My belief in Global Warming is getting shaky

[modest]

We ask Bryson what could be making the key difference:

 

Q: Could you rank the things that have the most significant impact and where would you put carbon dioxide on the list?

 

A: Well let me give you one fact first. In the first 30 feet of the atmosphere, on the average, outward radiation from the Earth, which is what CO2 is supposed to affect, how much [of the reflected energy] is absorbed by water vapor? In the first 30 feet, 80 percent, okay?

 

I'm sure this has been brought up before, but some reiteration probably wouldn't hurt.

 

Flying Binghi, water vapor is a powerful greenhouse gas. As temperatures increase due to increased anthropogenic greenhouse gases, the amount of water vapor in the atmosphere is expected to also increase - even while relative humidity remains approximately constant. This is a feedback effect, amplifying the consequences of human activity.

 

http://www.gfdl.noaa.gov/reference/bibliography/2006/ih0601.pdf

 

So, water vapor is understood not to negate anthropogenic global warming - quite the contrary.

 

~modest

[Essay]

InfiniteNow, you dont think Reid Bryson had any peer reviewed papers written eh ?

But the point is that these comments aren't peer reviewed, though as an "ancient respected scientist," he should be citable. But expect his comments to draw some critique.

 

Q: Could you rank the things that have the most significant impact and where would you put carbon dioxide on the list?

 

A: Well let me give you one fact first. In the first 30 feet of the atmosphere, on the average, outward radiation from the Earth, which is what CO2 is supposed to affect, how much [of the reflected energy] is absorbed by water vapor? In the first 30 feet, 80 percent, okay?

Okay!

 

But do you also know that CO2 wouldn't absorb this heat anyway.

It absorbs longer wavelength heat, which comes from the heat re-radiated away from the water vapor, later in time.

 

That's a gross oversimplification, but the point is that these numbers like "the first 30 feet" are meaningless because of the stepwise transfer of energy up through the atmosphere (with most of the trillions of steps of absorption and re-emission changing the heat into longer wavelengths, until it escapes into space as a very cold "heat").

 

Retaining "heat" anywhere in the atmosphere will cause a "backup" of the stepwise chain, ...increasing total energy... leading to greater instability....

~

[Flying Binghi]

...though as an "ancient respected scientist," he should be citable.

 

While the moderators are working out if they will allow all of Brysons comments...

 

I'll watch the discusion on Peer review over here - http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=4195#comment-308451

 

and here - http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=66

[freeztar]

While the moderators are working out if they will allow all of Brysons comments...

 

There's nothing to work out. Bryson is free to come here and comment on his scientific studies, so long as he provides scientific evidence. Same goes for you or anyone else.

 

I'll watch the discusion on Peer review...

 

Good idea. I'll start a thread on 'peer review' in our philosophy of science forum. See you there!

[Flying Binghi]

Bryson is free to come here and comment on his scientific studies, so long as he provides scientific evidence.

 

...by 'proxie' perhaps ? Some more comments from the late Reid Bryson -

 

“All this argument is the temperature going up or not, it’s absurd,” Bryson continues. “Of course it’s going up. It has gone up since the early 1800s, before the Industrial Revolution, because we’re coming out of the Little Ice Age, not because we’re putting more carbon dioxide into the air.”

 

We ask about that evidence, but Bryson says it’s second-tier stuff. “Don’t talk about proxies,” he says. “We have written evidence, eyeball evidence. When Eric the Red went to Greenland, how did he get there? It’s all written down.”

 

Bryson describes the navigational instructions provided for Norse mariners making their way from Europe to their settlements in Greenland. The place was named for a reason: The Norse farmed there from the 10th century to the 13th, a somewhat longer period than the United States has existed. But around 1200 the mariners’ instructions changed in a big way. Ice became a major navigational reference. Today, old Viking farmsteads are covered by glaciers.

 

WECN May 2007

 

 

To me thats real world evidence.

 

I'm getting a bit sick of the mindless abuse of some of the other posters here, so I will leave you lot to it.

[modest]

A graphical description of changes in temperature in Greenland from 500 – 1990 A.D. based on analysis of the deep ice core from Greenland and some historical events. The annual temperature changes are shown vertical in ˚C. The numbers are to be read horizontal:

1. From 700 to 750 A.D. people belonging to the Late Dorset Culture move into the area around Smith Sound, Ellesmere Island and Greenland north of Thule.
   
