Very interesting. It's complicated, but non-scientist political authorities' hubris reigns as if they know what they're doing. We don't know how much we don't know, and they don't even know much of anything.
On water vapor, it supposedly doesn't last long before it condenses; that's why it's so hard to figure out the net effect.
The most significant GHG in our terrestrial atmosphere is also the least studied. Water vapor and clouds have radically different effects on ground temperatures and are not well enough understood so are ignored by modelers.
I'm not surprised it comes from Dr Curry's blog. She has spent a lot of time trying to figure out water. It is already fairly well know that water vapor can have a positive and negative effect on atmospheric warming depending on what level it is in the atmosphere and how much of it there is. The fact that humans may be directly altering the water cycle to such a degree was not something I was aware of. It makes a lot of sense that this would have an impact on the climate
By product of hydrogen fuel cells is water vapor. I read an article in early 2000s, when alt/biofuels were the rage, warning of water vapor as a greenhouse gas. Hydrogen fuel cell cars could increase Temps in and around cities.
The info is out there. Has been out there. It just doesn't fit the narrative.
That's silly. Water vapor is produced by burning every fossil fuel too since they are all hydrocarbons (i.e. contain both hydrogen and carbon). Combustion therefore produces both CO2 and water. I believe that slightly less water is produced for equivalent energy output when burning fossil fuels but it's not that much different and varies depending on whether you are burning, say, methane or diesel
The oil and gas industry picked carbon dioxide to serve their purpose: find a new source of the carbon dioxide they needed to frack to make synthetic methane gas, so that they could then convert their old source, coal fire electric plants to methane fired, is my best guess. It worked for them in a big way
They now have government money to use to take CO2 out of the air.
Very interesting. It's complicated, but non-scientist political authorities' hubris reigns as if they know what they're doing. We don't know how much we don't know, and they don't even know much of anything.
On water vapor, it supposedly doesn't last long before it condenses; that's why it's so hard to figure out the net effect.
The most significant GHG in our terrestrial atmosphere is also the least studied. Water vapor and clouds have radically different effects on ground temperatures and are not well enough understood so are ignored by modelers.
Disastererous Defects in climate models continue!
This is a fascinating post.
I'm not surprised it comes from Dr Curry's blog. She has spent a lot of time trying to figure out water. It is already fairly well know that water vapor can have a positive and negative effect on atmospheric warming depending on what level it is in the atmosphere and how much of it there is. The fact that humans may be directly altering the water cycle to such a degree was not something I was aware of. It makes a lot of sense that this would have an impact on the climate
By product of hydrogen fuel cells is water vapor. I read an article in early 2000s, when alt/biofuels were the rage, warning of water vapor as a greenhouse gas. Hydrogen fuel cell cars could increase Temps in and around cities.
The info is out there. Has been out there. It just doesn't fit the narrative.
That's silly. Water vapor is produced by burning every fossil fuel too since they are all hydrocarbons (i.e. contain both hydrogen and carbon). Combustion therefore produces both CO2 and water. I believe that slightly less water is produced for equivalent energy output when burning fossil fuels but it's not that much different and varies depending on whether you are burning, say, methane or diesel
The oil and gas industry picked carbon dioxide to serve their purpose: find a new source of the carbon dioxide they needed to frack to make synthetic methane gas, so that they could then convert their old source, coal fire electric plants to methane fired, is my best guess. It worked for them in a big way
They now have government money to use to take CO2 out of the air.
Exactly.
And Inflation Reduction Act funds it. Your tax dollars.
More carbon capture & oil and gas industry:
Carbon Capture: Green Grift & Taxpayer's Gift
Part 2 of 2
https://tucoschild.substack.com/p/carbon-capture-green-grift-and-taxpayers