Really? You've been waiting all this time for an explanation of that? Gee I'm sorry. Ok just wait a little longer. . .I'll explain. Really. I promise. Just keep waiting.
- Oct 10, 1999
- 31,305
- 12,820
- 136
I guess...I just don't really think of water vapor as a true "gas" because it's just water in another state just like I don't really consider ice as anything other than water in a frozen state. But I'm not really out to prove I'm a chemist or anything here. I just consider CO2 as a real "gas" like oxygen because that is its state under the most common and prevalent conditions on our planet. I wasn't taking into account things that are normally liquids or solids in their gaseous states as "gas." I hope this explanation adds some clarity as to what I was thinking when I posted. I was really thinking of what the average person on the street usually thinks of first when they think of greenhouse gas. It probably isn't water vapor.
How about a deep cave on the top of a high mountain on an island in a very big lake within an island in the middle of the ocean?
sandorski
No Lifer
- Oct 10, 1999
- 70,789
- 6,349
- 126
Water Vapour has a higher Heating effect, but once it enters the Atmosphere it only stays there 3-5 Days before condensing and falling as Precipitation. CO2 takes centuries to complete its' cycle through the Atmosphere. Those facts are why Water Vapour isn't a Priority.
lxskllr
No Lifer
- Nov 30, 2004
- 60,152
- 10,615
- 126
In addition to that, the water cycle is a more or less stable variable. There's x amount of water on the planet, and that doesn't change. Everything operates with the water that's available. EXTRA CO2, and other crap throws the balance off, and the planet doesn't operate as it should.
Also water vapor will condensate out of the air before it reaches a level of saturation sufficient to asphyxiate us. CO2 on the other hand is considerably heavier than O2 and can settle down to the ground displacing oxygen to a higher level where we can't breath it at ground level. There has been at least one instance that I know of where a high concentration of CO2 built up deep underwater in a deep lake for many many years. The pressure of the water kept it in solution deep down for a long time but at some point the water could hold no more CO2 and it literally exploded out of solution with the water and rose to the surface rapidly and blanketed the land surrounding the lake for miles in every direction. It basically asphyxiated every living human and animal that couldn't fly above the blanket of CO2 within miles of the site of the lake. So like somebody else said earlier, forgive me if I'm not all excited about having more CO2 in our atmosphere because I am not a plant. More CO2 in our atmosphere at ground level only means less O2 for you and me. CO2 may be what plants need to breathe but to animal life it is a waste product.
Link: http://news.softpedia.com/news...an-Explode-79357.shtml
Link: http://news.softpedia.com/news...an-Explode-79357.shtml
DrPizza
Administrator Elite Member Goat Whisperer
Here:
http://encarta.msn.com/media_4...diagram_for_water.html
At room temperature and 1 atmosphere of pressure, water is in both forms: liquid and gas, existing simultaneously. i.e. the average person on the street doesn't know much, but I still think many of them would consider water vapor to be a gas.
Fine but it still doesn't matter because at any given time there can only be so much water vapor in the air before it precipitates back to water again and as sandorski already pointed out, the cycle of water vapor is about 3-5 days whereas the cycle for CO2 considerably longer. Why do you think nobody is complaining about water vapor as a main cause contributing to global warming and why is nobody calling water vapor a pollutant? Obviously you guys have nothing productive to add to the discussion so you are just nitpicking my words and going off on only vaguely relevant tangents. Just because I failed to take into account water vapor as a real gas does not negate the main issue at hand in the topic of the thread which is the total absurdity of this whole "CO2 is Green" campaign. CO2 is NOT green unless you are a plant. CO2 is WASTE. I guess if somebody were one of those sick fucks who like to drink their own urine for the supposed health benefits maybe they wouldn't see it as such but I don't know anybody who can live off of CO2 instead of O2.
DrPizza
Administrator Elite Member Goat Whisperer
I'm not one of "you guys." I was merely pointing out your ignorance concerning very basic high school level science. I think the world is ignorant enough. When I see someone spouting off their ignorance, and it's simple enough for me to correct those simple misconceptions, I usually do so. That way, I can live in a world that's getting more intelligent, not less intelligent. I like progress. And, I'd consider correcting a scientific misconception to be productive.
CZroe
Lifer
- Jun 24, 2001
- 24,195
- 857
- 126
Not to mention, increased temperature = increased evaporation = increased cloud-cover = increased atmospheric solar radiation reflected (along with a clear climate change). What does the 3-5 day cycle of a specific evaporated water molecule matter if the issue is temperature and it constantly renews itself at an ever increasing rate?
CZroe
Lifer
- Jun 24, 2001
- 24,195
- 857
- 126
"Danger" of water vapor? I think you misunderstood. I never implied that it was dangerous. The vapor itself is not what it relevant, it's the climate change, natural or anthropogenic, that would have had to already happen to lead to it. Increased cloud cover is climate change. Weather patterns change, rainfall changes, ocean currents change, etc. Obviously there would be an increase in retained energy if it triggered more cloud cover in the first place. Increased energy held from the sun is increased energy where more light is reaching the surface, raising atmospheric temperatures or not.
That's precisely why CO2 is not a climate-driving greenhouse gas. It is an EXTREMELY minor one and the argument is really whether or not man-made emissions can trigger a reinforcement effect that makes it more significant. We have evidence to the contrary showing that increased warming through solar cycles is followed by CO2 increases hundreds of years later as the oceans warm. If CO2 had a significant reinforcing effect in the past there would have been no escape from that. Obviously, tons of money dumped into climate research has found evidence of reinforcement going the other way.
I'm waiting for conclusive proof either way.
One thing to keep in mind though:
"Money corrupts" doesn't only apply to corporate and government-sponsored research. Money is money and if one finding keeps the money flowing, you can infer bias. I'm sick and tired of people treating IPCC-endorsed studies as unbiased while insisting that government and corporate studies should be ignored for being agenda & profit-driven.
CZroe
Lifer
- Jun 24, 2001
- 24,195
- 857
- 126
Only in computer models and other assumption-bassed calculations that incorrectly attributed past variations to CO2 levels when, in fact, the correlation was reversed. Though I wouldn't doubt it if some real evidence showed it some time in the future, there is absolutely no proof yet. I'm waiting for it, but not expecting it.
In fact, the main reason it is such a minor greenhouse gas is because the absorption spectrum is covered nearly 100% by the other greenhouse gasses. IOW, it doesn't take a small amount and it's not a cumulative effect. If You have a venetian blind with only every second and third slat and you put another one in front of it, with every third slat, you'd block a little more light. CO2 is like adding yet another blind that doesn't fill any of the missing slats from the first few shades. The vast majority of it's modeled effect would be handled by the other greenhouse gasses even in its complete absense and the absorption is already near 100% without it, thus, limited additional effect with it. It's difficult to tell what would happen with vastly more CO2 changing the very makup of our atmosphere, but it's pretty damning that current models wouldn't properly handle the complete removal of all CO2 (not counting the direct impact on life of course).
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes + WCL Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 23K
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
-
-
Facebook
Twitter