models are simply not supported by reality and the observable temperatures. They simply have bad models, and that isn’t proof of anything other than the incompetence of IPCC scientists. Junk science and bad practices isn’t evidence of anything.

    4) CO2 has been far higher and temperatures never get much above 22 degrees C. As you can see from this chart, CO2 can get very very high, and temperature simple doesn’t follow. This is from an IPCC chart, and it totally debunks CO2 being the cause of global warming.
    http://ff.org/centers/csspp/library/co2weekly/2005-08-18/dioxide.htm

  9. Polar.Mike Says:

    Mr Wagner, it seems you are very poorly informed and don’t seem to know how to cite anything particularly worthwhile. You excessively cite from obscure blogs and cherry pick information and make frankly ridiculous assertions. A healthy skeptical view would at least cite strongly peer reviewed academic sources. You seem to have made a decision on your stance and are clinging to misconceptions and misrepresentation to build your case (are you looking to gain some media time?) I am not sure you understand the ramifications of the diagrams that you cite, which often shoot holes in your own arguments. Do you have a clear grasp on the nature of uncertainties, trends and timescales? I applaud skepticism, but the balance of the evidence right now is that them vast majority of climate scientists see strong, compelling evidence for future climate variability that is being induced by anthropogenic emissions. I personally dislike the term global warming, it is too simplistic, I prefer human induced climate variability. I agree with Dr Box that this blog should not take up all his time. I personally, sincerely, hope that in the long run that climate change is a hoax and no one dies. This seems increasingly unlikely.

  10. Todd Albert Says:

    Dr. Wagner,

    Peer-reviewed science from all over the world is represented in the IPCC. The editors volunteer their time to try to educate the public. I’m sorry, but they are not bought and paid for by some one-world government as you suggest. Although your suggestion makes you sound like a raving lunatic. Do you think that JFK was abducted by aliens and the assassination was staged? Here’s your “tinfoil hat”:
    http://www.psychologytoday.com/files/u12/tinfoil_hat.jpg
    You’ve earned it.

    These claims you make about scientists finding that CO2 causes global warming would somehow be profitable to us are absurd. Do you think scientists are in this for the money? Have you seen the cars we drive??

    In all seriousness, claims that funding sources corrupt science are not altogether unfair. But then do we discount all published science? If it weren’t for public funding sources (NASA, NOAA, NSF, NIH, DOE, …) the only scientists that could afford to conduct and publish research would be the ultra-wealthy. That’s not a very productive or democratic system now, is it? Sounds more like feudalism…

    Go back to practicing optometry and I’ll stick to climatology for you,
    Dr. Todd Albert, Climatologist (not an optometrist)

Leave a Reply