Discussion with Perplexity AI on Greenhouse Gases
(Radiantly Active – RAGs)
Gerald Ratzer
January 29, 2025
Water vapor is indeed a gas. It is the gaseous state of water (H2O) [1][2]. It is transparent and invisible to the naked eye [3][4]. Water vapor is less dense than dry air and is buoyant with respect to it [2].
Key characteristics of water vapor include:
1. It is created by evaporation or boiling of liquid water, or sublimation of ice [1][2].
2. It is a crucial component of Earth's atmosphere and hydrologic cycle [2].
3. It acts as a greenhouse gas, contributing significantly to the total greenhouse effect [2]. I disagree with this statement!!
4. Its concentration in air increases with temperature [5].
When you see something coming out of a large industrial chimney, it is not pure water vapor. What you're observing is likely a mixture of:
1. Condensed water droplets (fog or mist): These tiny water droplets form when the hot, moisture-laden air from the chimney cools upon contact with the colder outside air, causing the water vapor to condense [3][7].
2. Other emissions: Depending on the industrial process, this may include various gases and particulate matter [8].
The visible plume from chimneys is often mistaken for water vapor, but it's actually the condensation of water vapor into liquid droplets that makes it visible [7]. Pure water vapor itself remains invisible [3][4].
Citations:
[1] https://study.com/academy/lesson/what-is-water-vapor-definitionpressure-formula.html
[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Water_vapour
[3] https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/303804/how-are-watervapors-not-visible
[4] https://www.efoy-pro.com/en/glossary/water-vapor/
[5] https://sealevel.jpl.nasa.gov/ocean-observation/understandingclimate/air-and-water/
[6] https://chem.libretexts.org/Ancillary_Materials/Exemplars_and_Case_St udies/Exemplars/Biology/Ice_Water_Vapor
[7] https://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/2jf3ur/why_do_i_see_ water_vapor_when_i_open_the_hot/
[8] https://www.guildofmasterchimneysweeps.co.uk/dew-point-and-aciddew-point/
[9] https://www.eoas.ubc.ca/books/Practical_Meteorology/prmet102/Ch04watervapor-v102b.pdf
Water vapor is not typically considered a pollutant, while the classification of carbon dioxide (CO2) as a pollutant is more complex.
Water vapor is a natural component of the atmosphere and is not classified as a pollutant. It is a greenhouse gas that plays a crucial role in Earth's climate system [5]. However, it is not directly emitted by human activities in significant quantities and its concentration is primarily controlled by the Earth's temperature.
Carbon dioxide (CO2), on the other hand, has a more nuanced classification:
1. CO2 is not considered a traditional air pollutant because it occurs naturally in the atmosphere and is essential for life on Earth [6].
2. However, CO2 is classified as a greenhouse gas and is a major contributor to climate change [7]. The increasing concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere due to human activities is the primary driver of global warming [6]. Again, I disagree.
3. In some regulatory contexts, CO2 is treated as a pollutant. For example, in Canada, CO2 was added to the List of Toxic Substances under the Canadian Environmental Protection Act in 2005[2]. This classification allows the government to implement control measures for CO2 emissions.
4. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) also regulates CO2 as a greenhouse gas, recognizing its role in climate change [7].
It's important to note that while CO2 is essential for life processes and occurs naturally, the rapid increase in its atmospheric concentration due to human activities has led to its classification as a substance of concern in the context of climate change. 3
Citations:
[1] https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC8700805/
[2]
https://www.canada.ca/en/environment-climate-change/services/manage ment-toxic-substances/list-canadian-environmental-protection-act/ carbon-dioxide.html
[3] https://tc.canada.ca/en/dangerous-goods/part-2
[4] https://www.dhs.wisconsin.gov/chemical/carbondioxide.htm
[5] https://envira.global/industrial-emissions-classification/
[6] https://www.breeze-technologies.de/blog/carbon-dioxide-co2/
[7] https://www.epa.gov/ghgemissions/overview-greenhouse-gases
[8]
https://www.climate.gov/news-features/understanding-climate/climatechange-atmospheric-carbon-dioxide
Yes, I have read about the recent Executive Orders concerning the EPA's Endangerment Finding (EF). Based on the search results, President Trump issued several executive orders on his first day in office (January 21, 2025) that significantly impact climate and energy policies, including the Endangerment Finding [1][5].
Key points regarding the Endangerment Finding:
1. The executive order "Unleashing American Energy" directs the EPA Administrator, in collaboration with other relevant agencies, to submit recommendations to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) Director 4
within 30 days on the legality and continuing applicability of the 2009 Endangerment Finding [2].
2. This action does not immediately nullify or roll back the Endangerment Finding, but it initiates a process to reconsider its validity and applicability [5].
3. The order asks agencies to assess the "legality and continuing applicability" of the Endangerment Finding, which has been the basis for EPA's authority to regulate greenhouse gas emissions [5].
