Political Crossfire Forums

[cap'n queasy]

Quote: Would the mass release of water vapor hurt the Earth and its mechanisms more then the mass release of CO2?

That is the question I am asking.

Yes. It already accounts for about 95% of so-called global warming.

Quote: Human activites contribute slightly to greenhouse gas concentrations through farming, manufacturing, power generation, and transportation. However, these emissions are so dwarfed in comparison to emissions from natural sources we can do nothing about, that even the most costly efforts to limit human emissions would have a very small-- perhaps undetectable-- effect on global climate.

[FarPastGone]

This just doesn't make sense to me (I am not calling you or anyone wrong since I have little knowledge on the topic), but isn't our atmposphere made up of water vapor somewhat? So how is water vapor going to have a more adverse affect?

[Demonic Spoon]

Whatever. It's irrelevant, since the water used to power the cars would evaporate and contribute to global warming anyway. Besides, all it does is go up into the atmosphere and forms into clouds. It would not contribute much, if at all, to global warming.

[perdidochas]

FarPastGone wrote: This just doesn't make sense to me (I am not calling you or anyone wrong since I have little knowledge on the topic), but isn't our atmposphere made up of water vapor somewhat? So how is water vapor going to have a more adverse affect?

Our atmosphere is also made of CO2.

www.infoplease.com/ce6/sci/A0856758.html

[cap'n queasy]

Demonic Spoon wrote: Whatever. It's irrelevant, since the water used to power the cars would evaporate and contribute to global warming anyway. Besides, all it does is go up into the atmosphere and forms into clouds. It would not contribute much, if at all, to global warming.

The point is not that water vapour is already present in the atmosphere but that more water vapour in the atmosphere definitely holds in more heat. So creating a lot more water vapour is deleterious to the atmosphere.

But as you said, the amount is neglible in the case of both anthropogenic water vapour and CO2.

[FarPastGone]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Earth%27s_atmosphere#Composition

[MplsBison]

perdidochas wrote:

Hydrogen cars can be powered in two different ways: 1) Fuel cells; 2) internal combusion. This case is an example of the second.

But how many BTUs is a kg of Hydrogen vs. a kg of 87 octane gasoline?

[Quicksurf]

I wasn't really saying this was necessarily great news for enviornmentalists. But rather good news for those of us who are tired of our nation's need for oil. This seems to me to be a posititve step in the right direction.

[FarPastGone]

I don't believe that it has been proven (in this thread specifically, who knows it may have been proven somewhere else) that water vapor is a much more harmful emission to release into the atmosphere. The fact that water vapor content in the atmosphere already fluctuates, is a large portion of greenhouse gases, and that:

Quote: Water vapor is a definite part of the greenhouse gas equation even though not under direct human control: Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) TAR chapter lead author Michael Mann considers citing "the role of water vapor as a greenhouse gas" to be "extremely misleading" as water vapor can not be controlled by humans [3]; see also [4] and [5]. The IPCC discusses the water vapor feedback in more detail [6].

Of course I am sure if we had a bunch of vehicles running around emitting water vapor it would have some impact on the atmosphere, but accordingly:

Quote: Water vapor is a natural greenhouse gas and accounts for the largest percentage of the greenhouse effect. Water vapor concentrations fluctuate regionally, but human activity does not directly affect water vapor concentrations except at very local scales.

If water vapor is already such a large portion of the atmosphere and effects global warming through the greenhouse effect, then what effects do the rest of the greenhouse gases have on the globe.

Quote: We state the fact that water vapor leads to a positive feedback in the process of greenhouse warming. If other greenhouse gases produce a warming process, this effect is amplified by the presence of water vapor and thus the temperature rises even more. But if the temperature rises, more and more water evaporates. The abundance of water vapor in the air again increases. Temperature rises...
http://www.espere.net/Unitedkingdom/water/uk_watervapour.html

From what I understand we would be impacting the greenhouse effect through the release of water vapor, but we would be cutting out the other gases that aid to ozone depletion and impact water vapor. Through just releasing water vapor we are effecting a fluctuating system on a very minuscule scale compared to what is already out there.

Quote: Due to the so called "greenhouse effect" - caused by atmospheric trace gases such as carbon dioxide (CO2), ozone (O3), and water vapor (H2O) - infrared radiation from the earth is stored temporarily in the atmosphere. Of all these trace gases, water vapor represents the most important constituent. It contributes to the natural greenhouse warming process by approximately 60%. Water vapor amplifies the anthropogenic contribution to greenhouse warming through a positive feedback. This amplification is counteracted by the increased reflection off clouds.

I could be way of basis, but that's what I gathered. Some people believe that as temperatures increase higher and higher it just creates more water vapor thus creating a boiling effect, others deny these allegations and say that the clouds do absorb radiation in there water vapors but create a cooling effect through the deflection of the suns rays.

[Pzatchok]

The Ozone layer has already recovered and is not being destoyed.
In fact its an add layer in that month to month it can vary by as much as 30% with no problems.
Thats why you haven't seen satelite photos of it lately. If they posted it on national news every week or month people would see the changes and recoveries. Thus no more hype.

