Co2 Acquittal

[pmaust]

The answer to your question is that water vapor is a feedback, not a forcing. CO₂, however, is a forcing.

 

 

 

 

This link goes into pretty good detail, and also helps raise your understanding on the issue quickly:

 

RealClimate » Water vapour: feedback or forcing?

 

 

Interesting discussion about feedbacks and forcings. Thanks. It also appears that the cloud feedback issue is undergoing further study as well. See discussion here ==> Climate Science: Roger Pielke Sr. Research Group News » Positive Feedback: Have We Been Fooling Ourselves? by Roy Spencer

 

And here===> http://cires.colorado.edu/science/groups/pielke/classes/atoc7500/sun.pdf

[InfiniteNow]

See discussion here ==> Climate Science: Roger Pielke Sr. Research Group News » Positive Feedback: Have We Been Fooling Ourselves? by Roy Spencer

Ah yes... good ole Rog Pielke. I have encountered his name before in another GW debate thread where he said the following in conclusion to the link I provided:

 

Climate Science: Roger Pielke Sr. Research Group News » NOAA Cover Up Of US Historical Climate Network Surface Station Photographs

 

This is clearly a procedure to avoid making these photographs available. Indeed, in the papers that have been published with photographs of these HCN sites, care was taken to not publish the address or name of the observer.

 

<...>

 

The new NOAA policy is a deliberate attempt to avoid presenting this information for scrutiny.

 

 

The references, IMO, don't warrant that conclusion, and I am inclined to agree with and accept the response Roger Pielke Sr received via email from NOAA which stated the following:

 

The policy is an attempt to protect volounteers from harrassment by the kind of conspiracy nuts that Surface Stations is likely to inspire.

 

 

 

There's also this (fancy that... he's a political scientist, not a climatologist):

 

Roger Pielke Jr - SourceWatch.

 

During congressional hearings on political interference with government scientists by members of the Bush Administration, Pielke testified that Bush's actions are not different from prior administrations. It was later revealed that his testimony had been sought by Republicans on the committee.

 

<...>

 

Pielke is regularly cited by conservative activists to undercut the science on global warming and policies that might mitigate climate change.

 

<...>

 

A study he published in the journal Proceedings of the Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society contains numerous references that were not peer-reviewed.

 

The main citation for the paper is a study that Pielke published in the skeptic journal Energy and Environment which not carried in the ISI listing of peer-reviewed journals. A review of the paper finds that Pielke cites the Energy and Environment study four different times in his latest paper.

 

<...>

 

At the 2007 Fall meeting of the American Geophysical Union, Pielke Jr. gave a joint presentation on hurricanes and climate change with global warming skeptic Stephen McIntyre.

 

McIntyre's is another name favored by skeptics and thoroughly debunked by experts in the field. However, to his credit, he did find an error in a data point regarding temperature in the early 20th century and he contacted NASA to have it corrected. The rest of his work, unfortunately, is wrought with falsehoods and misrepresentations.

 

 

 

 

And here===> http://cires.colorado.edu/science/groups/pielke/classes/atoc7500/sun.pdf

 

You'll notice that this was never published in a peer reviewed journal. That should be your first clue to it's validity (or lack thereof).

 

 

Cheers. :eek_big:

[Chris C]

Hello pmaust, I don't have much time but let me respond briefly to your comments and links

 

To say water vapor is not a dominant greenhouse gas is incorrect (the name of one of Infinite's links). In fact, if you remove all the water vapor you can easily simulate a snowball earth, and taking it away results in a reduction of around 60% of the longwave absorbed. (See table 3 Earth’s Annual Global Mean Energy Budget)

 

However, "greenhouse gas," or "greenhouse effect," and "global warming" are two different things. "Feedback not a forcing" is a good simple answer, and is indicative of water vapor's strong impact on the temperature, but it does not provide any answer for the "change in" temperature observed over the last century. Global warming is about the change. And water vapor follows along with any temperature change, amplifying that change in the way it was going. Just to advertise my blog again, see my post at "Basic Radiative models/Earth’s climate system analysis Pt. 2"

 

There, I talk a bit about the radiative physics of the greenhouse effect, and the relationship of water vapor to temperature, and its role in climate change. If you have any comments, criticisms, questions, let me know.

