environment

Measuring climate change: It's not just heat, it's humidity

15 Comments
By SETH BORENSTEIN

The requested article has expired, and is no longer available. Any related articles, and user comments are shown below.

© Copyright 2022 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed without permission.

©2024 GPlusMedia Inc.

15 Comments
Login to comment

I'm glad this often overlooked point is raised in this article.

Humidity increases will contribute to much more hazardous conditions for humans regardless of where they live.

1 ( +4 / -3 )

a minus point - ha - but nothing to add to the discussion.

Contrarians please enlighten us.

-1 ( +3 / -4 )

From 1980 to 2019, the world warmed about 1.42 degrees (0.79 degrees Celsius). But taking energy from humidity into account, the world has warmed and moistened 2.66 degrees (1.48 degrees Celsius), the study said. And in the tropics, the warming was as much as 7.2 degrees (4 degrees Celsius).

I didn't realize 0.8 of the 1.5 or so C rise from pre-industrial times was from 1980 onwards. It's rarely expressed in those terms.

Another way to combine heat and moisture data is wet bulb temperature. That becomes dangerous and then fatal at a much lower temperature than dry heat, because you can't cool the body by sweating any more.

0 ( +2 / -2 )

“There are two drivers of climate change: temperature and humidity,” Ramanathan said.

Typical, he didn’t mention the Sun and its cycles as the real driver of climate change. Humidity or H2O, the biggest greenhouse gas has far more influence on the climate than CO2, a trace gas at 0.04%. But humidity is not a driver of climate change, it’s a result of many factors.

A dry desert and a tropical rainforest can be at the same latitude and both be very hot during the day, but the difference in nighttime temperatures can be very different. Obviously when the sun goes down in a desert the temperature drops precipitously because there’s very little humidity to hold the heat in the atmosphere. We live in an enclosed system and humidity is one of the important elements which keeps this planet habitable. Another fear-mongering article and nothing to worry about!

1 ( +3 / -2 )

Love humidity. I for one totally enjoy warm weather. The less cold days in the year the better. This is climate enhancement.

1 ( +2 / -1 )

Typical, he didn’t mention the Sun and its cycles as the real driver of climate change.

Obviously you have evidence of this that the scientific community has overlooked.

Humidity or H2O, the biggest greenhouse gas has far more influence on the climate than CO2, a trace gas at 0.04%.

I could talk about how the increases in non-condensable gases such as CO2 lead to increases in the water vapour that you are referring to, but I'm not sure that you have the math to make the connection.

fear-mongering

The current phrase du jour for people for whom any negative news upsets them

1 ( +3 / -2 )

Humidity or H2O, the biggest greenhouse gas has far more influence on the climate than CO2, a trace gas at 0.04%. But humidity is not a driver of climate change, it’s a result of many factors.

One of those factors is the increase of CO2 in the atmosphere which leads to more H2O in the atmosphere.

As you say, CO2 makes up only about 0.04% of our atmosphere. But work out what that would look like if it were all in a single layer. It would be a mighty thick layer.

0 ( +1 / -1 )

But work out what that would look like if it were all in a single layer. It would be a mighty thick layer.

But it’s not, it’s thinly dispersed throughout the atmosphere. Of that 0.04% only 10% can be attributed to man, the rest of it comes from nature doing its thing, as it has been for billions of years. CO2 eventually falls back to Earth because it is denser than the surrounding molecules of other gases. This makes for a greener planet, bigger crops etc.

https://www.nasa.gov/feature/goddard/2016/carbon-dioxide-fertilization-greening-earth

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

Obviously you have evidence of this that the scientific community has overlooked.

Lol. No Sun, no climate, no nothing. It’s not what they’ve overlooked, it’s what they’re not telling you because otherwise they won’t get their funding or grants. That big yellow ball in the sky has a powerful influence.

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

Lol. No Sun, no climate, no nothing. It’s not what they’ve overlooked, it’s what they’re not telling you because otherwise they won’t get their funding or grants. That big yellow ball in the sky has a powerful influence.

The Sun has not caused CO2 in Earth's atmosphere to increase over the last 150 years nor has the Sun caused that temperature change.

1 ( +1 / -0 )

Lol. No Sun, no climate, no nothing. It’s not what they’ve overlooked, it’s what they’re not telling you because otherwise they won’t get their funding or grants. That big yellow ball in the sky has a powerful influence.

I had imagined that you might throw a weak conspiracy into the arguement at some point, I just didn't expect it so soon.

