They're 'havin a larf' aren't they Doug! The 'estimated' average life-span of WV in the atmosphere is ~8-14 days, so it's only the addition of those ~8-14 days worth of WV increase (with it's associated daily age reduced inclusion within the atmosphere taken into account) that has any effect.
Well, just look! You've even given us the basics to get the 'real figures'.
DOE/NETL-2008/1319
"The current amount of water vapor in the atmosphere is 1.3 x 10^16kg water."! I hope that 'precipitable water as a liquid aerosol' isn't included with this determination, though it may as well be if it doesn't rain out (although, what it would do as water is reduce the diurnal temp variability).
"By this estimation, human emissions from power generation is less than 1% of the total amount of water vapor in the atmosphere or 0.02% of annual rainfall worldwide (5 x 10^17kg water).". In particular "annual rainfall worldwide (5 x 10^17kg water)."!
This really isn't a 'science paper' Doug, but it's 'engineering format' is 'right up my street'. As an engineer I often post statements and expect the recipient to understand the full connection to the science. My bad I know. I'm trying to address that issue in my postings, but 'old habits die hard'.
From the DOE/NETL paper we are advised that current atmospheric WV content is 1.3 x 10^16kg. We are also advised that annual rainfall (precipitation of 'water' H2O) is 5 x 10^17kg. We may want to argue the quanta/m², but the data is aligned to a 'global influence'. Thus, all reference is to a global scenario and excludes any watts/m² definition in my post.
Let's get back to my original point! Because of it's self regulation properties, WV doesn't cause climate change because it doesn't 'live' long enough in the troposphere. However, the stratosphere and above may well be another post.
For those interested, let's 'do the logic' for the quantity of extra water that can possibly generate a 'manmade WV/global radiative forcing'. First of all we need an accurate figure for the life-span of any WV that's been added to our atmosphere, because it precipitates out fairly soon after it was added and if it's gone it can't generate a 'forcing' anymore. We can do this if we can take the DOE/NETL data as being accurate.
The DOE/NETL data shows annual global precipitation (global rainfall) as being greater than the amount of WV in the atmosphere. Thus, the average lifetime (Ave) of a charge (Q) of WV in kg in the atmosphere is determined by 'the charge (Q) / the annual global precipitation (AGP)'. However, because diurnal influence of temperature forces a bias we should make the time-scale (t) equivalent to 24 hours (a day) and as sunrise at local time is a transient point between a warming atmosphere and a cooling atmosphere it would be good to take this as t = 0 = 24 (as it's a minimum) for any hourly determinations that involve more convoluted logic.
Thanks to the DOE/NETL we've a 'valid' definition for the life-span (lifetime) of WV in our atmosphere. However, because diurnal forcings interfere with this, I'd be happier to say 'nearer 10 days' with this data.
Wow! At 58 YOA it's like I've come back to school again to show my 'working out' properly (please don't tell me I've failed my '11+' in the UK yet again!). I've shown this in the best way that I know how to.
In conclusion. If the injection of WV is continuous, the injection is reducing in its radiative effect with the proportionality of the lifetime of WV. This is 9 - 10 days from the data presented here and proves an average population lifetime of ~9.496 days for WV. However, if the WV injection is limited to less than 24 hrs it's radiative forcing is reduced by a factor of 1 : ~9.496 for each subsequent 24 hr period. To explain the 'ratio', subtract 1 for each of the ~9.496 days (IOW, 10 days and it's gone).
![[SOHO Sun Spot Image]](http://sohowww.nascom.nasa.gov/data/realtime/mdi_igr/512/latest.jpg)
Are they 'havin a larf'?
They're 'havin a larf' aren't they Doug! The 'estimated' average life-span of WV in the atmosphere is ~8-14 days, so it's only the addition of those ~8-14 days worth of WV increase (with it's associated daily age reduced inclusion within the atmosphere taken into account) that has any effect.
Well, just look! You've even given us the basics to get the 'real figures'.
DOE/NETL-2008/1319
"The current amount of water vapor in the atmosphere is 1.3 x 10^16kg water."! I hope that 'precipitable water as a liquid aerosol' isn't included with this determination, though it may as well be if it doesn't rain out (although, what it would do as water is reduce the diurnal temp variability).
"By this estimation, human emissions from power generation is less than 1% of the total amount of water vapor in the atmosphere or 0.02% of annual rainfall worldwide (5 x 10^17kg water).". In particular "annual rainfall worldwide (5 x 10^17kg water)."!
This really isn't a 'science paper' Doug, but it's 'engineering format' is 'right up my street'. As an engineer I often post statements and expect the recipient to understand the full connection to the science. My bad I know. I'm trying to address that issue in my postings, but 'old habits die hard'.
From the DOE/NETL paper we are advised that current atmospheric WV content is 1.3 x 10^16kg. We are also advised that annual rainfall (precipitation of 'water' H2O) is 5 x 10^17kg. We may want to argue the quanta/m², but the data is aligned to a 'global influence'. Thus, all reference is to a global scenario and excludes any watts/m² definition in my post.
Let's get back to my original point! Because of it's self regulation properties, WV doesn't cause climate change because it doesn't 'live' long enough in the troposphere. However, the stratosphere and above may well be another post.
For those interested, let's 'do the logic' for the quantity of extra water that can possibly generate a 'manmade WV/global radiative forcing'. First of all we need an accurate figure for the life-span of any WV that's been added to our atmosphere, because it precipitates out fairly soon after it was added and if it's gone it can't generate a 'forcing' anymore. We can do this if we can take the DOE/NETL data as being accurate.
The DOE/NETL data shows annual global precipitation (global rainfall) as being greater than the amount of WV in the atmosphere. Thus, the average lifetime (Ave) of a charge (Q) of WV in kg in the atmosphere is determined by 'the charge (Q) / the annual global precipitation (AGP)'. However, because diurnal influence of temperature forces a bias we should make the time-scale (t) equivalent to 24 hours (a day) and as sunrise at local time is a transient point between a warming atmosphere and a cooling atmosphere it would be good to take this as t = 0 = 24 (as it's a minimum) for any hourly determinations that involve more convoluted logic.
Formula:
Q / AGP = Ave.
Given:
Q = 1.3 x 10^16kg
AGP = 5 x 10^17kg
1.3 x 10^16kg / 5 x 10^17kg = Ave.
Therefor. Ave = 9.496 days (to 3 decimal places 'during' calculation)
Thanks to the DOE/NETL we've a 'valid' definition for the life-span (lifetime) of WV in our atmosphere. However, because diurnal forcings interfere with this, I'd be happier to say 'nearer 10 days' with this data.
Wow! At 58 YOA it's like I've come back to school again to show my 'working out' properly (please don't tell me I've failed my '11+' in the UK yet again!). I've shown this in the best way that I know how to.
In conclusion. If the injection of WV is continuous, the injection is reducing in its radiative effect with the proportionality of the lifetime of WV. This is 9 - 10 days from the data presented here and proves an average population lifetime of ~9.496 days for WV. However, if the WV injection is limited to less than 24 hrs it's radiative forcing is reduced by a factor of 1 : ~9.496 for each subsequent 24 hr period. To explain the 'ratio', subtract 1 for each of the ~9.496 days (IOW, 10 days and it's gone).
Do you concur?
Best regards, suricat.