 

Regarding the first icecap reference by Joseph D’Aleo, this link actually does not discuss the global mean temperature, but the United States mean temperature (tricky, eh). However, the third graph in that link refutes the basic premise of the post (the article is clearly not intended for those familair with radiative physics, but people who just like to see lines going up together). Note the Y axis for the TSI. At most, I would say you can get 2 W/m^2 of a change in TSI (total solar irradiance) from the pre-industrial time. To convert this into a radiative forcing on Earth, you need to divide by 4 (for the geometry of the Earth), and multiply by 0.69 to account for the albedo of the Earth. Ideally, you'd still need to account for efficacy, and the UV radiation absorbed at the stratosphere which would further lower the number, but this is typically not done in the primary literature: So you end up with around .35 W/m^2 of radiative forcing, compared to the 1.66 W/m^2 from just CO2. This is past the high end in the IPCC document, because IPCC is relative to 1750, and the ΔTSI of 2 W/m^2 is probably high. Here is the IPCC forcings chart

 

 

Regarding Spencer's post, there are much better sources out there. The first points on water vapor are addressed in my blog, and if you want more reliable sources than me, I can reference you to several from the peer review that refute the "Water vapor overwhelms CO2" nonsense. There are a lot of other claims in his post- some true, some false. The literature does not support his point on the medieval warm period, and that really has nothing to do with what is causing it today. The post itself seems to come down to his view on feedbacks. Spencer ( I think) notes somewhere in there that the temperature change is about 1 degree with just 2x CO2 increase (1.2 C actually). That part is basic physics. What is more uncertain is feedbacks, notably cloud responses. There are many cloud feedbacks, on amount, height, optical thickness, etc., and different for different cloud types and at different latitudes. Overall, today's models produce cloud feedbacks ranging from approximately neutral to strongly positive. There could be an overall negative cloud feedback but it couldn't be very strong, because we have data that show that overall low clouds, which control the albedo more than any other kind, get thinner when it gets warmer.

 

There are several academic sources which go over this,

 

Pubs.GISS: Abstract of Bony et al. 2006

http://www.gfdl.noaa.gov/reference/bibliography/2006/bjs0601.pdf

 

and the free,online book from the NAtional Academies

Understanding Climate Change Feedbacks

 

Ch. 8 in the AR4 is also a good place to start.

 

There is no question that cloud feedbacks are uncertain and that modeling them is hard -- I don't think that anyone has ever seriously claimed otherwise. Another thing is that to argue for the 3 C rise per 2x CO2 by the IPCC, you do need to argue for a positive cloud feedback (the range is 2-4.5 C, and real world observations are putting confidence in this rather than wishful thinking). Putting faith in Spencer's rather contrarian view that we will be saved by a hypothetical strong negative feedback (also pushed by Lindzen) is not much better.

 

chris

And sorry for the link format, still a few more posts to go (Moderator note: per suggestion, made url references into links)

[InfiniteNow]

And sorry for the link format, still a few more posts to go

 

Maybe a moderator or admin would be willing to edit your post and put proper links in on your behalf? (Moderator note: good suggestion - did it)

[Turtle]

Mary, Mary,quite contrary,

how does your garden grow?

With silver bells, and cockle shells,

And pretty maids all in a row.

 

CO2 acquital is, as CO2 acquital does. :)

 

Global Warming: A closer look at the numbers

Just how much of the "Greenhouse Effect" is caused by human activity?

 

It is about 0.28%, if water vapor is taken into account-- about 5.53%, if not.

 

This point is so crucial to the debate over global warming that how water vapor is or isn't factored into an analysis of Earth's greenhouse gases makes the difference between describing a significant human contribution to the greenhouse effect, or a negligible one.

...

The Kyoto Protocol calls for mandatory carbon dioxide reductions of 30% from developed countries like the U.S. Reducing man-made CO2 emissions this much would have an undetectable effect on climate while having a devastating effect on the U.S. economy. Can you drive your car 30% less, reduce your winter heating 30%? Pay 20-50% more for everything from automobiles to zippers? And that is just a down payment, with more sacrifices to come later.

