I wouldn't mind..

Testiculese · Post by **Testiculese** » Thu Oct 12, 2006 9:48 am

Humidity can only get to 100%, and as it stands, every summer here is already at 90%. It will end up just raining more. It the winter, might get more snow, though I doubt it, it will just turn the roads into ice sheets. (!!)

Duper · Post by **Duper** » Thu Oct 12, 2006 10:25 am

water vapor???!?! YOU have GOT to be KIDDING me. what a bunch of BS. I'd worry more about he methane output of Cows and Pigs before i worried about water vapor...

OMG

Testiculese · Post by **Testiculese** » Thu Oct 12, 2006 10:27 am

well, ccb is right in that water vapor is a big part of the warmth or lack therof. However, it is not a permanent, ever increasing problem like CO2 is. Water goes in and out of the atmosphere and is unlikely to have ny impact other than muggier summers and snowier winters in populated areas.

Stryker · Post by **Stryker** » Thu Oct 12, 2006 10:36 am

If you're THAT worried about water vapor, attach a cooling mechanism to the tail pipe and force the exhaust to travel through this mechanism before escaping.

Now you just have to deal with flooding the city sewers.

Will Robinson · Post by **Will Robinson** » Thu Oct 12, 2006 10:47 am

My new alternative fuel is apparantly in ample supply and replenishes itself.
So when the oil runs out I'm going to pay a couple of illegal aliens to push me around in my car making BRrawwwwww BBbrraawwww!!!! sounds

They can set up relay stations around town where they gather and wait at the corners anyway, so they can pass the car off to the next group when their legs get tired! Screw the arabs

Krom · Post by **Krom** » Thu Oct 12, 2006 10:51 am

Ney, nice idea Will, it wouldn't even take much work because we already have a head start. There are already plenty of Mexicans who walk in lines making brrbrrbrrbrrbrrbrrbrrbrr sounds, one of them might be mowing your yard right now!

ccb056 · Post by **ccb056** » Thu Oct 12, 2006 11:08 am

Replacing carbon dioxide emissions with water vapor emissions (which is essentially what hydrogen power does when run by nuclear power) will only speed up the greenhouse effect.

Testi is for the most part correct about humidity not being able to go above 100%. What he doesnt understand is how relative humdity, partial pressures, heat, and temperature are all related.

Relative humidity (which is what he probably meant, not humidity) is simply the ratio between the partial pressure of water in the air to the max partial pressure of water in the air.

The hotter the air gets, the more water it can store. For example, air at 25C and 80% relative humidty holds alot less water than air at 35C and 80% relative humidity. That's why its called relative humidty...

If you believe that large carbon dioxide emissions will cause global climate change, then you must also believe that large water vapor emissions will cause an even greater global climate change.

As the water vapor emissions increase, the global temps will increase, allowing the atmosphere to absorb more water, keeping the relative humidity the same, but increasing the temps and the amount of water in the air.

As I stated before, carbon dioxide plays less of a role in global temperatures than water vapor.

ccb056 · Post by **ccb056** » Thu Oct 12, 2006 11:11 am

Stryker wrote:If you're THAT worried about water vapor, attach a cooling mechanism to the tail pipe and force the exhaust to travel through this mechanism before escaping.

Now you just have to deal with flooding the city sewers.

If you spent that much energy condensing the water vapor, you wouldn't have any left to run the car. I told you to read up on thermodynamics, I guess you didn't.

TIGERassault · Post by **TIGERassault** » Thu Oct 12, 2006 11:22 am

ccb056 wrote:Replacing carbon dioxide emissions with water vapor emissions (which is essentially what hydrogen power does when run by nuclear power) will only speed up the greenhouse effect.

Testi is for the most part correct about humidity not being able to go above 100%. What he doesnt understand is how relative humdity, partial pressures, heat, and temperature are all related.

Relative humidity (which is what he probably meant, not humidity) is simply the ratio between the partial pressure of water in the air to the max partial pressure of water in the air.

The hotter the air gets, the more water it can store. For example, air at 25C and 80% relative humidty holds alot less water than air at 35C and 80% relative humidity. That's why its called relative humidty...

If you believe that large carbon dioxide emissions will cause global climate change, then you must also believe that large water vapor emissions will cause an even greater global climate change.

As the water vapor emissions increase, the global temps will increase, allowing the atmosphere to absorb more water, keeping the relative humidity the same, but increasing the temps and the amount of water in the air.

As I stated before, carbon dioxide plays less of a role in global temperatures than water vapor.

Wait, are you trying to tell us that the air will get hotter by itself so that it can store more water?
Well I sure hope you aren't, otherwise you really need to go do a science course.

ccb056 · Post by **ccb056** » Thu Oct 12, 2006 11:39 am

No, I'm saying that water vapor is a greenhouse gas, greenhouse gasses increase temperatures, as temperatures increase, more water can be stored in the air at the same relative humidity, which would result in high temps, etc etc etc.

