Environmental News, Environment, Nature, Green living, Oceans, Animals, Universe, Green Network, Weird, Wonderful... all that we care about.

Water vapor and global warming

global warming 300x199 <!  :en  >Water vapor and global warming<!  :  >

photo by Mikael Miettinen (source: Flickr Creative Commons)

Water vapor, a potent heat-trapping gas, absorbs sunlight and re-emits heat into Earth’s atmosphere. Its concentrations in the stratosphere, the second of three layers in the atmosphere, appear to have decreased in the last 10 years, according to the study.

–New York Times

I read two articles discussing the relationship between water vapor and global warming on Friday: one in the Guardian and another in the New York Times. The Guardian piece reports that a recent study suggests that a third of global warming during the 1990s was caused by water vapor in the upper atmosphere and not by man made emissions. Yet the New York Times refers to the same study, stating that the increase in water vapor which sped the warming during the period of 1980-2000 was ‘the result of an increase in emissions of methane, another greenhouse gas’. Both articles quote the study’s leader, Susan Solomon of the US National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration who was also co-chair of 2007 IPCC report on the science of global warming.

For some reason as yet unknown, water vapor levels in the stratosphere have dropped 10% since 2000. This is thought to have contributed to the ‘flattening’ of temperatures since that time. To add to the confusion, NASA data shows that the decade ending in 2009 was the warmest on record.

[Solomon] said it was not clear if the water vapour decrease after 2000 reflects a natural shift, or if it was a consequence of a warming world. If the latter is true, then more warming could see greater decreases in water vapour, acting as a negative feedback to apply the brakes on future temperature rise.

–Guardian

Yes, it’s confusing and yes the story is always changing. That is the way science is and it’s not very convenient for those who wish to see things in black and white, unless they only seek to exploit it for political means. Unfortunately there are plenty of people who do. Nevertheless, the scientists who authored the study say it ‘does not undermine the scientific consensus that emissions of greenhouse gases from human activity drive global warming’, but rather how water vapor is factored in.

The IPCC has estimated that one way in which air travel contributes to climate change is through airplanes’ emission of water vapor – as well as nitrous oxides, sulfate, and soot – high up in the atmosphere.

by Graham Land

Tags: , , , , , ,

YOUR AD HERE? CHECK OUT OUR SPONSORING OPTIONS

2 Comments

  1. Graham_Land says:

    I have no problem with a bit of skepticism, but are you suggesting that governments should not fund scientific research – or have that research be automatically discredited? Are those funded by fossil fuel companies credible? Scientists seeking funding from that industry’s deep pockets shouldn’t be reluctant to speak if they are truly skeptical about global warming, as they would be well compensated. And what constitutes an ‘alarmist lobby’, any university or group concerned about the environment and climate change? If they believe in global warming they are probably deemed ‘alarmist’ by ‘skeptics’ anyway. Therefore the request seems to be an example of tautology.

    I’m quite sure there are differing opinions on climate change, as there should be in any healthy scientific process, but 32,000 scientists? Why not be skeptical about that, or is this kind of cynicism reserved for a certain political category?

    http://www.grist.org/article/32000-scientists-dispute-global-warming/

  2. Neil Craig says:

    I have asked journalists, politicians & alarmist lobbyists now totalling in the thousands to name 2 prominent scientists, not funded by government or an alarmist lobby who have said that we are seeing a catastrophic degree of warming & none of them have yet been able to do so. I extend this same invitation here.

    There is not & never was a genuine scientific consensus on this, though scientists seeking government funds have been understandably reluctant to speak. If there were anything approaching a consensus it would, with over 31,000 scientists having signed the Oregon petition saying it is bunk, it would be easy to find a similar number of independent scientists saying it was true, let alone 2. The whole thing depends on a very small number of people & a massive government publicity machine, both very well funded by the innocent taxpayer.

You can also log in to post a comment.

Copyright (c) 2009-2013 Greenfudge.org

Webdesign by Mujo

Register your Account

Your password will be mailed to your account.


A password will be e-mailed to you.