Continuing the Blog Action Day 2009 with one more blog.
We know that CO2 can absorb IR radiation, but not very well. On the other hand water, H2O, is a very good absorber. In comparison, the effect of CO2 absorption is almost negligible compared to H2O. So why is all focus on CO2 and not on water vapor in the air?
If we temporarily assume that AGW is true and that it is caused by man made CO2 emissions. Using the same model for water would result in an even better "isolation" of the Earth. Should we then not do everything we could to stop emitting water from man made activities?
As it turns out, global warming is not hitting the entire globe to the same extent, despite CO2 levels being quite equal everywhere. But, the temperature increase found in the end of the 20th century was mainly on the northern hemisphere and in urban areas.
Hello...anyone seeing the connection here? Human activity - increase of water vapor locally - small local temperature increase. Thus, there may be some substance in AGW, but it's not due to CO2. Even if water contributed to all measured temperature increase, it was only adding a small increase and the contribution from CO2 is in this context ridiculously small.
Please note, that when looking at the global climate a lot of things needs to be considered where the influence of the oceans is one of the biggest contributors. The amount of energy stored in the oceans is much, much higher than the energy in the air. If we were able to direct an ocean current properly towards the Arctic ice, we would probably be able to melt all ice within a few years time.