Do you want me to explain the greenhouse effect?

TIGERassault · Post by **TIGERassault** » Thu Oct 12, 2006 12:19 pm

ccb056 wrote:No, I'm saying that water vapor is a greenhouse gas, greenhouse gasses increase temperatures, as temperatures increase, more water can be stored in the air at the same relative humidity, which would result in high temps, etc etc etc.

Ah yes. It just looked like... nevermind.

Regardless, there are a few things you didn't consider:
1: The hydrogen would be created out of the water already in the air, there isn't going to be a huge increase like with CO2. (and this is plainly stated a number of times)
2: Water vapour is only a feedback for other greenhouse gases. If it were to replace the CO2 of cars, the effect each bit of water vapour produces would decrease significantly.

ccb056 · Post by **ccb056** » Thu Oct 12, 2006 12:28 pm

The hydrogen would be created out of the water already in the air.

No, the hydrogen will not be directly created from water vapor. To do that you would have to spend alot of energy to condense the water vapor into a liquid. That is a waste of energy. It is much more energy efficient to use existsing liquid forms of water, such as seawater. That is why seawater will be used to create hydrogen, not water vapor.

Water vapour is only a feedback for other greenhouse gases. If it were to replace the CO2 of cars, the effect each bit of water vapour produces would decrease significantly.

I don't know where you got that notion, but I'm almost certain it is incorrect.

TIGERassault · Post by **TIGERassault** » Thu Oct 12, 2006 12:51 pm

ccb056 wrote:
The hydrogen would be created out of the water already in the air.
No, the hydrogen will not be directly created from water vapor. To do that you would have to spend alot of energy to condense the water vapor into a liquid. That is a waste of energy. It is much more energy efficient to use existsing liquid forms of water, such as seawater. That is why seawater will be used to create hydrogen, not water vapor.

I didn't say it would be directly created from water vapour.

ccb056 wrote:
Water vapour is only a feedback for other greenhouse gases. If it were to replace the CO2 of cars, the effect each bit of water vapour produces would decrease significantly.
I don't know where you got that notion, but I'm almost certain it is incorrect.

For a start, here's one article:
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=142

ccb056 · Post by **ccb056** » Thu Oct 12, 2006 1:01 pm

That article has nothing to do with this topic. It deals with water vapor comming from the oceans and other LIQUID sources. The difference here is the water isnt being vaporized slowly from the oceans, it is (or rather will be) produced by cars, homes, and factories in much larger quantites than the ocean's natural process.

fliptw · Post by **fliptw** » Thu Oct 12, 2006 1:01 pm

ccb056 wrote:I don't know where you got that notion, but I'm almost certain it is incorrect.

if your almost certain, then its a certainty that you are wrong.

The main problem with this water vapour business is that the only logical solution to global warming is to remove large volumes of ocean from the equation, as they are the largest source of water vapour, regardless of what you are thinking.

ccb056 · Post by **ccb056** » Thu Oct 12, 2006 1:11 pm

I never said to remove the oceans to prevent global warming, I never even implied it.

What I said was that by switching to hydrogen fuel, water vapor emissions will increase, and the greenhouse effect will increase.

Leave the oceans alone, they don't contribute to the increase in global temps.

FYI, oceans are composed of salt water solutions, which evaporate much slower than pure water.....

TIGERassault · Post by **TIGERassault** » Thu Oct 12, 2006 1:16 pm

ccb056 wrote:That article has nothing to do with this topic. It deals with water vapor comming from the oceans and other LIQUID sources. The difference here is the water isnt being vaporized slowly from the oceans, it is (or rather will be) produced by cars, homes, and factories in much larger quantites than the ocean's natural process.

Wait... what? There's no difference whatsoever between water vapour that came from a chemical reaction to that of water vapour that came from evapouration!

Duper · Post by **Duper** » Thu Oct 12, 2006 1:17 pm

ccb056 wrote:I never said to remove the oceans to prevent global warming, I never even implied it.

What I said was that by switching to hydrogen fuel, water vapor emissions will increase, and the greenhouse effect will increase.

Leave the oceans alone, they don't contribute to the increase in global temps.

FYI, oceans are composed of salt water solutions, which evaporate much slower than pure water.....

yeah.. so um hurricanes are really no threat? How much vapor is thorwn into the atmosphere by hurricanes annually? There is more wholesale water vapor churned up by these storms on a global scale than any amount of moisture producing cars would.

get a grip.

Lothar · Post by **Lothar** » Thu Oct 12, 2006 1:18 pm

ccb056 wrote:When you calculate the net energy transfer at the end of the day, youre just as well off as the guy who used alkaline batteries to power his car.

