Co2 Acquittal

[Chris C]

A few points--

 

turtle,

 

Global Warming by definition is just ΔT, not absolute T, so you need to look at drivers of climate change which can initiate a change from state 1 to state 2, and water vapor cannot do that. Then, you can look at 'feedbacks' (or what changes as a reaction to climate change which amplifies or dampens the original forcing). The realclimate article is an easy-to-understand way of saying that the "saturation vapor pressure" goes up or down as a function of temperature. Water vapor is a rather weak absorber near the planck function for Earthlike temperatures, and is more or less controlled by CO2 as WV impact is temperature dependent so if you remove all the CO2 then the water vapor impact will decrease exponentially since it condenses in a cooler climate. Gaseous H20 has a very short residence time in the atmosphere (~10 days; CO2- centuries to millennia), and also, there is a lot less WV as you go up to the higher, colder, lower pressure part of the atmosphere where the Earth's heat balance is determined. It takes two to tango, so even though WV is helping keep the planet warmer than CO2 is, that impact is very much CO2-dependent, and the CO2 impact is still non-negligible (about 30 W/m^2 of the 150 W/m^2 of outgoing energy that gets absorbed by the greenhouse effect).

 

As for numbers, WV actually makes up about 2/3 of the longwave radiation absorbed by the atmosphere (table 3; http(www).cgd.ucar.edu/cas/Trenberth/trenberth.papers/KiehlTrenbBAMS97.pdf ). I think the impacts in units W/m^2 by quantifying the role in the greenhouse effect or change in greenhouse effect is the best way to look at it. For example, doubling the atmospheric CO2 has a radiative forcing of 4 W/m^2, and so at equilibrium you go from around 150 W/m^2 absorbed by the atmosphere to about 170 W/m^2. A change from 280 to 380 ppmv is not 0.00X percent, and this is where bad logic of small percentages should stop. A good first step is recognizing that ~99% of the atmosphere (O2, N2, Argon) do not contribute to infrared absorption and emission so they can be removed from our numbers already.

[Turtle]

A few points--

 

turtle,

 

Global Warming by definition is just ΔT, not absolute T, so you need to look at drivers of climate change which can initiate a change from state 1 to state 2, and water vapor cannot do that.

 

Acknowledged; thanks Chris. :hyper: The realclimate article concludes with this:

To be sure there are still some lingering uncertainties. Some recent data indicates that tropical upper tropopsheric water vapour does not quite keep up with constant relative humidity (Minschwaner and Dessler, 2004) (though they still found that the feedback was positive). Moist convection schemes in models are constantly being refined, and it's possible that newer schemes will change things . However, given the Pinatubo results, the models are probably getting the broader picture reasonably correct. ...

RealClimate » Water vapour: feedback or forcing?

 

The devil is always in the details. :zip: So if a single above water volcano can rock the boat so noticeably, I have to wonder how the underwater volcanoes roll it. :hyper: :doh:

[freeztar]

I have to wonder how the underwater volcanoes roll it. :zip: :doh:

 

I'm sure we would all like to know.

Have you found any more info on this Turtle?

[Chris C]

There is more recent literature on specific humidity increases in the atmosphere, i.e.

 

Identification of human-induced changes in atmospheric moisture content -- Santer et al. 104 (39): 15248 -- Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences

 

for a technical but much more thorough and satisfying overview of how water vapor influences climate, people should see this document:

(http)geosci.uchicago.edu/~rtp1/papers/CaltechWater.pdf

[Turtle]

There is more recent literature on specific humidity increases in the atmosphere, i.e.

 

Identification of human-induced changes in atmospheric moisture content -- Santer et al. 104 (39): 15248 -- Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences

 

for a technical but much more thorough and satisfying overview of how water vapor influences climate, people should see this document:

(http)geosci.uchicago.edu/~rtp1/papers/CaltechWater.pdf

 

Roger. Here's that link 'til you get on the back nine. >> http://geosci.uchicago.edu/~rtp1/papers/CaltechWater.pdf

 

 

I have to wonder how the underwater volcanoes roll it. :shrug:

 

I'm sure we would all like to know.

Have you found any more info on this Turtle?

 

Mostly I have found other forum debates. I did read one bit saying the Earth's heating of the ocean was 'normalized', or some such a matter of phrase, in their modeling using tritium(sp?) levels in ocean water? Sorry I didn't save that link. Maybe search that specifically next. Anyway, the point is of course a generalized value as an initial condition input makes for, IMHO, a less than confident view of the result of a model of a non-linear system.

[InfiniteNow]

Mostly I have found other forum debates. :shrug:

 

What about a peer-reviewed publication?