4. If the Endangerment Finding were to be revoked, it would undermine the EPA's regulations covering carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gas emissions from vehicles and power plants [6].
These executive orders signal a significant shift in U.S. environmental and energy policy, potentially paving the way for major changes in how greenhouse gas emissions are regulated in the future.
Citations:
[1] https://www.whitehouse.gov/presidential-actions/2025/01/declaringa-national-energy-emergency/
[2] https://www.whitehouse.gov/presidential-actions/2025/01/unleashingamerican-energy/
[3] https://www.venable.com/insights/publications/2025/01/executiveorders-lay-the-groundwork-for-major
[4] https://www.globalelr.com/2025/01/navigating-change-presidenttrumps-day-1-executive-orders-set-new-course-on-energy-and-theenvironment/
[5] https://ww2.aip.org/fyi/trump-reverses-climate-policies-on-first-dayin-office
[6] https://environmentalenergybrief.sidley.com/2025/01/21/top-5environmental-actions-you-should-know-from-president-trumps-first-day/
[7] https://www.morganlewis.com/pubs/2025/01/executive-actionssignal-support-for-fossil-energy-and-scaling-back-of-environmentalregulations
[8] https://blogs.law.columbia.edu/climatechange/2025/01/21/trumpexecutive-orders-on-energy-and-environment-a-quick-summary/
[9] https://www.nytimes.com/2025/01/21/climate/trump-climate-changeexecutive-orders.html
Based on the search results, the estimated temperature increases from doubling the current CO2 concentration from 420 ppm to 840 ppm varies widely among different studies and models. Here's a summary of the temperature ranges provided:
1. 7 to 14 degrees Celsius increase, according to recent research analyzing sediments from the Pacific Ocean [1][2].
2. 2.2 to 3.4 degrees Celsius increase, with a 2% chance of exceeding 4 degrees Celsius, based on a study using tighter constraints from historical observations [3].
3. 1.5 to 4.5 degrees Celsius increase, according to mainstream estimates cited by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) [4].
4. 5 to 8 degrees Celsius increase, based on a comprehensive 66-millionyear review of atmospheric CO2 levels and corresponding temperatures [4].
It's important to note that these estimates represent different timescales and methodologies. The higher estimates often account for long-term Earth system sensitivity, including various feedback mechanisms, while lower estimates may represent more immediate responses. The scientific consensus continues to evolve as new data and analysis methods become available.
Citations:
[1] https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2024/06/240624125500.htm
[2] https://scitechdaily.com/earths-temperature-could-increase-by-25degrees-startling-new-research-reveals-that-co2-has-more-impact-thanpreviously-thought/
[3] https://futureoflife.org/recent-news/if-atmospheric-co2-doubles-howhot-will-it-get/
[4] https://news.climate.columbia.edu/2023/12/07/a-new-66-millionyear-history-of-carbon-dioxide-offers-little-comfort-for-today/
[5] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climate_sensitivity
[6] https://www.nytimes.com/2020/07/22/climate/global-warmingtemperature-range.html
[7] https://www.climate.gov/news-features/understanding-climate/climatechange-atmospheric-carbon-dioxide
[8] https://www.washington.edu/news/2024/04/17/ice-age-climateanalysis-reduces-worst-case-warming-expected-from-rising-co2/
Based on the search results, the lowest estimates for Equilibrium Climate Sensitivity (ECS) from researchers like Judith Curry are:
1. 1.64°C: This is the best estimate from Lewis & Curry (2014), which is near the bottom of the IPCC likely range [3].
2. 1.5°C: Lewis and Curry (2018) estimated a median ECS value of 1.5°C [2].
3. 1.1°C: The lower bound of the 5-95% confidence interval for ECS from Lewis and Curry's work is 1.1°C [6].
4. 1.05°C: Using updated analysis methods, Lewis and Curry (2018) determined a 5-95% range with a lower bound of 1.05°C [1].
It's important to note that these estimates are generally lower than many other studies and the IPCC's ranges. The scientific community continues to debate and refine ECS estimates, with most mainstream estimates falling within a broader range [3][6].
Citations:
[1] https://judithcurry.com/2019/04/01/whats-the-worst-case-climatesensitivity/
[2] https://cei.org/blog/ipcc-overestimates-climate-sensitivity-study/
[3] https://andthentheresphysics.wordpress.com/2014/09/25/lewis-andcurry/
[4]
https://climatecasechart.com/wp-content/uploads/case-documents/2022/ 20221027_docket-CDV-2020-307_expert-report-1.pdf
[5] https://judithcurry.com/2022/09/25/cmip6-gcms-versus-globalsurface-temperatures-ecs-discussion/
[6] https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2014/10/climateresponse-estimates-from-lewis-curry/
[7] https://climatediscussionnexus.com/2024/01/24/ecs-in-the-realworld-lewis-and-curry-2018/
[8] https://www.carbonbrief.org/explainer-how-scientists-estimateclimate-sensitivity/
The Greenhouse Theory posits those certain gases in Earth's atmosphere, primarily carbon dioxide, methane, and water vapor, trap heat by absorbing and re-emitting infrared radiation. This process is said to warm the Earth's surface and lower atmosphere [1][7]. According to this theory, increasing concentrations of these gases lead to higher global temperatures.