It's clear that you have absolutely no idea what you are talking about.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

The Sun has not caused CO2 in Earth's atmosphere to increase over the last 150 years nor has the Sun caused that temperature change.

That’s not the case. The oceans hold vast quantities of CO2. During inter-glacial periods as we’re in right now, CO2 is released from the oceans into the atmosphere. But when the planet moves back into cooler periods or an ice age due to a quieter sun, the oceans then start to uptake and sequester CO2 from the atmosphere again. So CO2 follows temperature based on solar activity, not the other way around. This information is based on ice core samples taken from Antarctica and Greenland.

The earth has slowly been coming out of a mini ice age (Maunder Minimum) which ended in 1715. This process takes a long time and there are cycles within cycles. If you go back to the ‘70s you will see that the same propaganda outlets were pushing a new ice age. Here’s an example from a 1975 Newsweek magazine article. You may remember that there were plenty vehicles and industry pumping out CO2 at that time too, yet temperatures were going down.

https://web.archive.org/web/20180625112826/https://html1-f.scribdassets.com/yal7w1ekg3t0s2a/images/1-9c290725b9.jpg

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

But work out what that would look like if it were all in a single layer. It would be a mighty thick layer.

But it’s not, it’s thinly dispersed throughout the atmosphere. 

Does its distribution make any difference in terms of its greenhouse effect? Is the chance of infrared waves leaving earth encountering a CO2 molecule not pretty much the same whether the CO2 is dispersed or in a single layer?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

@albaleo

Well, there’s never going to be a single layer so the point is probably moot. Anyway, if you look into it you’ll find there’s actually not enough CO2. Atmospheric concentrations of CO2 have been much higher in the past — as much as 7000ppm compared to the roughly 410-420ppm we have now. So there’s obviously a mechanism at work to bring levels back down (see above). Plant life starts to die off at around 150ppm, so even 420ppm is not that much above starvation levels. Farmers even pump CO2 into their greenhouses to increase crop yield.

https://notrickszone.com/2013/05/17/atmospheric-co2-concentrations-at-400-ppm-are-still-dangerously-low-for-life-on-earth/

An expert in CO2, William Happer, says there’s a saturation point for the gas, or a safety mechanism. That is, the higher CO2 levels go the less they absorb infrared light, so CO2 starts to have less and less effect on temperature. I forget his exact words but it was something like that.

Rather than being concerned that a vital, life-giving gas needs to be reeled back in to net zero emission level (impossible and ridiculous), the bigger issue is the tax burden us serfs are expected to bear for this non-problem and how our lives are to be micro-managed to ‘save the earth’. Do a search and you’ll find that people like Al Gore, John Kerry, Obama and Bill Gates have all bought beach-front houses in the last decade or so. Look at their lifestyles and what they do, not what they and the media tell us.

1 ( +1 / -0 )

Thanks for your reply, GreenPeas

An expert in CO2, William Happer, says there’s a saturation point for the gas, or a safety mechanism. That is, the higher CO2 levels go the less they absorb infrared light, so CO2 starts to have less and less effect on temperature. I forget his exact words but it was something like that.

I've read something similar before. (I took a strong interest in this topic about 20 years ago, but my memory is getting poor. Sorry.) One of the original greenhouse theories of CO2 was from a scientist named Arrhenius. But his theory placed the warming caused by increased CO2 somewhat lower than many current theories. One reason is that his theories were somewhat purist (CO2 in a closed jar kind of thing). They didn't take account of effects of increased water in the atmosphere as a result of warming, and so a further potential greenhouse knock-on.

I see myself as a skeptic. I've read various criticisms of some models of temperature history, and the criticisms made sense to me. Also, some of those critics also view CO2 as a greenhouse gas and accept the level in the atmosphere has increased. They simply question the potential effect. Such people have been described as deniers. I find that quite ugly.

One of those people is Judith Curry (described as a denier by Michael Mann). The link below is a recent blog of hers that outlines various factors that may influence short term future temperatures.

https://judithcurry.com/2022/01/23/crossing-or-not-the-1-5-and-2-0oc-thresholds/

1 ( +1 / -0 )

Login to leave a comment

Facebook users

Use your Facebook account to login or register with JapanToday. By doing so, you will also receive an email inviting you to receive our news alerts.

Facebook Connect

Login with your JapanToday account

User registration

Articles, Offers & Useful Resources

A mix of what's trending on our other sites