[ 3 / biz / cgl / ck / diy / fa / ic / jp / lit / sci / vr / vt ] [ index / top / reports ] [ become a patron ] [ status ]
2023-11: Warosu is now out of extended maintenance.

/sci/ - Science & Math

View post   
File: 151 KB, 595x600, 1536466128315.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
10445239 No.10445239 [Reply] [Original]

So only a small frequency band of infrared light is solely absorbed by co2? Most frequencies which are absorbed by co2 are absorbed by water vapour. So what is the real affect of co2 increase? Should we be more worried about the increase in h2o in the atmosphere?

Pic related. Trying to make sense of it.

>> No.10445264
File: 1.06 MB, 1754x1474, ipcc_rad_forc_ar5.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
10445264

>>10445239
>So what is the real affect of co2 increase?
You act like having things that do the same thing can't possibly mean that changing one of those things has an effect. Probably water vapor has a hard cap in the PPM and once above that cap it just rains.

>> No.10445311
File: 141 KB, 386x951, 1543136436289.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
10445311

>>10445264
>anthropogenic
Your data doesn't include water vapor. Which we produce alongside co2 via emissions.

Also. Is your data showing individual compounds emitted, or the total volume of that compound in the atmosphere? If the latter, then no doubt co2 will show higher radiative force simply based on the amount of it alone. Halogens, methane and nitrous oxide have a tiny ppm compared to carbon dioxide.

>> No.10445415

>>10445239
Water vapour is well known to be a notable greenhouse gas.
Thing is, you can't really do much with most of the Earth's surface continuously releasing it.
Furthermore, if you do manage to drop the water concentration in the atmosphere, it will start evaporating faster and raining less.
Some typical forms of carbon, on the other hand, only evaporate at relatively high temperatures.

>> No.10445445

>>10445239
Water vapor is responsible for 85% of the greenhouse affect in the atmosphere but it's not a regulator of Earth temperature for 2 reasons:

1. water vapor has only a one week residence time in the atmosphere. If you somehow boiled of all the world's oceans in about a week it would all be back in the oceans. It just can't be responsible for long term temperature changes.

2. It is a positive feedback loop. The hotter the air is the more water vapor it holds. The more water vapor the air holds the hotter it gets. The hotter it gets the more water vapor it holds. The more water vapor it holds the hotter it gets. Until all the water boils away and escapes into space.

The opposite is also true. The less water vapor in the air the colder it gets. The colder the air the less water vapor it holds. The less water it holds the colder it gets until everything's a frozen iceball.

So while water is important because of its short residence time in the atmosphere it cannot regulate temperature and good thing too because if that weren't the case we would either be frozen or baked.

>> No.10447369

Human activity does not produce excess water to the same degree that it does co2. The main source of water is evaporation from the oceans. Even f human activity did increase water emissions, it would be by a negligible amount. CO2 on the other hand has seen a large increase due to people. Water remains constant, CO2 increases. So what seems responsible for the temperatures rising?
Also one anon said that water doesn't stay in the atmosphere as long and that's true.