 

Such drastic measures, even if imposed equally on all countries around the world, would reduce total human greenhouse contributions from CO2 by about 0.035%.

 

This is much less than the natural variability of Earth's climate system! ...

[freeztar]

Hey Turtle, I put VERY little faith in that article. First off, it was written over 5 years ago. Second, it was written by Monte Heib, which after doing a quick search on google, reveals that he has no climate credentials. It appears he works for the West Virginia Dept. of Miner Safety. :)

West Virginia Office of Miner’s Health, Safety, and Training TO: Davitt McAteer FROM: <b style="color:black;background-color:#ffff66">Monte</b> <b style="color:black;background-color:#a0ffff">Hieb</b> DATE: July 11, 2006

[Turtle]

Hey Turtle, I put VERY little faith in that article. First off, it was written over 5 years ago. Second, it was written by Monte Heib, which after doing a quick search on google, reveals that he has no climate credentials. It appears he works for the West Virginia Dept. of Miner Safety. :shrug:

West Virginia Office of Miner’s Health, Safety, and Training TO: Davitt McAteer FROM: <b style="color:black;background-color:#ffff66">Monte</b> <b style="color:black;background-color:#a0ffff">Hieb</b> DATE: July 11, 2006

 

 

I can only wryly note that no contributors to this topic have climate credentials and therefore all are acting on faith. The question is then, are folks putting their carbon footprints where their mouths are? :shrug: Keep up the faith; this too will pass.

[InfiniteNow]

I can only wryly note that no contributors to this topic have climate credentials and therefore all are acting on faith. The question is then, are folks putting their carbon footprints where their mouths are? :shrug: Keep up the faith; this too will pass.

 

Interesting rhetoric, Turtle. However, it does nothing to support the validity (or, rather, overcome the invalidity) of the link you shared, which C1ay shared in another thread.

 

 

I bet my carbon footprint is smaller than yours! :shrug:

[freeztar]

I can only wryly note that no contributors to this topic have climate credentials and therefore all are acting on faith.

 

I partially agree. I doubt anyone that has contributed to this thread is a professional researching climatologist. That being the case, the best contributions, imho, are those that reference credible sources. I don't care what anyone "thinks/feels" about climate change if they do not reference credible sources to support their argument. Scientific rigor demands this.

 

The question is then, are folks putting their carbon footprints where their mouths are? :shrug: Keep up the faith; this too will pass.

 

You speak of it as a religion. Perhaps it is for some, but for the sake of this thread, I'd prefer to stick with credible scientific arguments based in fact, rather than faith. :shrug:

I think we're on the same page here. ;)

[Turtle]

I partially agree. I doubt anyone that has contributed to this thread is a professional researching climatologist. That being the case, the best contributions, imho, are those that reference credible sources.

...

I think we're on the same page here. :shrug:

 

No, I don't think we're on the same page at all. You have only moved the discussion to defining credible sources. We know how that's going to turn out, now don't we? Meantime, the big-time anthropogenic global warming proponents fly around the world spewing more 'stuff' in a year than I will in a lifetime and helping ensure their most dire prognostications. :shrug: Nice lot o' work.

[freeztar]

No, I don't think we're on the same page at all. You have only moved the discussion to defining credible sources. We know how that's going to turn out, now don't we?

 

I'm not sure what you mean by the question in the last sentence. :shrug:

I bring up the "credible sources issue" because I feel it is important to have a certain trust regarding the information presented. Peer-reviewed articles from scientists practicing in the field are much more credible than some guy's personal verizon site. (I personally re-learned a similar lesson in the "egg" thread (actually, it was you that pointed it out ;) )

 

My intention is not to drift the thread off-topic by getting into debates on validity. My intention is to steer the thread back on topic by emphasizing the need for credible sources. That's all I'm saying. :shrug:

 

Meantime, the big-time anthropogenic global warming proponents fly around the world spewing more 'stuff' in a year than I will in a lifetime and helping ensure their most dire prognostications. ;) Nice lot o' work.

 

That's neither here nor there...

