[alancalverd]

But because the temperature of the atmosphere has increased, there has been increased evaporation and sublimation of water from the surface of the planet, and the replacement of forest by grassland has likewise increased evaporation. At least that's what this mindless troll thinks. Others apparently disagree.

[Petrochemicals]

But because the temperature of the atmosphere has increased, there has been increased evaporation and sublimation of water from the surface of the planet, and the replacement of forest by grassland has likewise increased evaporation. At least that's what this mindless troll thinks. Others apparently disagree.

It's not just the increaced temperature Alan, let's face it evaporation lowers temperature. The thing about creating higher temperatures is they can do 1 of 2 things, increace radiation or increace evaporation. Water will not evapourate in humid conditions, relative humidity being related to air temperatures, that is the different heat that people talk of in Spain compared to Britain I believe, 30 degrees in Britain and you can hardly breath, go on holiday to Greece at 45 and its fine.

Creating a moving low level increaced air temperature means the bulk mass of the surface of the earth has a greater potential to evapourate water, water wishes to be a gas, but when humidity is high the surface of the earth has to make do with emmissive radiation rather than evaporative cooling. If we increaced the capacity for evapouration by 1 percent  that should be a huge ammount of solar energy captured into the Earth's weather system.

[mikewonders]

The values indicated in the recent replies look a bit "carbon biased" compared to the data we've gathered in our own effort, which is not to say the values shown are wrong, but that further data I provide, I'll try to specify valid sources and calculations to be more thorough.

It's convenient to "cherry pick" percentages, but that treats the true complexity in distinct and stratified constructs.  1% of impact changing the force multiplier values of relative flux dynamics in gaseous, thermal or radiant feedback loops can have a tremendous net effect well outside of the seemingly minuscule percentage isolated.

I would be particularly interested in seeing the temperature increase data suggesting oceanic volume / surface increase can be accounted for without massive addition to the core water volume as a whole.  Determining the actual changes in oceanic volume is a very complex process given related changes in land mass and shoreline / swamp land remodeling.  Many of the predictive models fail to account for several aspects and simply predict a raw increase in volume per degree to produce a deceptive "map flooding" suggestion.  This again is a place where small calculation errors or omissions equal huge discrepancies which can easily be curve fit conveniently to any favorable outcome, for or against.

The original question of the topic I first opened before it split asked if the earth was basically getting smaller over time.  The answer would be "negligible" which means the increase in atmospheric dimension is almost totally about thermal increase leading to expansion of the troposphere at least, hence the ability to sustain greater water vapor volume and density increasing the deleterious effects it has on greenhouse force amplification both aloft in lower altitudes and above the stratosphere.  I'll try to be more specific in the future.

The concern I see is that trusting on CO2 mitigation alone is likely to not have the compensating correction in the window of time that models predict critical events approaching 2050.  The proposed solutions being implemented currently CANNOT ever support the current energy demands let alone future demands.  Clean, sustainable combustion with adequate on-demand power is attainable including carbon, heat and water vapor mitigation, to a net neutral emissions model which is still being grossly overlooked. 

It is this contrast which drew me to the unique group this forum is.  The responses are continually appreciated, especially if some greater value of solutions might come out of it.

[Bored chemist]

The values indicated in the recent replies look a bit "carbon biased" compared to the data we've gathered in our own effort,

Effect =/= cause.

[Bored chemist]

I would be particularly interested in seeing the temperature increase data suggesting oceanic volume / surface increase can be accounted for without massive addition to the core water volume as a whole. 

OK
https://sealevel.nasa.gov/understanding-sea-level/global-sea-level/thermal-expansion

The values indicated in the recent replies look a bit "carbon biased" compared to the data we've gathered in our own effort

Who is "we" here?
Anyway, the figures I gave are "reality biased".
It's no rocket science.
There's a lot more water vapour than CO2 in the air.
So if we add the same number of moles of each to the air, it's going to make a much bigger relative difference to the CO2 concentration than to the water concentration.

Also, there's a fundamental difference. CO2 doesn't fall out as rain.

It's convenient to "cherry pick" percentages

What "cherry picking" are you accusing me of?
Do  you have evidence?

[mikewonders]

I would be particularly interested in seeing the temperature increase data suggesting oceanic volume / surface increase can be accounted for without massive addition to the core water volume as a whole. 

OK
[...]://sealevel.nasa.gov/understanding-sea-level/global-sea-level/thermal-expansion

Thank you.  Seems the board didn't like me re-quoting a link so I stubbed it above.  The link provided identifies a "supposition" that only one-third of the global sea-level rise is attributable to temperature change and only from satellite altimeter readings.  The Argo data only details ongoing change confirmation of temperature in the "upper" ocean volume.  Ocean-going maritime measurements date back much further of course but were historically inconsistent and stated elsewhere as having to be "adjusted for correlation" on several levels building models. 

