Water vapor accounts for a whopping 90% or more of Earth's greenhouse effect! CO2 very minor player

several sources

[ETL]

Three article excerpts...

From JunkScience.com:

So, greenhouse [effect] is all about carbon dioxide, right?

Wrong. The most important players on the greenhouse stage are water vapor and clouds [clouds of course aren't gas, but high level ones do act to trap heat from escaping, while low-lying cumulus clouds tend to reflect sunlight and thereby help cool the planet -etl]. Carbon dioxide has been increased to about 0.038% of the atmosphere (possibly from about 0.028% pre-Industrial Revolution) while water in its various forms ranges from 0% to 4% of the atmosphere and its properties vary by what form it is in and even at what altitude it is found in the atmosphere.

In simple terms the bulk of Earth's greenhouse effect is due to water vapor by virtue of its abundance. Water accounts for about 90% of the Earth's greenhouse effect -- perhaps 70% is due to water vapor and about 20% due to clouds (mostly water droplets), some estimates put water as high as 95% of Earth's total tropospheric greenhouse effect (e.g., Freidenreich and Ramaswamy, 'Solar Radiation Absorption by Carbon Dioxide, Overlap with Water, and a Parameterization for General Circulation Models,' Journal of Geophysical Research 98 (1993):7255-7264).

The remaining portion comes from carbon dioxide, nitrous oxide, methane, ozone and miscellaneous other 'minor greenhouse gases.' As an example of the relative importance of water it should be noted that changes in the relative humidity on the order of 1.3-4% are equivalent to the effect of doubling CO2.

http://www.junkscience.com/Greenhouse/
_______________________________________________________________

From Geocraft.com:

Water Vapor Rules the Greenhouse System

Water vapor constitutes Earth's most significant greenhouse gas, accounting for about 95% of Earth's greenhouse effect(4). Interestingly, many 'facts and figures' regarding global warming completely ignore the powerful effects of water vapor in the greenhouse system, carelessly (perhaps, deliberately) overstating human impacts as much as 20-fold.

Water vapor is 99.999% of natural origin. Other atmospheric greenhouse gases, carbon dioxide (CO2), methane (CH4), nitrous oxide (N2O), and miscellaneous other gases (CFC's, etc.), are also mostly of natural origin (except for the latter, which is mostly anthropogenic).

Human activities contribute slightly to greenhouse gas concentrations through farming, manufacturing, power generation, and transportation. However, these emissions are so dwarfed in comparison to emissions from natural sources we can do nothing about, that even the most costly efforts to limit human emissions would have a very small-- perhaps undetectable-- effect on global climate.

http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/greenhouse_data.html
_______________________________________________________________

From ScienceDaily.com:

Water Vapor Confirmed As Major Player In Climate Change

ScienceDaily (Nov. 18, 2008) — Water vapor is known to be Earth's most abundant greenhouse gas, but the extent of its contribution to global warming has been debated. Using recent NASA satellite data, researchers have estimated more precisely than ever the heat-trapping effect of water in the air, validating the role of the gas as a critical component of climate change.

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/11/081117193013.htm

[Publius6961]

Google.
Search "Constituents of earth's atmosphere"

Returns

http://webs.wichita.edu/astronomy/wqquestions/earth_Questions.htm

http://www.charlotteconservative.com/index.php/2010/01/new-scientific-study-co2-absorption-into-atmosphere-hasnt-changed-in-160-years/

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2008/may/13/carbonemissions.climatechange

[ETL]

Thanks again, FRiend.

Here's a graph that nicely illustrates the point.

CO2 is a mere 0.038% of Earth's atmosphere!

"Original uploader was Brockert at en.wikipedia Later version(s) were uploaded by Deglr6328, Skatebiker, Joshlk at en.wikipedia."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Atmosphere_gas_proportions.svg

[JasonC]

lol - sure.

Now, here is another piece of real physics the ManBearPig set rarely mentions at the journalist level.

The item whose response to changing atmospheric concentrations of CO2 is log, is a power term, as in watts.

It is not a temperature term.

The relationship between a change in power and a change in temperature is, itself, less than linear. Specifically, the power changes as the fourth power of the absolute temperature in degrees Kelvin (above absolute zero in other words). Therefore the temperature is going as the fourth root of the power.

And that is the proportional change in the total power. Which at sea level is on the order of 400 watts per square meter. (It is 240 for sunlight corrected for albedo - reflection, but greenhouse mostly from water vapor is added onto that, at sea level). The existing sea level average temperature is around 18C or 291 degrees Kelvin.

Thus, if I want a 1C change in average sea level temperature, I need a 292/291 proportional temperature change, which requires a (292/291) ^4 power change continually operating (to keep the earth glowing that much hotter), which is 1.38% more than I started with, or about 5.5 watts per square meter.

If the old power level from CO2 was say 2 watts per square meter, I can't get the next 2 watts just by doubling it, because the response is log. To get 7.5 instead of 2, I'd need to go far enough along a log curve to raise the Y axis 3.75 times. Which can be quite a long way.