Since you seem so fond of quoting efficiencies, why don't you go look up the efficiency of alkaline batteries?

Of course, there's nothing wrong with electric cars. I know a few people who have them (my uncle has a red Corvair he converted to electric and raced for a long time.)

Why do you think this is a good counterargument?

The price per mile driven on hydrogen will always be more than the price per mile driven on petrol as long as we are using petrol to make the hydrogen.

True.

Why do you think this is a good counterargument?

water vapor is a greenhouse gas, greenhouse gasses increase temperatures, as temperatures increase, more water can be stored in the air at the same relative humidity, which would result in high temps, etc etc etc.

Have you ever done the math to see where this eventually leads?

There are lots of feedback effects that eventually saturate, or even reverse. If you pump a bunch of water vapor into our current atmosphere, it will act as a greenhouse gas, leading to rising temperatures and allowing even more vapor to be trapped. But that doesn't mean temperatures will keep increasing as more vapor is added.

As I said before, I don't give a f*** about global warming. But, if you do, get out there and find a solution. It is possible to force the water vapor to re-enter a liquid state, provided you manage to transfer enough of the heat to something other than the water vapor. I know you want to quote the laws of thermodynamics at me, so I'll just say, I know the laws of thermodynamics better than you and I know this can work. Water vapor does condense in the right circumstances. All you need to do is create the right circumstances.

Lothar · Post by **Lothar** » Thu Oct 12, 2006 1:21 pm

ccb056 wrote:oceans are composed of salt water solutions, which evaporate much slower than pure water.....

Q:

could you put salt (among other things) in your tailpipe in order to "encourage" the water vapor in your exhaust to condense?

ccb056 · Post by **ccb056** » Thu Oct 12, 2006 1:27 pm

give me a sec, as it is 3 vs 1 right now, im going to break this into a few posts

ccb056 · Post by **ccb056** » Thu Oct 12, 2006 1:31 pm

Wait... what? There's no difference whatsoever between water vapour that came from a chemical reaction to that of water vapour that came from evapouration!

the water isn't different, but the amount of water in the atmosphere will increase with an increase in hydrogen power usage, which causes an increase in temps

oceans cannot increase the amount of water vapor in the air with the same magnitude that hydrogen power can

ccb056 · Post by **ccb056** » Thu Oct 12, 2006 1:33 pm

yeah.. so um hurricanes are really no threat? How much vapor is thorwn into the atmosphere by hurricanes annually? There is more wholesale water vapor churned up by these storms on a global scale than any amount of moisture producing cars would.

get a grip.

after living on the guld coast for 8 years, and going through quite a few hurricanes, the majority of the water vapor the hurrricanes spew into the air is condesned rather rapidly

hurricanes, like any other natural phenomena, have very little effect on the long term climate changes, they are the result of climate changes, not the cause

ccb056 · Post by **ccb056** » Thu Oct 12, 2006 1:36 pm

Why do you think this is a good counterargument?

As I said before, I don't give a f*** about global warming.

I don't really understand why you like hydrogen power so much because you haven't stated why you like it. Once you explain that to me, I will then be able to show you why you are wrong.

TIGERassault · Post by **TIGERassault** » Thu Oct 12, 2006 1:37 pm

ccb056 wrote:
Wait... what? There's no difference whatsoever between water vapour that came from a chemical reaction to that of water vapour that came from evapouration!
the water isn't different, but the amount of water in the atmosphere will increase with an increase in hydrogen power usage, which causes an increase in temps

oceans cannot increase the amount of water vapor in the air with the same magnitude that hydrogen power can

...that's not relevant to my point.
Now that you know what I meant, I'll return to the point so you can try make a proper comment.

"Water vapour is only a feedback for other greenhouse gases. If it were to replace the CO2 of cars, the effect each bit of water vapour produces would decrease significantly."

ccb056 wrote:I don't really understand why you like hydrogen power so much because you haven't stated why you like it. Once you explain that to me, I will then be able to show you why you are wrong.

That's also not relevant. Now go back and answer those points properly.

ccb056 · Post by **ccb056** » Thu Oct 12, 2006 1:37 pm

could you put salt (among other things) in your tailpipe in order to \"encourage\" the water vapor in your exhaust to condense?

there are only 2 ways to get water vapor to condense

cool it
pressurize it

ccb056 · Post by **ccb056** » Thu Oct 12, 2006 1:41 pm

\"Water vapour is only a feedback for other greenhouse gases. If it were to replace the CO2 of cars, the effect each bit of water vapour produces would decrease significantly.\"

wrong

TIGERassault · Post by **TIGERassault** » Thu Oct 12, 2006 1:42 pm

ccb056 wrote:
"Water vapour is only a feedback for other greenhouse gases. If it were to replace the CO2 of cars, the effect each bit of water vapour produces would decrease significantly."
wrong

Explain why then.