My first concern would be an absence of metrology standards used to confirm the accuracy of leaning on satellite data without sanitizing the raw data, the compiled data and then the statistical models used to normalize or curve fit the data to some potentially preferential model.  Among these methods I've looked at over the years of development of satellite methods identifies numerous points of even fairly recent data conflicting and being massaged for estimated accuracy to glean a supposed range of probability of values.  One might also consider a potential conflict of interest when looking at NASA funding and the influences of government seeking to fit the values to a given conclusion without sanitizing the process or even those in peer review subject to various pressures from within academia.  If that sounds paranoid, its not meant to cast a dim light on NASA, they're a huge and wonderful contribution to scientific advancement, but also not immune to such influence.  I've had the pleasure of speaking to some who worked within NASA and the military both, who understand these concerns are real as first-hand observers.

My point is that errors in these types of singular data references comprised of multiple influences and coefficients (satellite altimeter data in this example) can skew multi-focal projection models severely, which easily skews downstream assessments "potentially" in a biased manner depending on publication(s) wanting to assert "scientific fact" far less than empirical which then becomes "adopted" as accepted fact by others. 

We would love to say it's all about CO2 as the accepted norm creating huge financial potentials for many along the way.  Unfortunately if that assessment is wrong and the path were on insufficient, we end up losing the long game.  I'm all for CO2 mitigation, so long as we don't ignore viable alternatives to an accurate and complete solution of mitigating the other serious contributions while helping solve energy production as a reduction of several forms of long term damages of other pollutants, e.g. Ozone thinning for one.

Errors in determining the actual ocean surface area absorbing or reflecting, face the difficulty of accurately measuring levels of encroaching volume and area into huge and growing swamp land formations increasing in shallows and the nature of establishing accuracy among a moving "fractal" shoreline relative to least significant distance between measurements in a physical body confronting changes of tidal changes and depth values in those locations.  It also matters because inaccuracy in depth / volume / area relationships in these fluid changes of shallows are areas which warm and reflect much more efficiently than dark body ocean depth relating to both thermal reflectivity and enormous evaporation potentials.  The original premise of the question asked on topic considers water vapor potentials, for concerns of dismissing combustion vapor over 60-100 years time.

The values indicated in the recent replies look a bit "carbon biased" compared to the data we've gathered in our own effort

Who is "we" here?

"We" (sorry for the ambiguous reference)... in the context given, is "me" as the original poster of the topic and having devoted nearly five years effort in search of reliable solutions to climate.  "We" are a private collection of 10 more as a consortia, searching for fuller solutions beyond the current initiatives leaning on wind / solar.  The technical part of the group is comprised of lifers in careers of military, manufacturing / engineering disciplines and physics.

Anyway, the figures I gave are "reality biased".
It's no rocket science.
There's a lot more water vapour than CO2 in the air.
So if we add the same number of moles of each to the air, it's going to make a much bigger relative difference to the CO2 concentration than to the water concentration.

Also, there's a fundamental difference. CO2 doesn't fall out as rain.

"Reality based" or not, accuracy matters.  As for "rocket science" I've spent over a decade in development in combined rocketry principle coupled with turbine combustion design.  I can promise rocket science happens in a contained setting far simpler than what the current climate concerns are comprised of.  Unfortunately the current developments in actual rocket science have lead to privatization of the rocketry industry working to replace clean burning hydrogen fuels with raw Methane, one of the most proliferating growth industries today.  Want more Methane in the atmosphere?  Simply put as a prime example, that's a move in the wrong direction working against the longer term needs to solve, especially if governance continues to adopt that carbon mitigation alone is the primary solution to be solved by wind and solar.  That also isn't rocket science to see our current solutions are nowhere near sufficient on any measure of adequacy or accuracy.  Alternatives are being looked at but the greater weight continues to press for wind and solar which is where we're going to find we hit a glass ceiling that's not adequate.

It's convenient to "cherry pick" percentages

What "cherry picking" are you accusing me of?
Do  you have evidence?

Not an "accusation" in any manner but just a reference to gathering low hanging fruit for convenience of dialog without considering the entire impact water vapor plays.  You're very welcome to disagree, hopefully among the fuller context.  I'm sorry if you took that as an accusation, it's not meant to be nor focused personally.  As for "evidence", yes I have a ton of evidence, relative to the concerns of water vs. CO2.  If you mean evidence relative to "Cherry Picking" I'll let the dialog speak to that, understanding there was no judgement intended or to dismiss anyone's value to the conversation.

