Water Vapor Confirmed As Major Player In Climate Change

[Kassy]

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.


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."

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases...1117193013.htm

[Potemkin]

Anthropogenic water vapor!

Everyone stop breathing and taking hot showers!

[hillsidedigger]

The clearing of more and more forests and the plowing of more and more ground allows more and more water to leave the ground and enter the atmosphere.

[southerncross]

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."

So a tax on water vapour is next?

[rootdiggr]

Originally Posted by southerncross

So a tax on water vapour is next?

Nope, water vapor credits.

[cpeterka]

EVERYONE STOP BREATHING !!
Too much Water Vapor !!

[Ought Six]

Funny, I have been talking about how atmospheric water vapor is a potent 'greenhouse gas', and how much more it varies than CO2 for years now, to the ridicule of AGW acolytes. It is a major component of volcanic eruptions, which can inject millions of tons of water vapor into the atmosphere in a single eruption. The Mount Pinatubo eruption is estimated to have pumped 491 million tons of H2O into the atmosphere, much of reaching the upper layers.

================================================== =================

K:

A blast from the past:

http://www.curevents.com/vb/showthre...156#post737156

"Water vapour is important for our everyday live (it's what keeps us in business everyday) but it doesn't explain the warming trends."
---
http://www.curevents.com/vb/showthre...646#post734646

"That's why water vapour is not important in current warming (try the solid form)."

Nice to see you finally coming around.

[Kassy]

Originally Posted by Ought Six

Funny, I have been talking about how atmospheric water vapor is a potent 'greenhouse gas', and how much more it varies than CO2 for years now, to the ridicule of AGW acolytes. It is a major component of volcanic eruptions, which can inject millions of tons of water vapor into the atmosphere in a single eruption. The Mount Pinatubo eruption is estimated to have pumped 491 million tons of H2O into the atmosphere, much of reaching the upper layers.

================================================== =================

K:

A blast from the past:Nice to see you finally coming around.

You're usually oversimplifying things. Remember it's about cause and effect and context.

The OP in this piece once again shows how the water vapour is a feedback loop driven by CO2

"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."

Which was very much my point in the original discussion.

Usually the contrarian theory is: water vapour is a greenhouse gas too...and there's much more water so co2 is irrelevant. Well it isn't.

*

The OP is about ampified warming and your concern is that

atmospheric water vapor is a potent 'greenhouse gas'

so how does the Mount Pinatubo episode which is is very well known for it's cooling effects factor into that?

**

"Water vapour is important for our everyday live (it's what keeps us in business everyday) but it doesn't explain the warming trends."

H2O doesn't explain the trends because water is a feedback and CO2 is a forcing. If we as humanity would have wanted to increase the water vapour content to warm the planet we could do so by injecting CO2 in the atmosphere.

[Ought Six]

K:

"so how does the Mount Pinatubo episode which is is very well known for it's cooling effects factor into that?"

When massive amounts of water vapor injected into the atmosphere cause no warming, it is further evidence that the 'greenhouse gasses' theory is crap. Warming is mainly from other causes (like variances in solar output). The fact that increased atmospheric CO2 is a lagging indicator (as ice core records prove) shows that it is a symptom; a result of warming, not a cause of warming. But these are things we must ignore in favor of computer models that can be tweaked to show whatever data the researcher needs to produce to continue their funding. Toe the party line, and the money will keep flowing. Produce results contrary to the party line, and your career is over.

[southerncross]

H2O doesn't explain the trends because water is a feedback and CO2 is a forcing. If we as humanity would have wanted to increase the water vapour content to warm the planet we could do so by injecting CO2 in the atmosphere.

Kassy If CO2 is a Forcing element , Please explain the CO2 Lag effect which is well accepted by all and shown in current research, Unlike CO2 as a Forcing element Which is still unproven and for which there is NO proven scientific fact, only guess's, Models, and theories oh and Consensus.

so how does the Mount Pinatubo episode which is is very well known for it's cooling effects factor into that?

Did you miss the 491 million ton's of H2O (as water vapour) pumped into the atmosphere Kassy? Along with however much CO2 as well amongst other things.

Explosive volcanic eruptions, Such as with the 1991 Mt. Pinatubo eruption, expel large amounts of water, greenhouse gasses, and other gasses into the atmosphere. This includes but is not limited to:
Water vapor, carbon dioxide, sulfur dioxide, hydrogen chloride, hydrogen fluoride, and ash. (McGee 2001 et al) These ash and gasses can be expelled into the stratosphere to 32.1 Km where sulfur dioxide converts into sulfuric acid that condenses into sulfate aerosols.