Kilarin · Post by **Kilarin** » Thu Oct 12, 2006 1:42 pm

ccb056 wrote:I don't really understand why you like hydrogen power so much because you haven't stated why you like it.

*I* like fuel cells and electrical cars because it removes the primary source of polution to centralized and more easily controlled locations.

ccb056 wrote:the amount of water in the atmosphere will increase with an increase in hydrogen power usage, which causes an increase in temps

I agree that water vapor captures and holds more heat than most of the gasses in the atmosphere. AND that it is an issue that needs to be looked into. BUT, the issue isn't simple. For example, while water vapor is a green house gas, CLOUD COVER reflects heat back out of the atmosphere and cools the planet. Determining what the actual effects of increasing human water vapor emmisions would be will be complicated.

ccb056 · Post by **ccb056** » Thu Oct 12, 2006 1:50 pm

*I* like fuel cells and electrical cars because it removes the primary source of polution to centralized and more easily controlled locations.

That all depends on what you consider polution. I assume you consider carbon dioxide polution. I'm also assuming you don't consider water vapor polution. The fact is, both are polution because both contribute to global warming. By centralizing the carbon dioxide emissions and decentralizing the water vapor emissions, you actualy increase the effects of global warming.

ccb056 · Post by **ccb056** » Thu Oct 12, 2006 1:53 pm

Explain why then.

I am not going to start explaining why every incorrect statement made on this board is wrong; so I won't start with yours unless you can bring alot more support to the table in terms of sources and papers/reports.

fliptw · Post by **fliptw** » Thu Oct 12, 2006 1:56 pm

ccb056 wrote:
Explain why then.
I am not going to start explaining why every incorrect statement made on this board is wrong; so I won't start with yours unless you can bring alot more support to the table in terms of sources and papers/reports.

then why are you still posting to this thread? If you are not going to attempt to even try to do more to bolster your argument, then you have no point in continuing with this discussion.

Simply because you are posting links that you think are absolute and correct, doesn't mean the rest of the board is going to buy it.

ccb056 · Post by **ccb056** » Thu Oct 12, 2006 2:04 pm

I have posted more sources in favor of reality than he has. In case you're wondering, I am calling my stance reality.

TIGERassault · Post by **TIGERassault** » Thu Oct 12, 2006 2:06 pm

ccb056 wrote:
Explain why then.
I am not going to start explaining why every incorrect statement made on this board is wrong; so I won't start with yours unless you can bring alot more support to the table in terms of sources and papers/reports.

Eh? How am I supposed to do that if you're not going to tell me which part was wrong?
And why are you expecting people to believe you about something when you refuse to explain it?

ccb056 · Post by **ccb056** » Thu Oct 12, 2006 2:09 pm

I have been explaining it for the entire length of the thread.

You need to cite sources that say \"If water vapor were to replace the CO2 of cars, the effect each bit of water vapour produces would decrease significantly\" where significantly is defined as prodcuing less of a global warming effect than carbon dioxide

TIGERassault · Post by **TIGERassault** » Thu Oct 12, 2006 2:11 pm

ccb056 wrote:I have posted more sources in favor of reality than he has. In case you're wondering, I am calling my stance reality.

1: "Simply because you are posting links that you think are absolute and correct, doesn't mean the rest of the board is going to buy it."
2: Looking back, I could find NO sources in your posts in favor of your thoughts. All your scouces were about how water vapour is damaging, period.

TIGERassault · Post by **TIGERassault** » Thu Oct 12, 2006 2:17 pm

ccb056 wrote:I have been explaining it for the entire length of the thread.

You need to cite sources that say "If water vapor were to replace the CO2 of cars, the effect each bit of water vapour produces would decrease significantly" where significantly is defined as prodcuing less of a global warming effect than carbon dioxide

No, you misread the point. I was referring to each bit of water vapour, not the water vapour count as a whole. Thus, significantly is defined as prodcuing less of a global warming effect than what that bit of water would have before.

Unless I misread this point. Which I think I have.

ccb056 · Post by **ccb056** » Thu Oct 12, 2006 2:24 pm

so, you agree that switching to hydrogen fuel will increase the global warming effect?

TIGERassault · Post by **TIGERassault** » Thu Oct 12, 2006 2:26 pm

ccb056 wrote:so, you agree that switching to hydrogen fuel will increase the global warming effect?

No.
"I was referring to each bit of water vapour, not the water vapour count as a whole. Thus, significantly is defined as producing LESS of a global warming effect than what that bit of water would have before."

ccb056 · Post by **ccb056** » Thu Oct 12, 2006 2:32 pm

And im sure you have a bunch of sources to back you up. If you wouldn't mind, could you post some of those?