[Bored chemist]

If you mean evidence relative to "Cherry Picking" I'll let the dialog speak to that,

OK
So the dialog so far is
" Cherry picking"
"What Cherry picking?"
"I won't answer that; the dialog speaks for itself".

Unfortunately the current developments in actual rocket science have lead to privatization of the rocketry industry working to replace clean burning hydrogen fuels with raw Methane, one of the most proliferating growth industries today.

I'm not a rocket scientist...
But I'm pretty sure that the point of a rocket is to burn the fuel rather than spill it into the atmosphere.
So, it shouldn't matter much which fuel you choose.
I also know that it's pretty easy to get methane on a renewable basis, so the carbon footprint is minimal. We currently vent lots of it into the air from landfills etc. If we collected that and put it through a rocket engine, the overall contribution from the CO2 and water would be much smaller than that from the methane.

Which then leads to the next question:
For a given amount of energy imparted to a rocket, does a hydrogen powered rocket  (which creates water vapour as the sole exhaust gas) put more water or less water into the air than a methane powered one which also burns the carbon and gets energy from that?
You may find the higher heating values for methane (890 KJ/mol) and hydrogen (286 KJ/ mol) useful

There's some irony to posting " we need to use a fuel which only adds water to the air" in a thread which asks about the harm done by adding water to the air.

On the other hand, it's a bit of a red herring; If the only thing burning fossil fuels was the space programme, we would have solved the CO2 problem. It's not a big enough user to make much difference.

"Reality based" or not, accuracy matters.

Yes and no...
For example, what I said was

So we added about 1 part in 10,000 to the rainfall.

And I'm happy to accept that my estimate (whose derivation I already gave) might be out by an order of magnitude or so.

But that level of accuracy is often acceptable.
Would "So we added somewhere between 1 part in 1,000 and 1 in 100,000 to the rainfall. Do you think we would notice that change?" have attracted a different answer?

[mikewonders]

If you mean evidence relative to "Cherry Picking" I'll let the dialog speak to that,

OK
So the dialog so far is
" Cherry picking"
"What Cherry picking?"
"I won't answer that; the dialog speaks for itself".

Unfortunately the current developments in actual rocket science have lead to privatization of the rocketry industry working to replace clean burning hydrogen fuels with raw Methane, one of the most proliferating growth industries today.

I'm not a rocket scientist...
But I'm pretty sure that the point of a rocket is to burn the fuel rather than spill it into the atmosphere.
So, it shouldn't matter much which fuel you choose.

I also know that it's pretty easy to get methane on a renewable basis, so the carbon footprint is minimal. We currently vent lots of it into the air from landfills etc. If we collected that and put it through a rocket engine, the overall contribution from the CO2 and water would be much smaller than that from the methane.

You are correct.  Recent improvements, (e.g. Raptor, Prometheus, etc.) can burn to nearly equilibrium completion at upwards of 99%) so long as we accept the responsibility to sustain methane containment in resourcing / production / transport, etc. 

Resourcing so far continues to be mostly fossil fuel based which works against climate and sustainability and will grow in demand dramatically.  The US industry alone is headed toward producing a methane combusting rocket engine every 12 hours, 220 productive days per year. That ends up being a lot of "globally unregulated" methane utilization and we have a long way to go to reach neutrality in handling, especially mined methane.  Land fill methane is not cost effective yet to clean for high volume. Not that we want to encourage more landfills.  However, biomass produced methane can be absolutely carbon neutral which is attractive, if only the focus turns that direction.  Biomass sufficiency is absolutely feasible in a sustainable model, if we hold to that caveat.

Which then leads to the next question:
For a given amount of energy imparted to a rocket, does a hydrogen powered rocket  (which creates water vapour as the sole exhaust gas) put more water or less water into the air than a methane powered one which also burns the carbon and gets energy from that?

You may find the higher heating values for methane (890 KJ/mol) and hydrogen (286 KJ/ mol) useful.

Its important to keep in mind the source of any carbon along with hydrogen, especially if there is effective means of reducing total water over time with carbon / water neutral resourcing. 

Water vapor (and thrust) production goes back to the earlier reference of octane and the question of where the hydrogen came from if it's carbon and water neutral as a relatively closed loop.  The higher heat values of methane as you point out are undeniably important.  Technically so far, hydrogen is not very cost effective to make, store or transport but promising inroads are evolving there quickly.  If the hydrogen is sourced from neutral biomass and hydrolyzed ocean water, industry can mitigate the fossil part and continue to reduce total water volume from past evolution. The concern is if the powers at will are thinking that far ahead to incorporate an integral closed loop and if the mitigation efforts are sufficient to accomplish the goal timely to projections.  An over-reliance on carbon mitigation alone is where I keep returning to as the concern mostly with a need to have a fuller understanding of the total causal loops involved.