The result is an added reflectance of sunlight back into space. In turn this cools the Earths surface and lower atmosphere. The sulfates then absorb the heat-radiated form the Earth and warm the stratosphere. The stratosphere had a resulting in warming of between 2.5 and 3 deg. C. (NASA web page) This may seem contradictory but involves two separate atmospheric levels and the earth's surface.

These sulfate aerosols will also accelerate chemical reactions that destroy the ozone. Ozone destruction allows dangerous levels of ultraviolet radiation to reach the earths surface and can increase the risk of skin cancers. Mid latitude ozone levels reached their lowest recorded concentrations during 1992-93. The ozone hole over Antarctica became the largest ever recorded and in 1991 the ozone levels in the troposphere decreased in time with the Pinatubo aerosol arrival. Mt. Pinatubo 2001)

http://www.emporia.edu/earthsci/stud...3/pinatubo.htm

Damn those refrigerants!

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.

But it's all CO2's fault.

[cpeterka]

From Bloomberg... increase in acidification of the oceans threaten coral reefs and shellfish.

No more "Deadly Catch" shows in 100 years ???

see http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?p...efer=australia

[Kassy]

Kassy If CO2 is a Forcing element , Please explain the CO2 Lag effect which is well accepted by all and shown in current research, Unlike CO2 as a Forcing element Which is still unproven and for which there is NO proven scientific fact, only guess's, Models, and theories oh and Consensus.

Not really. Some context:

What does the lag of CO2 behind temperature in ice cores tell us about global warming?


This is an issue that is often misunderstood in the public sphere and media, so it is worth spending some time to explain it and clarify it. At least three careful ice core studies have shown that CO2 starts to rise about 800 years (600-1000 years) after Antarctic temperature during glacial terminations. These terminations are pronounced warming periods that mark the ends of the ice ages that happen every 100,000 years or so.

Does this prove that CO2 doesn't cause global warming? The answer is no.

The reason has to do with the fact that the warmings take about 5000 years to be complete. The lag is only 800 years. All that the lag shows is that CO2 did not cause the first 800 years of warming, out of the 5000 year trend. The other 4200 years of warming could in fact have been caused by CO2, as far as we can tell from this ice core data.

The 4200 years of warming make up about 5/6 of the total warming. So CO2 could have caused the last 5/6 of the warming, but could not have caused the first 1/6 of the warming.

It comes as no surprise that other factors besides CO2 affect climate. Changes in the amount of summer sunshine, due to changes in the Earth's orbit around the sun that happen every 21,000 years, have long been known to affect the comings and goings of ice ages.

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php...2-in-ice-cores

And a similar but later article:

First of all, saying "historically" is misleading, because Barton is actually talking about CO2 changes on very long (glacial-interglacial) timescales. On historical timescales, CO2 has definitely led, not lagged, temperature. But in any case, it doesn't really matter for the problem at hand (global warming). We know why CO2 is increasing now, and the direct radiative effects of CO2 on climate have been known for more than 100 years.

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php...switch_lang/in

*

And guess what happened when CO2 was involved from the start...

[Kassy]

250 million years ago, greenhouse-gases set off catastrophe


Scientists are rethinking one of earth’s great die-offs. The end-Permian extinction 251 million years ago was the worst of earth’s five mass extinctions. Ninety percent of all marine life and 70 percent of terrestrial life disappeared. It took five million years, perhaps more, for the biosphere to recover.

But while the die-off was uniquely devastating, evidence of a single cataclysmic event hasn’t been found in the geological record. Scientists now suspect that “the mother of all mass extinctions” was of Earth’s own making. And they see parallels to today’s world: A bout of greenhouse-gas-induced global warming set off a chain of events that culminated in oxygen-depleted oceans exhaling poison gas.

“Something came along and kicked it over the edge,” says Linda Elkins-Tanton, an assistant professor of geology at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology in Cambridge, Mass. She heads a recently launched multidisciplinary effort to study the extinction. “Should there be a great kick [now], we are in a position for a great die-off,” she says.

Two hundred and fifty million years ago, Earth was emerging from a period of glaciation. The transition from icehouse to greenhouse was already stressing life. Then magma began bursting through the crust of what is now Siberia. The eruption was tremendous; over the course of maybe 1 million years, enough lava flowed to cover the continental United States half a mile deep.

