Water vapor is known to be Earth's most abundant greenhouse gas, but the extent of its contribution to global warming has been diminished by attention on the economic/political millstone of western civilization carbon dioxide. 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.
Andrew Dessler and colleagues from Texas A&M University in College Station confirmed that the heat-amplifying effect of water vapor is potent enough to double the climate warming caused by increased levels of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere.
With new observations, the scientists confirmed experimentally what existing climate models had anticipated theoretically. The research team used novel data from the Atmospheric Infrared Sounder (AIRS) on NASA's Aqua satellite to measure precisely the humidity throughout the lowest 10 miles of the atmosphere. That information was combined with global observations of shifts in temperature, allowing researchers to build a comprehensive picture of the interplay between water vapor, carbon dioxide, and other atmosphere-warming gases. The NASA-funded research was published recently in the American Geophysical Union's Geophysical Research Letters.
"Everyone agrees that if you add carbon dioxide to the atmosphere, then warming will result," Dessler said. "So the real question is, how much warming?"
The answer can be found by estimating the magnitude of water vapor feedback. Increasing water vapor leads to warmer temperatures, which causes more water vapor to be absorbed into the air. Warming and water absorption increase in a spiraling cycle.
Water vapor feedback can also amplify the warming effect of other greenhouse gases, such that the warming brought about by increased carbon dioxide allows more water vapor to enter the atmosphere.
"The difference in an atmosphere with a strong water vapor feedback and one with a weak feedback is enormous," Dessler said.
Climate models have estimated the strength of water vapor feedback, but until now the record of water vapor data was not sophisticated enough to provide a comprehensive view of at how water vapor responds to changes in Earth's surface temperature. That's because instruments on the ground and previous space-based could not measure water vapor at all altitudes in Earth's troposphere -- the layer of the atmosphere that extends from Earth's surface to about 10 miles in altitude.
AIRS is the first instrument to distinguish differences in the amount of water vapor at all altitudes within the troposphere. Using data from AIRS, the team observed how atmospheric water vapor reacted to shifts in surface temperatures between 2003 and 2008. By determining how humidity changed with surface temperature, the team could compute the average global strength of the water vapor feedback.
"This new data set shows that as surface temperature increases, so does atmospheric humidity," Dessler said. "Dumping greenhouse gases into the atmosphere makes the atmosphere more humid. And since water vapor is itself a greenhouse gas, the increase in humidity amplifies the warming from carbon dioxide."
Specifically, the team found that if Earth warms 1.8 degrees Fahrenheit, the associated increase in water vapor will trap an extra 2 Watts of energy per square meter (about 11 square feet).
"That number may not sound like much, but add up all of that energy over the entire Earth surface and you find that water vapor is trapping a lot of energy," Dessler said. "We now think the water vapor feedback is extraordinarily strong, capable of doubling the warming due to carbon dioxide alone."
Because the new precise observations agree with existing assessments of water vapor's impact, researchers are more confident than ever in model predictions that Earth's leading greenhouse gas will contribute to a temperature rise of a few degrees by the end of the century.
"This study confirms that what was predicted by the models is really happening in the atmosphere," said Eric Fetzer, an atmospheric scientist who works with AIRS data at NASA's Jet Propulsion Laboratory in Pasadena, Calif. "Water vapor is the big player in the atmosphere as far as climate is concerned."
Comments
carwaterguide.blogspot.com (not verified) | 11/18/08 | 06:42 AM
- Reply to This »
- Link
thomaschanges (not verified) | 11/20/08 | 06:50 AM
Only problem here is that world temperatures are now at 1995 levels despite increased CO2 levels.
Please explain.
Anonymous (not verified) | 11/22/08 | 13:50 PM
Using a 'world' temperature is a mistake. The one thing that all climate scientists agree on is that we have never had a world temperature any more than we have world weather. The issue will be one of measurement. Prior to 1980, measurements were done manually and were not all that accurate. So on one side you will have people who insist, in defiance of simple math, that more greenhouse gases will not cause warming, so they use measurement X. On the other side you have some people who insist that CO2 is the big issue and that we need to go back to a 1990 level conveniently right after Germany merged and they got to reduce their CO2 emissions by closing a few WW2-era Soviet factories and France switched to more nuclear power, so they want to use temperature Y.
The explanation is simple; we go in cycles. What will take us to a weird place is assuming that because a confluence of weather events keeps the temperature stable this year that it will magically remain a happy a fairy tale future ecology if we don't pursue less polluting alternatives. That's in defiance of math and common sense and just as silly as shutting down all the coal plants and cars.
The explanation is simple; we go in cycles. What will take us to a weird place is assuming that because a confluence of weather events keeps the temperature stable this year that it will magically remain a happy a fairy tale future ecology if we don't pursue less polluting alternatives. That's in defiance of math and common sense and just as silly as shutting down all the coal plants and cars.
Hank Campbell | 11/22/08 | 14:24 PM
But isn't that exactly what warming alarmists are doing to advance their case ??
However you cut it temps have been dropping for 7 years now. You seem to be having a bob each way in your post.