[FarPastGone]

You are right, it is recovering, but it is far from completely recovered. Still this conversation is about which method of power for vehicles is more beneficial for the world, and has the least adverse effects on the greenhouse effect.

[perdidochas]

tman_ndsu08 wrote: perdidochas wrote:

Hydrogen cars can be powered in two different ways: 1) Fuel cells; 2) internal combusion. This case is an example of the second.

But how many BTUs is a kg of Hydrogen vs. a kg of 87 octane gasoline?

From every source I've found on a quick google, 1Kg of H2 has about the energy of 1 gallon of gas (2.8 kg).

[MplsBison]

So you're going to be buying 3 times as much Hydrogen to get the same miles.

[perdidochas]

tman_ndsu08 wrote: So you're going to be buying 3 times as much Hydrogen to get the same miles.

Other way around. 1kg of H2 has the same energy content as 2.8 Kg of gasoline. That means that you can replace 2.8kg of gas with 1kg of H2. However, most of that difference is meaningless, since H2 requires a pressurized tank.

[The_Right_Honourable]

I really dont understand why we dont all switch to bio-diesel? I know in America Diesel's arent so popular but you could grow your own fuel. Supporting farmers, reducing emissons and lowering costs. You can modify a standard diesel to use bio-diesel so it wouldnt be hard for manufacturers to change over...

[cap'n queasy]

Quote: Water vapor is a definite part of the greenhouse gas equation even though not under direct human control: Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) TAR chapter lead author Michael Mann considers citing "the role of water vapor as a greenhouse gas" to be "extremely misleading" as water vapor can not be controlled by humans [3]; see also [4] and [5]. The IPCC discusses the water vapor feedback in more detail [6].

This is faulty logic. Human control has nothing to do with whether water vapor in the atmosphere holds in heat or not. This feature of water vapor alone is what leads to it's designation as a greenhouse gas.

This effect would happen whether it is introduced into the atmosphere naturally or by human activity.

[The_Right_Honourable]

cap'n queasy wrote: Quote: Water vapor is a definite part of the greenhouse gas equation even though not under direct human control: Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) TAR chapter lead author Michael Mann considers citing "the role of water vapor as a greenhouse gas" to be "extremely misleading" as water vapor can not be controlled by humans [3]; see also [4] and [5]. The IPCC discusses the water vapor feedback in more detail [6].

This is faulty logic. Human control has nothing to do with whether water vapor in the atmosphere holds in heat or not. This feature of water vapor alone is what leads to it's designation as a greenhouse gas.

This effect would happen whether it is introduced into the atmosphere naturally or by human activity.

Out of curiousity... do you believe in global warming or that human emissions have an impact on it?

[perdidochas]

The_Right_Honourable wrote: I really dont understand why we dont all switch to bio-diesel? I know in America Diesel's arent so popular but you could grow your own fuel. Supporting farmers, reducing emissons and lowering costs. You can modify a standard diesel to use bio-diesel so it wouldnt be hard for manufacturers to change over...

With tax breaks of $.50 per gallon, biodiesel is a little cheaper than petrodiesel. Without tax breaks, it's a littel more expensive than petrodiesel. Where I live, it's a good solution--it never gets cold here. In colder climates, it can be problematic (it gels at a higher temperature than petrodiesel). Also, we don't have nearly the vegetable oil making capacity to really make a dent in the market. Interestingly, I've read that biodiesel is really great for inner city buses, due to decreased emissions.

[FarPastGone]

cap'n queasy wrote: Quote: Water vapor is a definite part of the greenhouse gas equation even though not under direct human control: Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) TAR chapter lead author Michael Mann considers citing "the role of water vapor as a greenhouse gas" to be "extremely misleading" as water vapor can not be controlled by humans [3]; see also [4] and [5]. The IPCC discusses the water vapor feedback in more detail [6].

This is faulty logic. Human control has nothing to do with whether water vapor in the atmosphere holds in heat or not. This feature of water vapor alone is what leads to it's designation as a greenhouse gas.

This effect would happen whether it is introduced into the atmosphere naturally or by human activity.
I don't really see what point you are really trying to make? This is speaking in terms of how much water vapor there is not what it does.

[FarPastGone]

perdidochas wrote: I've read that biodiesel is really great for inner city buses, due to decreased emissions.

This quote I am quoting (below) comes from another forum, we got on the topic of Kinky for governor, and this is from what someone in Denton said.

Quote: Kinky came up to Denton/Corinth to see how the "landfill gas" was running in this city. As it stands now, a little over half of the Waste Management trucks and large county vehicles (normal pickups etc are not outfitted for this) are running on Biodiesel.

Denton/Corinth is actually creating quite a stir because of this. The city is saving an estimated $75,000 this year in fuel costs, and next year will be even more. The plan will pay for itself in under 4 years....anything after that is pure savings.

Not only does it help run the landfill (financially I mean), it also helps lower pollutants and my taxes....that's a good deal in my book.