The crust through which it bubbled contained vast coal and limestone deposits from an earlier time. As it burned through this fossilized organic material, it released huge amounts of carbon. Today, by burning fossil fuels, humans are again releasing carbon sequestered long ago, and at a similarly rapid rate.

The eruption and release of greenhouse gas was just the beginning. The warmer atmosphere heated the ocean surface, effectively capping the seas with a warmer layer. The result: The overturning of the ocean’s water, which keeps deep waters oxygenated, likely stopped. Deeper waters became oxygen-depleted.

Meanwhile, erosion accelerated on land, says Lee Kump, professor of geosciences at Penn State University, University Park, dumping more fertilizers, like phosphorus, into the seas. High nutrient influx led to plankton blooms. As the organic matter decomposed, it sucked up what oxygen remained -- the same process now observed in the world’s dead zones. Widespread ocean anoxia (oxygen depletion) suffocated much oxygen-dependent marine life.

Then came the final blow. In waterways that are anoxic beyond a certain depth, like today’s Black Sea, oxygen-dependent organisms live near the surface and oxygen-avoiding microbes live deeper. Scientists call the boundary between them the “chemocline.” Organisms below the chemocline “breathe” sulfates, not oxygen. Just as oxygen-dependent organisms exhale CO2, these bacteria give off hydrogen sulfide (H2S), a gas toxic in high concentrations to many life forms, including plants and animals. Lack of oxygen let sulfate-breathers rise from the ocean deep and spew hydrogen sulfide directly into Earth’s atmosphere. Plants and animals either suffocated directly -- atmospheric oxygen levels plummeted to 15 percent (it’s about 21 percent today) -- or succumbed to the combination of long-term stresses.

Hydrogen sulfide would have also eaten holes in the earth’s protective ozone layer. In support of the theory, scientists find molecular “signatures” of anaerobic organisms at what was the water’s surface in end-Permian times. Widespread toxic H2S neatly explains the Permian die-off: how an extinction that began at sea could have decimated life on land.

And the lessons for today? At the Permian boundary, “you’re in a state of gradual warming, then as you approach that boundary, the warming increases dramatically,” says Jeff Kiehl, a senior scientist at the National Center for Atmospheric Research in Boulder, Colo. “It wasn’t a linear warming.” We don’t know where the intermediate thresholds are.

We’re still some way from the atmospheric CO2 levels hypothesized at the end-Permian extinction -- which were perhaps 10 times preindustrial levels, or 2,800 ppm. Yet, according the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, if trends continue we’re still approaching 1,000 ppm of CO2 by 2100. That’s not Permian-extinction levels, but it would be the highest CO2 concentration in 80 million years, and a level at which both ocean anoxia and lesser extinctions have occurred.

“Do we want to put ourselves on a very risky path of possibly repeating earth’s history, or do we want to be more cautious?” says Dr. Kiehl. “I would hope as a conscious species that we would choose the latter.”

http://www.progress.org/2008/die-off.htm

[Ought Six]

The reason has to do with the fact that the warmings take about 5000 years to be complete. The lag is only 800 years. All that the lag shows is that CO2 did not cause the first 800 years of warming, out of the 5000 year trend. The other 4200 years of warming could in fact have been caused by CO2, as far as we can tell from this ice core data.

The 4200 years of warming make up about 5/6 of the total warming. So CO2 could have caused the last 5/6 of the warming, but could not have caused the first 1/6 of the warming.

It comes as no surprise that other factors besides CO2 affect climate. Changes in the amount of summer sunshine, due to changes in the Earth's orbit around the sun that happen every 21,000 years, have long been known to affect the comings and goings of ice ages.

Oops! Some truth leaked out there.

First, the admission that global warming is caused by variable solar output, an idea that has been roundly ridiculed here. So the skeptics are right on that one, according to this source, and those that attacked the idea are dead wrong.

Second, the best they could say is that CO2 could have caused the main part of the warming. It seems that the arrogant certitude about anthroglobalwarming is suffering a little these days. It is now a 'could have', instead of 'the matter is settled'. I guess the 'scientific consensus' could not blind themselves to the evidence forever, and is starting to backpeddle.

[Fiddlerdave]

Originally Posted by Ought Six

Oops! Some truth leaked out there.

