Preprint Article Version 1 Preserved in Portico This version is not peer-reviewed

Relative Importance of Carbon Dioxide and Water in the Greenhouse Effect: Does the Tail Wag the Dog?

Version 1 : Received: 3 April 2024 / Approved: 3 April 2024 / Online: 4 April 2024 (05:40:11 CEST)

How to cite: Koutsoyiannis, D. Relative Importance of Carbon Dioxide and Water in the Greenhouse Effect: Does the Tail Wag the Dog?. Preprints 2024, 2024040309. https://doi.org/10.20944/preprints202404.0309.v1 Koutsoyiannis, D. Relative Importance of Carbon Dioxide and Water in the Greenhouse Effect: Does the Tail Wag the Dog?. Preprints 2024, 2024040309. https://doi.org/10.20944/preprints202404.0309.v1

Abstract

Using a detailed atmospheric radiative transfer model, we derive macroscopic relationships of downwelling and outgoing longwave radiation, useful for hydrological practice. We validate them using empirical formulae based on downwelling radiation data, which are in common use in hydrology, as well as satellite data for the outgoing radiation. We use the macroscopic relationships to infer the relative importance of carbon dioxide and water vapour in the greenhouse effect. The results show that the contribution of the former is 4% – 5%, while water and clouds dominate with a contribution of 87% – 95%. The minor effect of carbon dioxide is also confirmed by the small, non-discernible effect of the recent escalation of atmospheric CO2 concentration from 300 to 420 ppm, which is quantified at 0.5% for both downwelling and outgoing radiation. Water and clouds also perform other important functions in climate, such as regulating the heat storage and the albedo, as well as cooling the Earth’s surface though latent heat transfer, with a contribution of 50%. By confirming the major role of water on climate, these results suggest that hydrology should have a more prominent and more active role in climate research.

Keywords

greenhouse effect; longwave radiation; water vapour; carbon dioxide; evaporation

Subject

Environmental and Earth Sciences, Other

Comments (2)

Comment 1
Received: 5 April 2024
Commenter:
The commenter has declared there is no conflict of interests.
Comment: This article must be read by all, proponents and opponents of the so-called "climate crisis" narrative, who aspire to possess a scientifically-based argumentation on this popular narrative. Then, I suggest to those who disagree by conviction with the conclusions and analysis of the paper to make a serious effort to refute it by clearly indicating the mistakes in the assumptions or analysis included in the paper.

In the likely case they will not be able to, be magnanimous in their defeat, recognize and acknowledge the serious work and scientifically-backed evidence!
+ Respond to this comment
Response 1 to Comment 1
Received: 5 April 2024
Commenter:
Commenter's Conflict of Interests: I am one of the author
Comment: Thank you, Dr. Benekos, for your comment, particularly for characterizing my article as "serious work and scientifically-backed evidence". I think that "climate crisis" is a political eventnot a physical oneand its proponents fall into what summarized in the first paragraph of the Introduction. In any case, I am open to criticism, noting that this should be specific to the content of the paper.

We encourage comments and feedback from a broad range of readers. See criteria for comments and our Diversity statement.

Leave a public comment
Send a private comment to the author(s)
* All users must log in before leaving a comment
Views 0
Downloads 0
Comments 2
Metrics 0


×
Alerts
Notify me about updates to this article or when a peer-reviewed version is published.
We use cookies on our website to ensure you get the best experience.
Read more about our cookies here.