To Ron, This thread is getting unwieldy but let me clarify what I was saying on this point.
Warming deniers sometimes bring up the fact that water vapor is a more significant greenhouse gas than CO2, because there is more of it -- up to 50,000 ppm - while scientists have generally treated it as if it moves in lockstep with CO2. But does it? Everyone's observed evaporative cooling effects such as when hot ground breathes moisture out after a shower. That is significant for large aridified areas of the earth. But then that water vapor goes into the atmosphere; will it then act as a greenhouse gas? That depends on whether it is in tiny droplets of haze or if it is coalesced into denser clouds, then precipitates, *resulting in more cooling. *What causes vapor to coalesce? The nucleation happens around various materials, but many of these nuclei turn out to be bacteria from forest leaves and other vegetative sources, which can combine in the upper atmosphere with ice crystals. So please, everybody, leave room for biology to help solve climate problems. It's a science too, you know. Brian On Tuesday, October 29, 2013 4:18:18 PM UTC-4, Ron wrote: > > List and Brian: > > I just noted a mis-statement. See below. > > > On Oct 29, 2013, at 1:28 PM, Ronal W. Larson > <[email protected]<javascript:>> > wrote: > > Brian (cc list) This to respond to your three inserts in my yesterday’s > response to you > > BC1: *But that's not very good. Warming-induced feedback loops like > methane deposits are already very scary. I don't say CO2 levels are > irreversible; my point is about warming from all causes, and you need > methods of cooling that are much quicker than 50 years. * > > *[RWL1: Brian’s “that” refers to my just previous statement (see > below) that we could drop to 350 ppm in 50 years. Brian is NOT arguing > for SRM here, although it may seem so. He is arguing for increased latent > heat transfer - an approach that seems questionable at best - given the > strong warming potential of increased atmospheric carbon.* > > > RWL: The last word was supposed to be “moisture” - NOT “carbon”. > Apologies. I am too used to following “atmospheric” with “carbon”. > > Ron > > <snip remainder> > > -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "geoengineering" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