 

In regards to the article you posted, here's a quote from that article:

 

5. To finish with the math, by calculating the product of the adjusted CO2 contribution to greenhouse gases (3.618%) and % of CO2 concentration from anthropogenic (man-made) sources (3.225%), we see that only (0.03618 X 0.03225) or 0.117% of the greenhouse effect is due to atmospheric CO2 from human activity. The other greenhouse gases are similarly calculated and are summarized below.

 

TABLE 4a....

 

If you look at that table, you'll notice that CO2 is the major anthropogenic contributer at 0.117%. Conversely, according to the graph, we only contribute 0.001% to the water vapor (I'm dubious about this number, btw).

This is interesting if you think about it.

 

Also, it seems that the author's intent is too belittle Anthro-CO2's effect on the climate by saying phrases such as:

only (0.03618 X 0.03225) or 0.117% of the greenhouse effect is due to atmospheric CO2 from human activity.

 

To me this seems to be a statistical argument (and I'll admit that most of the climate debate is) that says that anything that contributes so little (of the whole) can obviously not have any significant effect. Unfortunately, the article falls short of quantifying this.

[Turtle]

...

To me this seems to be a statistical argument (and I'll admit that most of the climate debate is) that says that anything that contributes so little (of the whole) can obviously not have any significant effect. Unfortunately, the article falls short of quantifying this.

 

Sounds like the same objection(s) I put regarding the Sun's role in attentuating cosmic radiation, as well as what little or lot underwater volcanism and hydrothermal venting contribute to Earth's warming. Unfortunately no one yet has the proper quantification of the latter two.

 

I used the word faith because you did. Call it confidence, trust, or what-have-you. On the math side, please pardon my bias to my own understanding of the subject.

 

PS It is most certainly here, and it is most certainly now, significant to observe whether a rhetor's actions match their words when those words propose a call to action.

[InfiniteNow]

On the math side, please pardon my bias to my own understanding of the subject.

 

Just because it is a tiny percentage does not mean it does not have an enormous effect (as this is what I perceived to be implied by your posts). Would you be okay with me changing the air in your bedroom to be composed of .117% weapons grade nerve gas? Probably not. Would it be appropriate for me to argue with you that, since it's such a tiny percentage, you should not be concerned? Absolutely not.

 

Atmospheric concentrations of CO₂ follows this same logic. Overall percentage of the makeup is not as important as the effect of exponentially increasing rate of contribution and overall amount.

 

 

Last... can we argue that you have no place pretending to know something about math because you don't have an advanced degree in mathematics? So, why do you assume credibility of your position by assuming nobody here has a degree in climate sciences? Which, btw... you should validate with Chris C anyway. Hence... freeztar's point about reputable scientific sources.

[freeztar]

Sounds like the same objection(s) I put regarding the Sun's role in attentuating cosmic radiation, as well as what little or lot underwater volcanism and hydrothermal venting contribute to Earth's warming. Unfortunately no one yet has the proper quantification of the latter two.

 

The difference is that deep sea hydrothermal ventilation is not a defined variable at this point. I understand your argument that because it is not a defined variable, it renders all other contributions inaccurate. Unfortunately, we must amend as we go based upon our data at the time. I certainly have my eye out for data pertaining to other contributers. ;)

 

So, the article you posted gave very precise numbers about contributions from different factors, but failed to quantify the effect other than to call Anthro-GHG's role "statistically negligible results in terms of measurable impacts to climate change".

 

We also have this closing statement:

 

The ability of humans to influence greenhouse water vapor is negligible. As such, individuals and groups whose agenda it is to require that human beings are the cause of global warming must discount or ignore the effects of water vapor to preserve their arguments, citing numbers similar to those in Table 4b . If political correctness and staying out of trouble aren't high priorities for you, go ahead and ask them how water vapor was handled in their models or statistics. Chances are, it wasn't!

.

 

Chances are for gamblers, not fact-finders.

 

Scientists can make the distinction between feedback and forcing. Here's a good explanation:

RealClimate » Water vapour: feedback or forcing?

 

I used the word faith because you did.

 

And in retrospect, that was a bad call on my part.