[InfiniteNow]

I just found this site. It's a very good resource for anyone still befuddled by the differing thoughts and opinions on the matter.

 

 

Climate change: A guide for the perplexed - earth - 16 May 2007 - New Scientist Environment

Our planet's climate is anything but simple. All kinds of factors influence it, from massive events on the Sun to the growth of microscopic creatures in the oceans, and there are subtle interactions between many of these factors.

 

Yet despite all the complexities, a firm and ever-growing body of evidence points to a clear picture: the world is warming, this warming is due to human activity increasing levels of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, and if emissions continue unabated the warming will too, with increasingly serious consequences.

 

Yes, there are still big uncertainties in some predictions, but these swing both ways. For example, the response of clouds could slow the warming or speed it up.

 

With so much at stake, it is right that climate science is subjected to the most intense scrutiny. What does not help is for the real issues to be muddied by discredited arguments or wild theories.

 

So for those who are not sure what to believe, here is our round-up of the 26 most common climate myths and misconceptions.

 

There is also a guide to assessing the evidence. In the articles we've included lots of links to primary research and major reports for those who want to follow through to the original sources.

[freeztar]

The AGU (with a membership of 50,000) issued it's formal stance on climate change, and guess what....

 

Human Impacts on Climate

[Turtle]

The AGU (with a membership of 50,000) issued it's formal stance on climate change, and guess what....

 

Human Impacts on Climate

 

Takk Freezter. Fifty thousand people can't be wrong. :shrug: The down-side if you should make me a convert is, my solutions are even more unappetizing than my dissent. Minimalist multifunctionism finds the dog sleeping... :)

[freeztar]

my solutions are even more unappetizing than my dissent.

 

Try me. :)

I've heard some pretty unappetizing solutions...

[HydrogenBond]

Part of the problem with the global warming debate is assuming the rise in temperature is due to human action. There is a temperature rise, but the human factor is inconclusive. What I would like to see is longer term data, for the past 100 million years. One can find many warm cycles even when humans were not around. What caused these and why is it not even on the table as part of the reason for this current cycle? The science is not very scientific in that it is using about 50-100 years of the data. The burden of proof should require explaining the past and then eliminating that before introducing a trump card.

 

Science, research and universities are competitive businesses. If you want to get funding one needs to go where the money is. Right now there is more money spent on the global warming angle. If you did a comparison of all the scientists pro and con for global warming, it would be interesting to see how well it correlates to the disproportionate funding level.

 

What I would like to see happen is for the the global warming money to split equally into two. Give half of it to the pro and half to the con. The ship jumping will occur when the funding gets balanced. The current bucks were decided politically to force fit science to a particular end. The research funding distribution makes me very skeptical. Even a burger flipper is not going to criticize the food if he wants to keep his job. But normalize the funding, people will be able to do their science and talk freely.

 

If we project into the future, if the human global warming angle is able to pay off its research investment, what is the next card on the table? This has already been thought out, since the funding is designed to be a sure thing. Since it is a Democratic issue, the goal is more government and more taxes. Research is seed money with the hope of a large return on investment. In a free market culture, one has to admire them if it pays off. Going "green' is an inside joke in some circles. They are really thinking greenbacks.

[Chris C]

Part of the problem with the global warming debate is assuming the rise in temperature is due to human action. There is a temperature rise, but the human factor is inconclusive. What I would like to see is longer term data, for the past 100 million years. One can find many warm cycles even when humans were not around. What caused these and why is it not even on the table as part of the reason for this current cycle? The science is not very scientific in that it is using about 50-100 years of the data. The burden of proof should require explaining the past and then eliminating that before introducing a trump card.

 

Hi, I'm not going to respond to the "motivation" and funding part; that stuff doesn't work for me.

 

Scientifically, the logic of 'natural cycles' generally comes down to saying that a person walking out of a burning building with a kerosene bottle and matches is innocent because "fires always happened."

 

I'm not sure what you're reading, but natural/past variability is intensely studied, and in fact the reason you know about them, is because someone took the time to document it. Greenhouse gases actually play a large role in past climate variability, even in ice age cycles, and in previous extinction events. Changes in solar output, changes in plate tectonics, the oxygenetion of the atmosphere, asteroid impacts, volcanic eruptions, etc all have played a role in past climate variability...and if you want to be more specific on a certain time period, there is going to be a good deal of literature on it until you go back to the pre-Cambrian around 550 million years ago, but then we have much less record.

 

These things are being studied today, and we don't select 'humans' out of a hat. There is a good deal of understanding that goes into the fact that adding CO2 gives you warming, including well known radiative physics (so even if you're getting some big possible-but-undetectable natural variation, that could only amplify it). But if you want to suggest some natural phenomena that we do not know about, the scientific community is all ears.