First, the admission that global warming is caused by variable solar output, an idea that has been roundly ridiculed here. So the skeptics are right on that one, according to this source, and those that attacked the idea are dead wrong.

Sigh....

Variable solar effects are not causing THE CURRENT global warming because we can measure it, and it is not increasing.

Your magical "sunspot" and "cosmic ray" hokum, for which there are only extremely speculative guesses that maybe somehow the cosmic rays could be causing by no known physical effect, that is what I am ridiculing.

Second, the best they could say is that CO2 could have caused the main part of the warming. It seems that the arrogant certitude about anthroglobalwarming is suffering a little these days. It is now a 'could have', instead of 'the matter is settled'. I guess the 'scientific consensus' could not blind themselves to the evidence forever, and is starting to backpeddle.

Unlike Denialists, who seem to know the entire history of the earth with certainty, REAL scientists have to speculate on events 250 million years ago, while confining their scientific certainty to the event at hand which can be seen and measured.

Scientist do not say ALL Global Warming EVER is ONLY and ENTIRELY caused by CO2 increases, but CO2 appears to be a very capable primary feedback process to drive GW once the CO2 is increasing. Which, in the CURRENT case, humans have provided the CO2. More every year.

[BuilderBob]

REAL scientists don't know about cosmic rays? My gasted is flabbered!

Wonder why they are wasting all that money building the Hadron Collider?

[Ben Franklin]

Look, we all knew a long time ago that the cause of water vapor is ..... water. And we all knew that we'd have to eliminate the water to deal with the water vapor.

But the problem is that oceans are trapping much of the water we need to get rid of.

So I would like to suggest the construction of giant shatterproof funnels, suspended over the oceans ..... and the oceans would be lined with massive "doomsday" thermonuclear bombs ..... which would be set off simultaneously, vaporizining most of the offending oceans and driving the vapor through the funnels and into outer space.

Once the vpaers aare "out there", the solar wind will drive them off to Mars and Jupiter. We have an old saying around here: "Let Mars and Jupiter deal with it," and I for one happen to think it's a good policy and a good philosopny in general.

[Fiddlerdave]

Originally Posted by BuilderBob

REAL scientists don't know about cosmic rays? My gasted is flabbered!

Wonder why they are wasting all that money building the Hadron Collider?

REAL scientists know alot about cosmic rays.

REAL scientists can't see a single thing about them that would cause global warming, OR cooling, or whatever their magical properties are supposed to be for the Denialist Fantasy Theory Du Jour.

[Kassy]

Originally Posted by Ought Six

Oops! Some truth leaked out there.

First, the admission that global warming is caused by variable solar output, an idea that has been roundly ridiculed here. So the skeptics are right on that one, according to this source, and those that attacked the idea are dead wrong.

Ok , first this:

Changes in the amount of summer sunshine, due to changes in the Earth's orbit around the sun that happen every 21,000 years, have long been known to affect the comings and goings of ice ages.

This is not the same as variable solar output. Do you get that?

The quote describes precession in the Milankovitch cycles. There are three effects and the wikipedia entry is a good starting point.

Second, the best they could say is that CO2 could have caused the main part of the warming. It seems that the arrogant certitude about anthroglobalwarming is suffering a little these days. It is now a 'could have', instead of 'the matter is settled'. I guess the 'scientific consensus' could not blind themselves to the evidence forever, and is starting to backpeddle.

Paleoclimate isn't about 'us' for very obvious reasons.

[Ought Six]

So....

The historical record proves it! (when convenient)

But....

The historical record does not prove anything, and is not applicable to us at all! (when it is not convenient)

[BuilderBob]

Originally Posted by Kassy

Ok , first this:



This is not the same as variable solar output. Do you get that?

The quote describes precession in the Milankovitch cycles. There are three effects and the wikipedia entry is a good starting point.





Paleoclimate isn't about 'us' for very obvious reasons.

3% change in sun earth distance gives 7% change in TSI. Radiant energy varies as the fourth power of the temperature.

1% change in global cloud cover completely negates even doubling of global CO2 levels.

You are going to get thoroughly snowed on tomorrow. Keep warm.

