The Water Vapor Paradox: The Overlooked Greenhouse Gas and the High Stakes of Climate Action
Terje Hauan
Seasoned CTO | Energy Transition with 13 Companies in 5 Countries | Proven Speaker | Pragmatic Technologist | Tech nerd
While the world grapples with the urgent need to reduce carbon emissions, a crucial question lingers: what if our understanding of climate change is incomplete? What if the role of water vapour (WV), the most abundant greenhouse gas, is more significant than we currently acknowledge? And what are the potential consequences if we are wrong about the primacy of CO2?
The implications of such a scenario are far-reaching. If reducing CO2 emissions proves less effective than anticipated, the world could face accelerated warming, changing weather events, influencing sea levels, and ecological disruption. (The latter is easy to pin on human industries and greed)
The financial consequences for nations like those in Europe, heavily invested in the green transition, would be immense. While they shoulder the economic burden of decarbonization, countries like China, which continue to rely heavily on fossil fuels, could gain a competitive advantage, even if just for the next 30 years. This disparity could lead to a global economic power shift with far-reaching geopolitical implications.
Furthermore, the social costs of misguided climate policies could be devastating. If renewable energy sources prove unreliable or insufficient, energy prices could soar, disproportionately affecting low-income households. The loss of jobs in carbon-intensive industries could exacerbate social unrest and inequality.
The WV paradox is a stark reminder of the complexity of climate change. It underscores the need for continued research and a nuanced approach to policy-making. While reducing CO2 emissions remains crucial, it's imperative that we also investigate the role of other greenhouse gases, like WV, and develop adaptive strategies to mitigate the impacts of climate change, regardless of their primary cause.
The stakes are high. The choices we make today will shape the future of our planet and the well-being of generations to come. We must navigate this critical juncture with wisdom, humility, and a commitment to evidence-based solutions, ensuring a sustainable and prosperous future for all.
The IPCC reports are many and very detailed, but they are open regarding the fact that the models are imperfect and that factors like water vapour, clouds, and the sun add additional complexity. None of the reports considers the Tonga eruption in 2022. Tonga eruption in 2022
"The Tonga eruption sent around 146 million metric tonnes of salt water/water vapour into Earth’s stratosphere – equal to 10% of the water already in that atmospheric layer. That’s nearly four times the amount of water vapour scientists estimate the 1991 Mount Pinatubo eruption in the Philippines lofted into the stratosphere."
Source: NASA Jet Propulsion Laboratory
https://www.jpl.nasa.gov/news/tonga-eruption-blasted-unprecedented-amount-of-water-into-stratosphere
领英推荐
The Finite Well of Fossil Fuels: A Looming Challenge
However, even if the role of WV is more prominent than previously thought, transitioning away from fossil fuels remains an absolute necessity. Here's why: fossil fuels are a finite resource. Unlike WV, they will not replenish themselves on human timescales. While estimates vary, depending on consumption rates, most experts predict that oil and gas reserves will be significantly depleted within the next 50-100 years. Coal reserves may last longer, but their environmental impact is even more severe.
Therefore, regardless of the intricacies of climate change, the world needs a sustainable, long-term energy solution beyond fossil fuels. This necessitates focusing on renewable sources like solar, wind, and geothermal, alongside energy storage solutions to address their intermittency challenge.
Nuclear: A Controversial but Potentially Vital Player
The discussion around the future of energy inevitably leads to nuclear power. Nuclear energy is a double-edged sword. On the one hand, it produces minimal greenhouse gas emissions during operation. On the other hand, concerns linger around nuclear waste disposal and the potential for catastrophic accidents.
Despite these concerns, advancements in nuclear technology, including smaller, safer reactors, are offering renewed hope. In the context of the WV paradox and the looming depletion of fossil fuels, nuclear power could play a crucial role in the long-term energy mix. It can provide a stable baseload power source, complement renewable sources and ensure energy security for future generations.
The Road Ahead: A Multi-faceted Approach
The path forward demands a multifaceted approach that acknowledges the complexity of climate change and the limitations of our current understanding. We must continue to invest in research on WV and other greenhouse gases while simultaneously transitioning away from finite fossil fuels. Embracing a diverse energy portfolio that includes renewables, energy storage, and potentially next-generation nuclear technologies is essential for a sustainable and secure future.
The stakes need to be lowered to gamble on a single solution (massive RE alone does not work). By combining scientific research with a pragmatic approach to energy policy, we can navigate the uncertainties of climate change.
What do YOU think? Should we panic and go all solar and wind, or think longer-term?
From NASA website you can read ?Some people mistakenly believe water vapor is the main driver of Earth’s current warming. But increased water vapor doesn’t cause global warming. Instead, it’s a consequence of it. Increased water vapor in the atmosphere amplifies the warming caused by other greenhouse gases. It works like this: As greenhouse gases like carbon dioxide and methane increase, Earth’s temperature rises in response. This increases evaporation from both water and land areas. Because warmer air holds more moisture, its concentration of water vapor increases. Specifically, this happens because water vapor does not condense and precipitate out of the atmosphere as easily at higher temperatures. The water vapor then absorbs heat radiated from Earth and prevents it from escaping out to space. This further warms the atmosphere, resulting in even more water vapor in the atmosphere. This is what scientists call a "positive feedback loop." Scientists estimate this effect more than doubles the warming that would happen due to increasing carbon dioxide alone.? https://science.nasa.gov/earth/climate-change/steamy-relationships-how-atmospheric-water-vapor-amplifies-earths-greenhouse-effect/
Consultant and project manager
3 个月I think the role of water vapour and clouds - neither are gasses - are well acknowledged. It doesn't eliminate the role of CO2 though. Regardless, "no regret" is the key here. As you correctly point out, nuclear is one of those no-regret measures.
Private Technical consultant Australia
3 个月more 'climate action' another load of bullshit, what this is showing that this 'climate action' to lower CO2 is utter bullshit and a waste of time, it is showing that all 'those dangerous gasses, are less than two % all combined, we know that CO2 is only 0.04% so then that would meant that CH4,N2O, fluoride gasses make up the rest of that '2%' so all this crapping on about CO2 and 'net zero' is also hogwash.
Founder and CEO of KM Innovation Inc.
3 个月It's interesting theory
Strategist in Sustainability & Mobility | Bridging Renewable Energy & Electric Vehicles | GRI ESG | P&L; Operations Director | Data-Driven Decision-Maker | Fortune 500 Leadership experience
3 个月Terje Hauan The article raises several thought-provoking points about the complexities of climate change, energy transitions, and the geopolitical implications of these shifts. For me the most interesting to note the concern over Europe shouldering the economic burden of decarbonization, especially when considering Europe's historical responsibility for CO? emissions. As the data shows, Europe (including the EU-28) is responsible for 30+% of global cumulative CO? emissions, For centuries, Europe reaped the economic benefits of industrialization, driven by fossil fuels, without much regard for the environmental consequences. Now, as Europe leads in the green transition, it is not just an economic burden but also a moral responsibility. The idea that countries like China could gain a competitive advantage by delaying their green transition overlooks the fact that Europe’s early industrialization and fossil fuel use gave it the economic power it holds today. Ignoring this context and avoiding responsibility feels not just awkward but disingenuous. Europe's leadership in the green transition is, therefore, both an economic necessity for future competitiveness and an ethical obligation.