 

On the math side, please pardon my bias to my own understanding of the subject. :shrug: :shrug:

Of course we all have our own biases, and it is productive to air these early in a debate, as has been done. I'm confused about the "math" comment.

 

PS It is most certainly here, and it is most certainly now, significant to observe whether a rhetor's actions match their words when those words propose a call to action.

 

Awesome quote Turtle! ;)

Unfortunately, I sense some directed intention in the undertone...

[Turtle]

The difference is that deep sea hydrothermal ventilation is not a defined variable at this point. I understand your argument that because it is not a defined variable, it renders all other contributions inaccurate. ...

 

So it does.

 

Of course we all have our own biases, and it is productive to air these early in a debate, as has been done. I'm confused about the "math" comment.

 

I have little trust in most peoples' knowledge of the math involved in modeling a complex system.

 

It is most certainly here, and it is most certainly now, significant to observe whether a rhetor's actions match their words when those words propose a call to action.

Awesome quote Turtle! ;)

Unfortunately, I sense some directed intention in the undertone...

 

;) I'm talking about the general case here. I directed that quote to whatever specific cases it applies to. You said elsewhere you are in the anthropogenic camp; the quote is for that group. If the shoes fit, wear them; if not, don't.

 

Here's a word or three on the unreliablility (reliability?) of the current computer modeling of climate. Never mind some of these models take five months to do a single run. :shrug: Not to worry, it's covered by your carbon credits. :shrug:

 

Research Tools: Climate FAQs

As our knowledge of the different components of the climate system and their interactions increases, so does the complexity of today's climate models. Also, many of the most pressing scientific questions regarding the climate system and its response to natural and anthropogenic forcings cannot be readily addressed with traditional models of the physical climate. One of the open issues for near-term climate change, for example, is the response of terrestrial ecosystems to increased concentrations of carbon dioxide. Will plants begin releasing carbon dioxide to the atmosphere in a warmer climate, thereby acting as a positive feedback, or will vegetation absorb more carbon dioxide and hence decelerate global warming? Related issues include the interactions among land use change, deforestation by biomass burning, emission of greenhouse gases and aerosols, weathering of rocks, carbon in soils, and marine biogeochemistry.

[freeztar]

The difference is that deep sea hydrothermal ventilation is not a defined variable at this point. I understand your argument that because it is not a defined variable, it renders all other contributions inaccurate. ...

So it does.

Really?

So, with that logic, I suppose we should abandon any theory with unknown/undefined variables?

 

I have little trust in most peoples' knowledge of the math involved in modeling a complex system.

Nor do I, but "most people" don't really hang around these parts. ;)

I certainly cannot claim an ability to construct one of these models, but I have studied several different ones and understand the principles governing them. I'm not an expert and as such, I appeal to those that possess the utility to construct and run these models. If you have some insight into the specifics of the climate models Turtle, then I'm sure that could make for a great thread. ;)

 

:shrug: I'm talking about the general case here. I directed that quote to whatever specific cases it applies to. You said elsewhere you are in the anthropogenic camp; the quote is for that group. If the shoes fit, wear them; if not, don't.

I always make sure my shoes fit. :D ;)

Although sometimes the back of the shoe tends to grate my heels. :shrug: (but that's neither here nor there)

 

Here's a word or three on the unreliablility (reliability?) of the current computer modeling of climate. Never mind some of these models take five months to do a single run.

 

Climate models are inherently unreliable and are time consuming.

Hmm...I see your point. Let's quit modeling altogether, it's pointless. We can never model reality...

Not to worry, it's covered by your carbon credits.

 

What carbon credits?

Oh, you mean the nurturing of the Earth by promoting plant life and general sustainability?

I guess I don't know much about such things...

;)

[Turtle]

Climate models are inherently unreliable and are time consuming.

Hmm...I see your point. Let's quit modeling altogether, it's pointless. We can never model reality...

:eek2:

 

 

What carbon credits?

Oh, you mean the nurturing of the Earth by promoting plant life and general sustainability?

I guess I don't know much about such things...

;)

 

The first paragraph is an emotional appeal to a false premise.

 

On the second, your company is excepted of course Charcoal Brother. :(