[BuilderBob]

Exploratory Analysis of Similarities in Solar Cycle Magnetic Phases with Southern Oscillation Index Fluctuations in Eastern Australia


ABSTRACT
There is growing interest in the role that the Sun's magnetic field has on weather and climatic parameters, particularly the ~11 year sunspot (Schwab) cycle, the ~22 yr magnetic field (Hale) cycle and the ~88 yr (Gleissberg) cycle. These cycles and the derivative harmonics are part of the peculiar periodic behaviour of the solar magnetic field. Using data from 1876 to the present, the exploratory analysis suggests that when the Sun's South Pole is positive in the Hale Cycle, the likelihood of strongly positive and negative Southern Oscillation Index (SOI) values increase after certain phases in the cyclic ~22 yr solar magnetic field. The SOI is also shown to track the pairing of sunspot cycles in ~88 yr periods. This coupling of odd cycles, 23–15, 21–13 and 19–11, produces an apparently close charting in positive and negative SOI fluctuations for each grouping. This Gleissberg effect is also apparent for the southern hemisphere rainfall anomaly. Over the last decade, the SOI and rainfall fluctuations have been tracking similar values to that recorded in Cycle 15 (1914–1924). This discovery has important implications for future drought predictions in Australia and in countries in the northern and southern hemispheres which have been shown to be influenced by the sunspot cycle. Further, it provides a benchmark for long-term SOI behaviour.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Received 16 July 2007; Revised 10 January 2008; Accepted 11 July 2008

[Fiddlerdave]

Originally Posted by BuilderBob

3% change in sun earth distance gives 7% change in TSI. Radiant energy varies as the fourth power of the temperature.

1% change in global cloud cover completely negates even doubling of global CO2 levels.

You are going to get thoroughly snowed on tomorrow. Keep warm.

Sadly for your hypotheis, water vapor is not persistant in the atmosphere when injected. It disperses out fairly quickly, so unless the cloud cover is caused by continuously ongoing volcanoes, the effect s short term. Volcanoes also spew consideral amounts of particles and extremely fine dust, which reflect heat back into space, and cooling is the overall result of sources like volcanoes, despite any warming effect of the more transitory water vapor. "We" don't and probably can't do anything about the water, it achieves its balance do to a variety of factos including the CO2 in the atmosphere.

CO2 is very persistant, and extra CO2 lasts for centuries. This the extra CO2 we injected at the start of the industrial age is still there now, on top of the ever increasing amounts we inject each year since then. That is why it is a PROBLEM. It changes the very dynamics of our earth's climate, in ways that have occurred in the past as part of other warmings, ways which the earth can easily survive but humans and the ecosystem we depend on will have very much difficulty with.

[BuilderBob]

Originally Posted by Fiddlerdave

Sadly for your hypotheis, water vapor is not persistant in the atmosphere when injected. It disperses out fairly quickly, so unless the cloud cover is caused by continuously ongoing volcanoes, the effect s short term. Volcanoes also spew consideral amounts of particles and extremely fine dust, which reflect heat back into space, and cooling is the overall result of sources like volcanoes, despite any warming effect of the more transitory water vapor. "We" don't and probably can't do anything about the water, it achieves its balance do to a variety of factos including the CO2 in the atmosphere.

CO2 is very persistant, and extra CO2 lasts for centuries. This the extra CO2 we injected at the start of the industrial age is still there now, on top of the ever increasing amounts we inject each year since then. That is why it is a PROBLEM. It changes the very dynamics of our earth's climate, in ways that have occurred in the past as part of other warmings, ways which the earth can easily survive but humans and the ecosystem we depend on will have very much difficulty with.

Do you seriously believe that there are times when water vapour in the atmosphere is zero, zilch. none???? 73% of the planet surface is WATER! The slightest ripple on the surface of the water injects water molecules into the air IF the relative humidity is less than 100% and then it is probably pouring rain back into the water.

The driest air on the planet can be found at the poles with a relative humidity of 90% and more. There is ALWAYS water vapour in the atmosphere up as far as the topopause.

CO2 in the air is NOT a problem. If that CO2 absorps some long wave radiation, (through a very narrow limited window), it warms the packet of air around it, warm air expands and rises so cooling itself and the CO2 contained there in. CO2 not only increases plant growth and aids global food production, it helps COOL the planet.

[Ought Six]

Fd:

"Sadly for your hypotheis, water vapor is not persistant in the atmosphere when injected. It disperses out fairly quickly...."

Do you have any links or references to back up this statement? It was my understanding that water vapor injected high up into the atmosphere becomes micro ice crystals, and is quite persistent. Only the water vapor in the lower atmosphere precipitates out fairly quickly.