2. Norse settlement of Iceland starts in the second half of the 9th century.
   
3. Norse settlement of Greenland starts just before the year 1000.
   
4. Thule inuits move into northern Greenland in the 12th century.
   
5. Late Dorset culture disappears from Greenland in the second half of the 13th century.
   
6. The Western Settlement disappears in mid 14th century.
   
7. In 1408 is the Marriage in Hvalsey, the last known written document on the Norse in Greenland.
   
8. The Eastern Settlement disappears in mid 15th century.
   
9. John Cabot is the first European in the post-Norse era to visit Labrador - Newfoundland in 1497.
   
10. “Little Ice Age” from ca 1600 to mid 18th century.
    
11. The Danish-Norwegian priest, Hans Egede, arrives in Greenland in 1721.
    

-source

 

~modest

[Michaelangelica]

[Eclipse Now]

There's a great podcast from Dr Karl on the Greenland myth.

 

Wreckless Eric has Greenlanders seeing red (Great Moments in Science)

[goku]

No, the radiation from space has a wave length that is too short to interact with the greenhouse gases. When that radiation is radiated back toward space from the Earth it's wave length is long enough for greenhouse gases to absorb it there by making the atmosphere warmer and preventing the extreme cold you would see on an airless body like the moon. in moderation this is a very good thing but too much of a good thing will result in a too warm earth.

 

so the GHG's absorb radiation (energy) then hold it?

no, they release it. otherwise you wouldn't feell it, or know it.

 

so the sun heats the dirt, the dirt heats the air, the air heats the dirt :)

 

but the farther from the dirt you get, the colder it gets, and hot air rises??

where's the cold come from :evil:

[freeztar]

where's the cold come from :evil:

 

Outer space. It's quite cold out there, and as MTM pointed out, without our atmosphere, Earth would be a very cold place. It's this same warming of our atmosphere that can get out of control and begin to roast us too much!

[Greg_G47]

I'm not convinced that anthropocentric global warming is a fact. for several reasons.

 

Current data (that I've seen) isn't sufficient to determine whether increased CO2 levels will cause a continued increase in temperature. For one, consistent global temperature records aren't available very far into the past. Until recently, urban heat-island effects were ignored, machine locations were not kept consistent, etc. Methodology has improved over time, but recently (since 2000) no statistically significant temperature increase has been reported, despite rising CO2 levels.

 

Many factors have not been considered. One argument I've read is that effects such as increased water vapor formation following an initial increase in temperature (clouds reflect a great deal of visible light, and may prevent some radiant heat transfer from the sun) have not been considered.

 

Several times, predictions of rapidly accelerating global temperature change have been made and failed to come true. The low success rate of these predictions suggests that either predictive models are flawed, or that predictions are influenced by politics or other ourside sources. The matter has become highly politicized, and 'carbon credit' systems mean that a lot of cash is tied up in the result of the debate also. In all areas of research, commercial and political interests must be disclosed and examined when evaluating results.

 

As with anything else, the media interpretation doesn't reflect the science. Extreme weather is "sexier" now, and thus recieves more media coverage than before. The increase in coverage coupled with the mention of "climate change" every time a weather event occurs has lead to a public perception of a "the-day-after-tomorrow" style prediction. Unfortunately, this sort of "coverage" does nothing but damage the credibility of real climatologists. If global warming IS a fact, we'll miss it and reject it along with the absurd media interpretation.

 

I'm certainly not ruling out global warming entirely, but I would like to see more data before I decide one way or the other. Specifally, results from NASA's climate-monitoring satellite (which has yet to be launched) would probably help to sort things out one way or the other.

[freeztar]

I'm not convinced that anthropocentric global warming is a fact. for several reasons.

 

Current data (that I've seen) isn't sufficient to determine whether increased CO2 levels will cause a continued increase in temperature.

 

Please provide the data as that is not my understanding.

 

For one, consistent global temperature records aren't available very far into the past.

 

What is "very far"?

 

Until recently, urban heat-island effects were ignored, machine locations were not kept consistent, etc. Methodology has improved over time, but recently (since 2000) no statistically significant temperature increase has been reported, despite rising CO2 levels.

I'm going to stop here. All of these arguments have been discussed already in this very thread. I suggest you read through the thread first as it will answer all of your questions. Actually, I believe the last 30 pages address all of your concerns iirc.