However, researchers like Nikolov, Zeller, and Peter L. Ward disagree with this theory for several reasons:
1. Physical impossibility: Ward argues that greenhouse gases cannot physically cause global warming [4]. He claims that the current understanding of radiation physics is flawed [2].
2. Alternative explanations: These researchers propose different mechanisms for observed warming. For instance, Ward suggests that ozone depletion allows more UV radiation to reach Earth's surface, leading to increased ocean heat content [2].
3. Misinterpretation of energy balance: Ward contends that the current concepts of energy balance are mistaken. He argues that the flux of thermal energy is a function of the temperature difference between emitting and absorbing bodies, rather than the amount of radiation in watts per square meter [2].
4. Lack of experimental evidence: Ward claims that greenhouse warming theory has never been proven physically possible by experiment, which he considers a cornerstone of the scientific method [4].
5. Blanket analogy: Ward disputes the common analogy of greenhouse gases acting like a blanket, arguing that while a blanket can slow cooling, it cannot increase temperature above the body's natural temperature [2].
It's important to note that these views are controversial and not accepted by most climate scientists. Many experts have criticized Ward's arguments, with some describing them as unsubstantiated or based on misunderstandings of established physics [2]. The scientific consensus continues to support the greenhouse effect as a key driver of climate change.
Citations:
[1] https://www.ces.fau.edu/nasa/module-2/how-greenhouse-effectworks.php
[2] https://whyclimatechanges.com/debate-is-the-stuff-of-science/
[3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenhouse_effect
[4] https://whyclimatechanges.com/impossible/
[5] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xt1JuroQcmM
[6] https://www.researchgate.net/publication/348077950_The_misleading_ Greenhouse_Effect_Idea_is_falsified_by_experiment
[7] https://ugc.berkeley.edu/background-content/greenhouse-effect/
[8] https://www.thedailybeast.com/why-is-a-climate-change-skepticheadlining-science-conferences/
Nikolov, Zeller, and Peter L. Ward present several specific arguments against the Greenhouse Theory:
1. Physical impossibility: Ward argues that greenhouse gases cannot physically cause global warming, claiming that the current understanding of radiation physics is flawed [1].
2. Empirical evidence vs. theory: Nikolov and Zeller argue that their findings are based on empirical observations, while the Greenhouse Theory is a "contrived theory" that lacks proper empirical verification [3].
3. Misinterpretation of energy balance: Ward contends that current concepts of energy balance are mistaken. He argues that the flux of thermal energy is a function of the temperature difference between emitting and absorbing bodies, not the amount of radiation in watts per square meter [1].
4. Alternative explanations: These researchers propose different mechanisms for observed warming. Ward suggests that ozone depletion allows more UV radiation to reach Earth's surface, leading to increased ocean heat content [1][2].
5. Lack of experimental evidence: Ward claims that greenhouse warming theory has never been proven physically possible by experiment, which he considers a cornerstone of the scientific method [1][2].
6. Atmospheric pressure: Nikolov and Zeller argue that atmospheric pressure, rather than greenhouse gases, is the primary factor determining planetary surface temperatures [5].
7. Paradox in energy budgets: Nikolov and Zeller point out an apparent paradox in the greenhouse theory's energy budget, where the downwelling IR radiation exceeds the absorbed solar radiation [3].
8. Blanket analogy: Ward disputes the common analogy of greenhouse gases acting like a blanket, arguing that while a blanket can slow cooling, it cannot increase temperature above the body's natural temperature [1].
It's important to note that these views are controversial and not accepted by most climate scientists. The scientific consensus continues to support the greenhouse effect as a key driver of climate change.
Citations:
[1] https://whyclimatechanges.com/debate-is-the-stuff-of-science/
[2] https://www.einpresswire.com/article/505782838/climate-scientistsrefuse-to-face-the-reality-that-greenhouse-warming-theory-is-mistaken
[3] https://tallbloke.wordpress.com/2019/01/17/nikolov-zeller-reply-todr-roy-spencers-blog-article/
[4] https://www.google.com/policies/faq
[5]
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/317570648_New_Insights_on_
the_Physical_Nature_of_the_Atmospheric_Greenhouse_Effect_Deduced _from_an_Empirical_Planetary_Temperature_Model
[6] https://whyclimatechanges.com/current-political-trends-may-givecredibility-to-claims-made-by-dr-peter-l-ward-that-greenhouse-warmingtheory-is-physically-impossible/
[7] https://atomicinsights.com/fighting-climate-change-skeptics-in-thepro-nuclear-community/
[8] https://friendsofscience.org/library/library-climate-science/thepositive-impact-of-human-co2-emissions-on-the-survival-of-life-onearth.html