There's some irony to posting " we need to use a fuel which only adds water to the air" in a thread which asks about the harm done by adding water to the air.

On the other hand, it's a bit of a red herring; If the only thing burning fossil fuels was the space programme, we would have solved the CO2 problem. It's not a big enough user to make much difference.

Ditto the irony, "Oh the humanity" .  Again sourcing and mitigation need to be intrinsically linked in closed loop supply / utilization, at which point both fuels have discernible values and can be maximized for fullest mitigation / benefit.  I don't dislike Methane, in fact there are several important reactions it supports for hydrogen, CO and exothermic consumption of biomass carbon conversion, water-gas shift, etc.

"Reality based" or not, accuracy matters.

Yes and no...
For example, what I said was

So we added about 1 part in 10,000 to the rainfall.

And I'm happy to accept that my estimate (whose derivation I already gave) might be out by an order of magnitude or so.

But that level of accuracy is often acceptable.
Would "So we added somewhere between 1 part in 1,000 and 1 in 100,000 to the rainfall. Do you think we would notice that change?" have attracted a different answer?

Sorry to beat a dying horse but... grabbing at extreme ends on only one part of the whole equation regarding just "rainfall" negates the concern of non-linear force amplification of interrelated impact on several manners of physics and thermodynamics in geological, atmospheric and greenhouse loops.  That makes it apples vs oranges which is not definitive.  I try to resist jumping to broad conclusions ignoring the elephant in the room when there's a lot more to it than simple first order volumetric comparisons, especially if the first order values come from relatively curve fitted estimates.  For purposes of dialog doing so is a place holder initially, but sooner or later it comes down to being thorough and accurate, avoiding assumptions. 

It's not wrong to make broad comparisons but I wouldn't dismiss the many other critical places impact occurs for overlooking specifics, especially on a long-term model with a dangerous downside in rate of change / rate of recovery.

This is only one part of several impacts which lean back into long term deforestation, solar intensity, radiant surfaces, population and IR reflectivity also.  The degree to which the interrelations have secondary and tertiary effect are numerous which is one of the reasons I proffered the initial posting question.  Humanity, behavior and population increases have had an impact.  The fact that MOST dialogs in these areas quickly diverge suggests we still don't have sufficient correlation to dismiss much of what is actually net effect now, or how future decisions will reflect an outcome, so I choose to work toward greater specificity.

[mikewonders]

But because the temperature of the atmosphere has increased, there has been increased evaporation and sublimation of water from the surface of the planet, and the replacement of forest by grassland has likewise increased evaporation. At least that's what this mindless troll thinks. Others apparently disagree.

Agree.  Grasses are critical being rapid to restore lost soils and stop run-off.  They are the deep seeking root systems also which facilitate early humus building leading toward new nitrogen fixing carbon storage until larger species might follow.  The evaporation rate is mostly relative to the total leaf area which is an important function of shade.  Grasses provide shade to the land very quickly and effectively, which took me by surprise early on. 

Reforestation in badly decertified areas requires grasses and early species which must be cultivated at the perimeter of a desert and spread inward to propagate sustainably, managing to sustain grazing for stable fertilization and sustain of deep aquifer vitality as land mass increases over time.

There's very little in nature that doesn't share a role as a result of evolution in a world benefiting from greater than 100% efficiency owing to the sun once removed.  Thinking that our impact in one area would not spill over into other areas indirectly doesn't make sense.  Unfortunately our human focus tends to have delayed 20/20 vision.

Let me not diverge on land and water reclamation, but to say your point plays a role in part of the bigger picture, but how much evaporation when and where pokes it's head up then.

[Bored chemist]

hydrolyzed ocean water,

You can't hydrolyse water.

What "cherry picking"

You forgot to answer.

grabbing at extreme ends on only one part of the whole equation regarding just "rainfall" negates the concern of non-linear force amplification of interrelated impact on several manners of physics and thermodynamics in geological,

No.
It just points out that we have made practically no difference to the water in the air, but we have increased CO2 by a third.

[mikewonders]

hydrolyzed ocean water,

You can't hydrolyse water.

What "cherry picking"

You forgot to answer.

grabbing at extreme ends on only one part of the whole equation regarding just "rainfall" negates the concern of non-linear force amplification of interrelated impact on several manners of physics and thermodynamics in geological,

No.
It just points out that we have made practically no difference to the water in the air, but we have increased CO2 by a third.