 

Just to self advertise some more, this post may be helpful

(http)chriscolose.wordpress.com/2007/12/18/the-scientific-basis-for-anthropogenic-climate-change/

[Chris C]

For those interested, Dr. Roger Pielke and I are having an exchange on his blog post at (http)climatesci.org/2008/01/26/963/ . The comments are actually on my piece, if you go through with his link.

[InfiniteNow]

Part of the problem with the global warming debate is assuming the rise in temperature is due to human action. There is a temperature rise, but the human factor is inconclusive.

No. Actually, ALL of the problem with the debate is that there are people like you who still sincerely believe this.

 

 

A Global Warning, Scientist Says Global Warming Intensifies Storms, Raise Sea Levels - CBS News

 

There's been a debate burning for years about the causes of global warming. But the scientists you're about to meet say the debate is over. New evidence shows man is contributing to the warming of the planet, pumping out greenhouse gases that trap solar heat.

 

 

CBS News Video - Top Stories and Video News Clips at CBSNews.com

 

CBS News Video - Top Stories and Video News Clips at CBSNews.com

 

CBS News Video - Top Stories and Video News Clips at CBSNews.com

 

 

 

Mayewski says we haven't seen a temperature rise to this level going back at least 2,000 years, and arguably several thousand years.

 

As for carbon dioxide (CO2) levels, Mayewski says, "we haven't seen CO2 levels like this in hundreds of thousands of years, if not millions of years."

 

What does that tell him?

 

"It all points to something that has changed and something that has impacted the system which wasn't doing it more than 100 years ago. And we know exactly what it is. It's human activity," he says.

 

It's activity like burning fossil fuels, releasing carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases. The U.S. is by far the largest polluter. Corell says there's so much greenhouse gas in the air already that more temperature rise is inevitable.

 

Even if we stopped using every car, truck, and power plant — stopping all greenhouse gas emissions — Mayewski says the planet would continue to warm anyway. "Would continue to warm for another, about another degree," he says.

 

That's enough to melt the Arctic — and if greenhouse gases continue to increase, the temperature will rise even more. The ice that's melting already is changing the weather by disrupting ocean currents.

 

 

There are skeptics who question climate change projections like that, saying they’re no more reliable than your local weatherman. But Mayewski says arctic projections done decades ago are proving accurate.

 

"That said, the skeptics have brought up some very, very interesting issues over the last few years. And they've forced us to think more and more about the data that we collect. We can owe the skeptics a vote of thanks for making our science as precise as it is today," says Mayewski.

 

 

 

Corell, who first studied the issue for President Reagan, believes the climate change facts are in, even if President Bush does not.

 

"When you look at the American government, which is saying essentially, 'Wait a minute. We need to study this some more. We can't flip our energy use overnight. It would hurt the economy.' When you hear that, what do you think?" Pelley asked.

 

"Well, what I do then is, I try to tell them exactly what we know scientifically. The science is, I believe, unassailable," says Corell. "I'm not arguing their policy, that's their business, how they deal with policy. But my job is to say, scientifically, shorten that time scale so that if you don't push out the effects of climate change into the long, long distant future. Because even under the best of circumstances, this natural system of a climate will continue to warm the planet for literally hundreds of years, no matter what we do."

[Michaelangelica]

Isn't anthropomorphic (human caused) CO2 rising a done deal?

Who is stupid enough to challenge it?

[Chris C]

Isn't anthropomorphic (human caused) CO2 rising a done deal?

Who is stupid enough to challenge it?

 

anthropogenic*

 

It is certainly rising, and it is certainly from us. We also know its radiative effect and greenhouse strength, and so it is possible to determine its effect. What is a bit more uncertain is how the climate will react to those CO2-caused temperature changes (i.e., what will happen with clouds, atmospheric circulation, how will ice respond, etc). This can be highly misleading because although the foundation of AGW is remarkably solid, many details are not, such as how hurricanes might respond, or how tropical diseases may be spread.

 

Unfortunately, the uncertainly now leaves much more room for bad things to happen than it does for good things to happen...it's an experiment destined to turn out bad, but without every detail quantified, we can't say when or how bad.

[pmaust]

Well, I've been away reading and observing. Here is what global warming looks like in the sunny Southern California high desert.

 

%5Bimg%5Dhttp%3A//img.photobucket.com/albums/v338/pmaust/IMG_0018.jpg[/img]

 

 

Snow in Bagdad, China, frigid cold in the mid-west of the US. The evidence is not very convincing. :hihi: Brrrr.....