Meanwhile, last physics point, the higher the atmospheric concentration of CO2, the faster CO2 is taken up by the oceans and other carbon sinks. This is because all the concentrations are set by "S curve" rate balancing, as in any chemical reaction system. Raise the partial pressure of CO2 on the "air" side of the ocean-air interface, from a previous equilibrium position, and more CO2 will diffuse into seawater per unit time than before.

In other words, there are restoring forces on atmospheric partial pressures, and it therefore takes an ongoing emitting source, not just a one-off impulse, to maintain a higher atmospheric concentration indefinitely.

So we are talking about changing temporary concentrations of a trace gas, on the order of less than a thousandth part of the atmosphere, then washing it through a log to get a power, than washing that power through a fourth root to get a temperature change.

There is a reason the ManBearPig set doesn't want to provide a power budget for their theories, and prefers regression lines drawn through noise, instead...

[21twelve]

http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/greenhouse_data.html

That other table early in the thread with the 0.117% CO2 effect is from the above site, linked in the article. Please note that the table is for the greenhouse gas EFFECT - not the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere. So while CO2 is only .038% of the atmosphere (mass? volume? does it matter?) - it becomes a WHOPPING 0.117% of the Greenhouse effect. I think that if we trash our economy in order to bring that number down by a third (to .078%) it will be well worth it.

(Ever notice the global warming sites ALWAYS refer to CO2 in terms of tons? There’s a reason for that!)

[ETL]

Thanks. Did you forget to put quote marks around “WHOPPING”, or do you actually believe that 0.117% is a “whopping” percentage of the combined GH effect (water vapor, CO2, Methane, etc)?

[MrB]

I believe 2112’s sarcasm was pretty obvious...
Especially the part about trashing our economy being worth it...

:)

[ETL]

I figured that. I was mainly offering a ‘hint’ that it’s often best to add a sarc tag, quotes, or “lol”. Look at what happened to me earlier on this thread. Someone apparently thought I was a man-made global warming pusher because I talked about greenhouse gases.

[MrB]

Greenhouse gases DO exist, and literally thank God for His design of them, else we’d freeze when the sun went down.

However, there is a huge difference between talking about greenhouse gases and accusing man, in living our ordinary lives on this planet, of damaging it.

[ETL]

Exactly.

[expatpat]

Actually, its effect can be calculated and water-vapor amounts to roughly 80%, rather than 90%. However, the alarmists dress the CO2 effect up by claiming that more CO2 raises temperatures and that puts more wv in the atmosphere. Of course, this neglects the sun-blocking effects of more cloud from higher humidity.

[jwalsh07]

[ETL]

Actually, its effect can be calculated and water-vapor amounts to roughly 80%, rather than 90%.

OK, 80%. So, during the most recent warming trend (which ended 11-12 years ago), when temps rose approximately 1 degree from about 1900-1998, you can blame, at most, 20% of the GH effect on non-water vapor greenhouse gases, which include natural CO2 and human-related CO2, plus Methane, Ozone/O3, and other misc GH gases, keeping in mind that not all this warming was related to GH gases at all, but many other sources/mechanisms. Doing the math, one would have to be insane to seriously believe that man-made CO2 was responsible for ANY significant warming during this time. Human-related CO2 would be a small fraction of this 20%. And this small fraction of 20% is responsible for what fraction of that measly 1 degree rise in temps? Can't be very much.

[lewislynn]

Are you new to this site?

LOL!

I merely stated the fact that greenhouses gases do exist. Earth's temps fluctuate over time for many different reasons, ALL of them natural. Natural greenhouse gases, almost entirely water vapor, plays a major role, as does solar activity, cloud cover, orbital deviations, ocean current cycles and volcanoes.

You still didn't, or can't answer what the natural order of things was called before greenhouses were used. Or have you been brainwashed with "greenhouse gas" and "greenhouse effect"?

[MrB]

Say, what are you arguing?

Look at my #68 and tell me what you disagree with.

[ETL]

Science does advance over time. Not all of it is left-wing propaganda, like the BS that humans are responsible for “global warming”.

[listenhillary]

I really should have put the source in that picture. I’ve had it around for several years.

Some researcher was trying to get it through peoples thick heads in 2005 or 2006 that water vapor is the greenhouse gas.

A round of google searching might turn it up. If I get more energetic, I’ll try to find the source.

[listenhillary]

Published in 2003

http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/greenhouse_data.html

[listenhillary]

here is the link

scroll down to number 5

http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/greenhouse_data.html

[Only1choice____Freedom]

Ping for later reference.

I have been looking for these references for a while.

Thanks for posting it

[lewislynn]

Science does advance over time. Not all of it is left-wing propaganda, like the BS that humans are responsible for “global warming”.

LOL! Science advances but nothing is new under the sun including our weather and climate. To use "greenhouse gas" and greenhouse effect" is the language of the left AKA left wing propaganda. "Greenhouse gas" and "greenhouse effect" has negative connotations, using them to describe vapor is dangerous. If you don't believe that then you don't know what just took place with the EPA and CO2...The same onerous regulations can ultimately be applied to any greenhouse gas...You know, like water.

In fact water usage is already a topic at the EPA website under the global warming heading. It just isn't used there as a greenhouse gas...YET.

You might think you sound intelligent by saying that vapor is a greenhouse gas but I think you sound like brainwashed global warming dimwits....