Is the origin of the problem global "drying" rather than "warming"? See details below:?

Question

It seems to me that the earth is just getting drier, which causes summers to be hotter and winters to be colder. We've been cutting trees at a greater rate for many decades all over the earth. And call me crazy, but it seems that in areas with more trees, and thus more humidity, the temperatures don't fluctuate as much as when there are no trees. An example would be day and nighttime extremes for deserts vs. rainforests.

I'm not talking about global warming. I'm asking about global drying. And I don't have ANY data. That's why I said it, "seems to me".

O.K. What I mean to ask is about global AIR drying. Isn't the world's air getting drier? Is'nt there more land becoming arrid? I just think that perhaps the water is staying more in the ocean and not moving about, moisturizing the atmosphere. But I am asking.

Answer 1

I'm not sure what 'the problem' is you're referring to.

You are correct in saying that the presence of water vapor and the avialability of liquid water at the surface both reduce diurnal temperature swings...and to some extent, annual variations.

However, there isn't any reason to think that the availability of water has changed globally. Evaporation requires precipitation...physically, that budget has to balance.

Answer 2

You are right in that the forests and large water bodies have dampening effect on temperature and humidity near the surface of the earth.
But the global warming is not a theory, it is a verified fact. At the standard atmosphere of 15 degrees centigrade, one cubic meter of air can contain approximately 14 grams of water. It is then said to be saturated and reached the dew point. With higher temperature, more water can be sustained in the air thus warmer global temperature will give us more moisture in the air. The adiabatic cooling of water saturated air being lower than dry air, it will result in more 'energy' in the hurricanes and other convective low pressures.
Nobody knows how it will end. Maybe it will self-regulate after a while. Maybe not. It is this uncertainty that must make us worried and start reacting now.

Answer 3

I come from a country with greenest rainforest, bluest seas and granite mountains...
we are trying very hard to maintain the landscape in spite of the rapid development
however, I notice that our night is colder and the hot day is drier..

last week we had a very high tide..which is rare..I heard that it was because of the melting ice somewhere from the colder world....

so I suppose because of the warming the global is drying??
hands up!! I am without indepth research and not going to, at this moment, when I have so much to do...but I think you have a point there..

Answer 4

First, correlation of information factors does not instruct reason. it ought to as certainly be accident. the suggestions presented is likewise no longer precise. there has been a severe argument over that because of the fact the international warming crowd deleted considerable temperature adjustments from those charts. 2d, there have been many different factors for the period of those sessions that are no longer to blame. case in point, shifts interior the poles reasons warmth to enhance interior the earth's indoors warming the land and inflicting ice to soften. Volcanic interest, photograph voltaic fluctuations and methane gas are all skipped over yet are all very considerable in climate replace. 650,000 years is truthfully no longer all that lots time once you're attempting to confirm planetary forms of fluctuation. It merely isn't statistically considerable for loss of an excellent sufficient numerical universe to artwork with. With the linked loss of different information on the subject remember of climate it ability no longer something in any respect. Now, allegedly the climate is at the instant warming. How do all of us comprehend that? the only incredibly precise temperature readings we've are from the final 50 years, infrequently sufficient to declare something smart. Even those readings are sporadic at proper and don't incorporate even 50% of the globe. An occasion of the unfavourable high quality of the arguments presented is the consistent comments approximately flowers soaking up CO2. greater beneficial than something, plankton interior the oceans are soaking up CO2, no longer terrestrial flowers. they're purely a small contribution and don't remember all that lots however the international warming crowd keeps beating that drum. Its a pretend lead, going nowhere. In different words, you are able to say with an excellent volume of self assurance that the climate is changing, in many situations because of the fact that's been for 4 billion years. each little thing else is organic conjecture at this factor. i'm going to gladly settle for scientific info yet no longer this pop technology they're touting now.

Answer 5

"it seems to me". Sounds like your data isn't quite as comprehensive as the supercomputer finite element climate models.

Tree are certainly good (they absorb CO2) as well as moisture and do affect local weather. However they are not nearly the most significant long term cause of global warming.

The science that supports the climbing CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere which allow higher frequency light energy through, but then absorb reflected lower frequency infrared energy is awfully well supported.