Hmmm, I suppose I should have stuck with the simpler "Electrolysis" terminology.  Electrolysis long term with salt water is problematic where phases of hydrolyzing balances of evolving anions and cations is a part of managing long term stability of the alkalized solution.  I caused a divergence regarding water vapor.  Disregard if you wish.

I did not forget to answer "Cherry Picking", look for "low hanging fruit".

I don't think anything is resolved to "practically no difference to the water in the air", but to leave it that fossil fuel related water vapor emission is where the water related problem starts and further needs to be quantified and qualified with respect to it's total effects in other relative and important measures currently out of scope to the solutions being considered as a measure of climate impact.  Beyond those more detailed concerns, I'll choose not to increase bulk in the thread to argue absent qualified data I should be providing myself, thanks.

[Bored chemist]

Hmmm, I suppose I should have stuck with the simpler "Electrolysis" terminology. 

You should have suck with the correct terminology.

Electrolysis long term with salt water is problematic where phases of hydrolyzing balances of evolving anions and cations is a part of managing long term stability of the alkalized solution. 

That's nonsense.
Hydrolysis means splitting things by the use or water, it does not mean splitting water.
There's no hydrolysis involved in electrolysis.
The practical mechanisms seem to be based on electrodialysis and/ or reverse osmosis then membrane electrolysis.

 

[Bored chemist]

I don't think anything is resolved to "practically no difference to the water in the air"

Well, we only added about 1 in 10^4

[alancalverd]

The concern I see is that trusting on CO2 mitigation alone is likely to not have the compensating correction in the window of time that models predict critical events approaching 2050.  The proposed solutions being implemented currently CANNOT ever support the current energy demands let alone future demands.  Clean, sustainable combustion with adequate on-demand power is attainable including carbon, heat and water vapor mitigation, to a net neutral emissions model which is still being grossly overlooked. 

I'm delighted to welcome thoughtful comment!

[Bored chemist]

I think that comparing the water that we have put into the atmosphere vs the stuff that was already there may be "low hanging fruit", but the reality is  that there's no apparent need to look for anything further up the tree.
I'm sure that, if there was, you might have presented it.

Picking the single biggest most obvious fact and proving that it is, via two paths offering 1 year and longer (60 year)  time scales is hardly "cherry picking"; it's just stating the obvious.
You start by looking at the big contributors.
Co2 and H2O
And, since we are looking at warming, we must be looking at changes so we look at which one has changed most- and that's the CO2 by an enormous margin.

[alancalverd]

What was the total water content of the atmosphere 100 or 1000 years ago? How was it distributed between gas, liquid and solid phases? What was the average cover of low (below 6500 ft) , medium (6500 - 13,000 ft) and high cloud?

Without even asking how much is anthropogenic and how much was natural, the answer to all those questions is that we have absolutely no idea. And that isn't my answer - it comes from the IPCC, so it must be true!

What we do know is that if the mean temperature of the surface increases, the low-level water content of the atmosphere increases.

[Bored chemist]

Without even asking how much is anthropogenic...

That's why I calculated the anthropogenic bit.
Do try to keep up.

What we do know is that if the mean temperature of the surface increases, the low-level water content of the atmosphere increases.

Thankyou for pointing out one of the more obvious effects of warming.
Many of us are interested in the cause.

Nobody is disputing that it's one of the positive feedback mechanism which can turn a slow change into a quick one. (along with methane hydrates and oceanic CO2)

But, because of mankind's activity, we already have CO2 rising 100 times faster than it ever did  before.

[alancalverd]

...and no evidence that addition of CO2 is significant above about 200 ppm. Correlation is not causation, and the historic record shows that CO2 is not causative above 200 ppm - it follows temperature. I don't have any historic data below about 190 ppm and unlike those whose careers depend on it, I won't speculate on data I don't have.

[Petrochemicals]

...and no evidence that addition of CO2 is significant above about 200 ppm. Correlation is not causation, and the historic record shows that CO2 is not causative above 200 ppm - it follows temperature. I don't have any historic data below about 190 ppm and unlike those whose careers depend on it, I won't speculate on data I don't have.

I think the point about c02, regardless if you are great thunberg or a troll like Alan is that c02 rise is usually followed by an ice age.

[Bored chemist]

and no evidence that addition of CO2 is significant above about 200 ppm.

Is that because it magically measures the concentration and changes the rules of physics when it exceeds 200?

You might want to look at the previous discussions about "saturation" before you reply.