Anonymous (not verified) | 11/22/08 | 20:03 PM
Well, anyone who has a hard line position on a complex topic like climate systems is a zealot so where there isn't hard data I leave room for more. If 'alarmists' do something wrong it does not make sense to throw out common sense, math and science to balance them out - so saying that temperatures are not hockey sticking into the stratosphere so it's okay to go ahead and not invest in energy solutions that don't pollute as much even though we know the population will keep going up is madness.
Hank Campbell | 11/22/08 | 22:20 PM
What always seems lost in all the rhetoric is what the effect is on human population centers. The simple reality is not whether we will experience global warming or cooling, but whether human civilization is in a position to be responsive to either condition. Once again, it doesn't matter what actions we take, because it is a given that weather cycles occur and regardless of their causes, can become extreme enough to affect existing species.
Since humans have given up their migratory lifestyles, the problem is exacerbated by the fact that we simply can't move around in response to changing circumstances. Therefore if coastal flooding were to occur, then there will be millions of people affected. Similarly if an ice age were to recur, then millions would be affected.
Interestingly, the primary problem isn't whether humans would survive, but rather would our economically stressed civilizations manage. As we saw with Hurricane Katrina, regardless of political bumbling or incompetence, the simple fact is that we can barely afford to pay for the costs of maintaining our society. What would it mean if large sections of land were under glaciers? What would it mean if weather patterns changed enough to affect rainfall, crop health, and growing seasons? While we know that the Sahara desert certainly had a wide range of characteristics over time, consider what would happen if such a change would occur in less geographically isolated areas? How would the U.S. deal with desertification of the midwest, should such a thing occur (and I'm not suggesting nor predicting that it would).
My point is simply that human civilization has a vested interested in things remaining as they are, despite the fact that we know they can't. Therefore whether we're predicting doom or in denial of any problems, the reality is that things will change (maybe radically) and that human civilizaiton is ill-equipped to deal with it. In short, we have become an overly-specialized species that can not afford nor is likely to adapt to any radical changes in the world we live in.
Since humans have given up their migratory lifestyles, the problem is exacerbated by the fact that we simply can't move around in response to changing circumstances. Therefore if coastal flooding were to occur, then there will be millions of people affected. Similarly if an ice age were to recur, then millions would be affected.
Interestingly, the primary problem isn't whether humans would survive, but rather would our economically stressed civilizations manage. As we saw with Hurricane Katrina, regardless of political bumbling or incompetence, the simple fact is that we can barely afford to pay for the costs of maintaining our society. What would it mean if large sections of land were under glaciers? What would it mean if weather patterns changed enough to affect rainfall, crop health, and growing seasons? While we know that the Sahara desert certainly had a wide range of characteristics over time, consider what would happen if such a change would occur in less geographically isolated areas? How would the U.S. deal with desertification of the midwest, should such a thing occur (and I'm not suggesting nor predicting that it would).
My point is simply that human civilization has a vested interested in things remaining as they are, despite the fact that we know they can't. Therefore whether we're predicting doom or in denial of any problems, the reality is that things will change (maybe radically) and that human civilizaiton is ill-equipped to deal with it. In short, we have become an overly-specialized species that can not afford nor is likely to adapt to any radical changes in the world we live in.
Gerhard Adam | 11/22/08 | 15:06 PM
Anonymous (not verified) | 11/30/08 | 08:29 AM
Gerhard, I think you are right to a point. We have developed an economic system that is not adaptable, because it's controlled by those who resist change.
The very people who claim that markets can solve all problems are now using the present economic downturn as an excuse to defer action on climate change. And while renewable energy sources have great commercial potential, (I think people will pay extra for clean power sources, particularly if they gain independence from the grid) our economic managers are pushing like crazy for nuclear power and hare-brained schemes like solar reflectors orbiting the earth.
The last thing they want is a decentralised power distribution system, because this would empower individuals, and disempower the powerbrokers. The promoters of individualism are petrified by its consequences, their real game is control.
The very people who claim that markets can solve all problems are now using the present economic downturn as an excuse to defer action on climate change. And while renewable energy sources have great commercial potential, (I think people will pay extra for clean power sources, particularly if they gain independence from the grid) our economic managers are pushing like crazy for nuclear power and hare-brained schemes like solar reflectors orbiting the earth.
The last thing they want is a decentralised power distribution system, because this would empower individuals, and disempower the powerbrokers. The promoters of individualism are petrified by its consequences, their real game is control.
Steve Davis | 11/30/08 | 16:17 PM
Long before we knew about climate change, G.K.Chesterton saw through both Capitalism and Socialism. You can read it online in the First Chapter of "The Outline of Sanity". In the first paragraph:
and further on ...
A pickpocket is obviously a champion of private enterprise. But it would perhaps be an exaggeration to say that a pickpocket is a champion of private property. The point about Capitalism and Commercialism, as conducted of late, is that they have really preached the extension of business rather than the preservation of belongings; and have at best tried to disguise the pickpocket with some of the virtues of the pirate. The point about Communism is that it only reforms the pickpocket by forbidding pockets.
and further on ...
The truth is that what we call Capitalism ought to be called Proletarianism. The point of it is not that some people have capital, but that most people only have wages because they do not have capital.
Robert H Olley | 11/30/08 | 18:00 PM
Steve Davis | 11/30/08 | 18:45 PM
Tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, all of you...
Michael Moon, Chicago, Illinois (not verified) | 10/07/09 | 11:55 AM












