Will the global warming scientists just go away when we finally do manage to change our main source of energy?

Question

to hydrogen? Or will they claim that the water vapor from the hydrogen cars are heating up the environment as well since we know water vapor accounts for most of the greenhouse effect?

Speaking of water vapor, doesn't combustion have TWO by-products, why did they choose to hype up one of those by-products while ignoring the other one?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Combustion

It's coming
http://www.industryweek.com/ReadArticle.aspx?ArticleID=11007&SectionID=4

@nickel, with that argument you could say all energy comes from the Sun, but then you would still be left with the question of where did the Sun's energy come from?

Your argument doesn't change the fact combustion of hydrogen releases a net positive amount of energy.

Answer 1

Energy production in all it's forms is the largest contributor to global warming but even if all CO2 emissions stopped immediately the world will keep on heating for three reasons...

Firstly, the greenhouse gases already in the atmosphere will stay there for a long time (note 1) secondly, the greenhouse gases produced by processes other than energy production are enough in themselves to cause global warming, and thirdly, the world is in a natural warming phases of it's own accord (please keep this in context, the natural contribution is significantly smaller than the anthropogenic one).

So, whilst changing our main source of energy will make a big difference it won't solve the problem altogether. We'd also need to stop all deforestation, change from intensive to pastoral agriculture, change many industrial processes and all but eliminate quarrying, mining and other forms of mineral extraction. None of which is remotely practical unless we want to go back to living in caves.

On to water vapour...

The role that water vapour plays in global warming isn't overlooked by climate scientists but it's role is a very different one to that of the other greenhouse gases.

Water vapour is a unique greenhouse gas in that there is a natural mechanism in place for maintaining a balance in the atmosphere, once levels reach the maximum the surplus falls to earth as precipitation (note 2).

Water vapour also has a very short atmospheric lifespan (note 1) and for humans to make a significant contribution to levels of atmpsheric water vapour would require every person to produce nearly 200 tons of water vapour a day (note 3).

Additionally, although water vapour is a greenhouse gas and exists in far greater concentrations than all the other greenhouse gases combined, it is a very weak GHG. One part of CO2 contributes as much to global warming as about 20 parts of water vapour, 1 part of Freon (dochlorodiflouromethane) contributes about the same as 170,000 parts of water vapour.

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

Note 1: Different greenhouse gases have different atmospheric lifespans, in the case of CO2 it's 115 years, methane is about 12 years, the synthetic gases such as CFC's last for thousands of years, for water vapour it's four days.

Note 2: The maximum amount of water vapour the atmosphere can contain is about 4% by volume, this would occur on a hot day with 100% relative humidity. Once this maximum level is reached (known as Saturation Vapour Point or SVP) the excess mositure forms water droplets which fall to earth as precipitation, at ground level excess mositure is deposited as dew. SVP is affected by several factors, temperature is the most important, as temps fall so too does the SVP.

Note 3: Mass of atmospheric water vapour is approximately 1.27x10^16kg, approximately 1% of the atmosphere. Since the Industrial Revolution levels of GHG's have increased by an overall average of 39%, to increase water vapour by the same amount would require an additional 4.953x10^15kg of water vapour, because it has an atmospheric life of 4 days the increase would need to be 1.238x10^15kg per day, which is the equivalent of 190,500kg per day for every person on the planet.

Answer 2

"Water vapor is involved in an important climate feedback loop. As the temperature of the Earth's surface and atmosphere increases, the atmosphere is able to hold more water vapor. The additional water vapor, acting as a greenhouse gas, absorbs energy that would otherwise escape to space and so causes further warming."

http://www.agu.org/sci_soc/mockler.html

As I've explained many times, water vapor concentration is not a cause of global warming. It's a symptom and a feedback, and it depends on global temperature. If we reduce CO2 emissions and stop global warming, atmospheric water vapor concentration will remain constant regardless of how much water vapor our technology emits.

By the way, where do you propose "global warming scientists" go away to? If the problem is solved, climatologists will no doubt continue to study global climate as they always have.