[goku]

Outer space. It's quite cold out there, and as MTM pointed out, without our atmosphere, Earth would be a very cold place. It's this same warming of our atmosphere that can get out of control and begin to roast us too much!

 

and yet i wonder how they know it could roast us :phones:

 

is the temp atop of everest rising?

 

i'm not sure that it is impossible for man to slightly change climate, but i disagree with the CO2 propaganda, cuz, my mind keeps going back to all the air compressed in car tars.

 

seems to me the best way to change air temp on earth is to change the amount of air on earth.

 

air cools the surface of earth, right?

so if you have less air you can't cool it as much :huh:

[Essay]

and yet i wonder how they know it could roast us :phones:

What could "roast" us? In space solar exposure will roast you, won't it? Is that what you're talking about?

 

is the temp atop of everest rising?

What would this mean to you if it were (or were not)?

 

i'm not sure that it is impossible for man to slightly change climate, but i disagree with the CO2 propaganda, cuz, my mind keeps going back to all the air compressed in car tars.

HUH???

 

seems to me the best way to change air temp on earth is to change the amount of air on earth.

HUH???

 

air cools the surface of earth, right?

so if you have less air you can't cool it as much :huh:

HUH???

"i'm not sure that it is impossible (you mean possible, right?) for man to slightly change climate" -goku

...but just look at history, geography, anthropology....

~ :edevil:

 

p.s. Just look at what a large volcano does to the climate for a few years (or more, depending....).

Civilization is just like a medium size volcano, running all the time.

What do you think will happen....

[Turtle]

is the temp atop of everest rising?

 

Yes; it is rising. :phones:

 

Complete Article: >> -- Press Releases June 2007 - Fast Melting Glaciers from Rising Temperatures Expose Millions in Himalaya to Devastating Floods and Water Shortages - United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) --

First Paragraph of Article: >>

Kathmandu/Bangkok, 5 June 2007 – The rapid shrinking of Himalayan glaciers, accelerating at alarming rates in past decades as a result of global warming, will have catastrophic consequences for communities living downstream and millions who rely on glacial melt water, a new report says. The report, the first comprehensive study on the impact of warming temperatures on glaciers and glacial lakes in the Himalayan region warns of impending glacial lake outburst floods (GLOFs) – when rising waters from glacial melt breach dams in glacial lakes – and calls for early warning and mitigation measures to avert disaster. ...

[REASON]

air cools the surface of earth, right?

so if you have less air you can't cool it as much :hyper:

 

goku,

 

Sunlight generates heat. Air retains heat. Cold air has much less heat in it. Hot air has more. Certain gases, such as Carbon Dioxide, are better at retaining heat than others. The more there is of those gases, the more heat is retained. The more heat is retained, the less cold air there is.

 

Not only does air retain heat, but it also reflects harmful radiation from the Sun. The less air there is, the more harmful radiation can get in on the sunny side which can fry us, and the less heat is retained that keeps us warm on the cold night side. But there isn't anywhere near enough air in "tars," cars, houses or buildings to have any real affect on the amount of air there is outside and how it is reacting with sunlight.

 

But the issue isn't really about how much air there is, it is about how much of each kind of gas it is made of, and how much heat can be retained by them.

 

It is well understood that Carbon Dioxide is good at retaining heat, and that we are constantly pouring it into the air. Though it is far more complicated than this, the simple idea is - More Corbon Dioxide>more heat>more melting of glaciers>less reflection of light>more heat; More cutting of forests>less absorption of Carbon Dioxide>more heat.

 

We are not changing the amount of air, we are changing its composition.

 

More heat. :)

[freeztar]

and yet i wonder how they know it could roast us :)

Well, Venus is an extreme example:

 

The enormously CO2-rich atmosphere, along with thick clouds of sulfur dioxide, generates the strongest greenhouse effect in the solar system, creating surface temperatures of over 460 °C.[20] This makes Venus's surface much hotter than Mercury's which has a minimum surface temperature of -220 °C and maximum surface temperature of 420 °C, even though Venus is nearly twice Mercury's distance from the Sun and receives only 25% of Mercury's solar irradiance. Because of the lack of any moisture on Venus, there is almost no relative humidity (no more than 1%) on the surface, creating a heat index of 450 °C to 480 °C.

 

Venus - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia