What is the true relationship between carbon dioxide and water vapor? This is a question I think has importance for many reasons, and should always be open to debate. It has been debated in the past, often because of widespread misinformation that needed correcting, but all has been quiet in recent years. I want to reopen the debate, based on serious information I believe to be undeniably true in some cases and badly in need of further interpretation in others, yet going virtually unrecognized in the sciences. The advancement of full and proper recognition has been a primary objective of these letters during the past year.
Carbon dioxide and water vapor are both greenhouses gases, each of them effective at a specific set of wavelengths on the radiation band. The energy effectiveness of each can be closely calculated and translated into temperature changes at the surface, but with a catch. Carbon dioxide is evenly distributed (well-mixed) throughout the atmosphere while water vapor content is subject to radical differences that are in a constant state of change. Actual effects on surface temperatures can only be calculated with reasonable accuracy if distribution is relatively stable, which is true for one but not the other. Science has tried to resolve this problem through the application of specific natural laws and principles which effectively set constraints on the amount of water vapor the atmosphere can hold without condensing, based on differences in local air temperatures, and also by drawing conclusions from observations that higher rates of evaporation from available water reservoirs occur when air temperatures increase.
Air temperatures throughout the atmosphere, which are known with reasonable accuracy, are for these two main reasons assumed to have effective control over water vapor distribution. In turn, whatever controls air temperatures, if known, can be assumed to have its own level of control over the distribution of water vapor. Well-mixed greenhouse gases, topped by carbon dioxide, all have some level of calculated control over air temperatures and so do a number of other, non-greenhouse, factors, some of which may be offsetting to the others. The net calculation, if correct and expressed in reality, makes all of these factors fundamentally responsible to a varying extent for the overall management of water vapor distribution.
There are nay men who hunt for having this anti-impotence pill to get comfort the erectile dysfunction There are many factors http://downtownsault.org/freighter-coming-into-the-locks/ viagra sans prescription that will lead to reduced effectiveness of the medication. A healthy review related to brand viagra pfizer history actually enables doctors for determining in case the nature of the issue is a major headache for impotent men. These glands produce vital endocrines, together with adrenaline and noradrenalin that are neurotransmitters and help your system levitra buy generic thought about this in managing stressful situations. Some of the herbs in the list of prescription. pharmacy cialisAn older generation of scientists made a determination that carbon dioxide could be used as a proxy for the net effects of all the other factors that are involved in causing temperatures to change. Since water vapor distribution was known to be responsive to temperature change, and not to anything else of significance that could be recognized, it seemed reasonable to treat its greenhouse powers, first of all, as a simple feedback of temperature change. On that basis its powers ended up being additionally positioned as a feedback to the workings of the powerful gas singularly treated as a proxy for many other causes of temperature change—carbon dioxide. That questionable decision has never been seriously challenged, and remains in effect.
What I am challenging is not just the treatment of carbon dioxide as a proxy, which effectively downgrades the importance of methane and other temperature changing factors, but the whole idea that water vapor’s greenhouse powers are actually constrained in the manner that is theorized. There is serious information available that tells a different story, making water the kind of feedback that evolves, in more than one way, taking on a life of its own. Its evolution involves a whole new set of factors which are ready for discussion. (To be continued.)
Carl