Answer 3

What if you could back up your statements with links? That would be nice. I don't think you can find any scientific papers claiming the things you suggest in your question. Maybe you should pause your Y! global warming answers for a short time and read the IPCC reports instead. You may be surprised of what it says. Clue: It's not anything of the above although some of your statements may be available as possible future scenarios. If you're mixing a possible future prediction with the past you really need to take a break.

Answer 4

Water vapor is a greenhouse gas, but it does not force climate change.

If you were to saturate the air with water vapor, it would all precipate out in a few weeks, and equilibrium would be quickly restored. If you were to remove all water vapor from the air, evaporation from the oceans would quickly replace it, and once again equilibrium would be restored in a few weeks.

But CO2 stays in the air for decades or centuries. There are natural sources and sinks for CO2, but they take a long time to operate. So CO2 does force the climate, and we are absolutely correct to be concerned about it.

Even worse is that the largest natural sink for CO2 is the surface water of the ocean. But the ocean is currently becoming saturated. At the current rate of atmospheric CO2 increase, the oceans will be saturated by 2050, and will flip from being a natural sink to being a natural source. If we haven't done anything significant about CO2 emissions by that time, we're all screwed.

Answer 5

The natural water cycle, which controls the water/water vapor balance is quite robust and self regulating. The carbon cycle is provably not. Details:

There are a great many natural sources and sinks for carbon dioxide. But the present global warming is (mostly) the result of man made CO2 from burning fossil fuels.

There is a natural "carbon cycle" that recycles CO2. But it's a delicate balance and we're messing it up.

Look at this graph.

http://scrippsco2.ucsd.edu/graphics_gallery/mauna_loa_record/mlo_record.html

The little squiggles are nature doing its' thing. CO2 falls a bit during summer when plants are active, and rises during the winter. The huge increase is us, burning fossil fuels (in addition to the shape of the graph, the increase numerically matches the increase in fossil fuel use). The scientists can actually show that the increased CO2 in the air comes from burning fossil fuels by using "isotopic ratios" to identify that CO2. The natural carbon cycle buried carbon in fossil fuels over a very long time, little bit by little bit. We dig them up and burn them, real fast. That's a problem.

Man is upsetting the balance of nature. We need to fix that.

You seem to be a scientist. Some academic scientific research in a good library will convince you, not mucking about on Yahoo answers, or reading the popular media. Admittedly it will take time and effort.

Obligatory "it's not the sun" link to real solar scientists:

http://solar-center.stanford.edu/sun-on-earth/FAQ2.html

Answer 6

They'll never go away.
The people who are saying that CO2 causes global warming are the same people blocking all advances in technology for one reason or another.

Lets take a look at some alternative energies and environmentalist responses, the problem with hydrogen was explained by the first answer.

Nuclear- don't even mention this one to an environmentalist

Hydroelectric- can't build dams because it harms the environment and hurts fishes

Wind- kills birds and don't even think about placing turbines where people can see them, Ted Kennedy

Solar- Far to inefficient to even consider on a large scale

So we can't continue to use fossil fuels but we also can't use any known alternative energies because they all have downsides.
Thanks environmentalists.

Answer 7

THIS IS THE MOST STUPID THING I READ

Hydrogen is like electricity an ENERGY CARRIER, not a "SOURCE OF ENERGY" or primary energy. To generate a secondary source of energy you need a primary source of energy.

Solar energy can produce hydrogen like it is generated by the "Hydrosol" programm or using electricity from renewables. But that is still really sub-optimal.

COMBUSTION HAS SEVERAL BY-PRODUCTS:
CO2, H2O, NOx, SOx, O3, Soot, Mercury, and the list goes on...

Answer 8

Many ecofreaks are against using hydrogen, since hydrogen will be generated by carbon free nuclear powerplants. Not only don't they like nuclear energy, but hydrogen will end their denial of the sun causing global warming.

There is no need to worry about running out of fuel for nuclear reactors since they can run on Pu239 (decayed product of depleted uranium(U238) + a neutron ) which is a waste product of nuclear reactors.


What's The Fastest Way To Let People Know That CO2 Is Not Causing Global Warming?
http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index;_ylt=Auj7DJltcYNfjTjREz3Mw_nty6IX?qid=20070523190743AAVacnI

Answer 9

They will not be satisfied until they cripple the US,regardless of what it does to them. Any thing against Bush.