My belief in Global Warming is getting shaky

[CraigD]

Any idea what is happening with all the stuff spewed out by jet plane trails-including water vapour?

Because water vapor is also a strong absorber and emitter of visible light (which is why we can see it), I believe the net effect of jet contrails is similar to that of clouds, cooling the Earth by preventing visible light from reaching the surface to heat it and be re-emitted as infrared.

 

Graphs like the one in linked to in post #119 are helpful in visualizing this.

[InfiniteNow]

To follow-up on the excellent points made by CraigD, water vapour is very important, but the reason it is the cause for less concern (besides the fact that it is a "feedback" and not a "forcing") is the relatively short time that it stays in the atmosphere (roughly 10 days), whereas CO₂ stays in the atmosphere for decades, and even over 100 years.

 

So, inputting water vapour into the atmosphere has a relatively short lived effect, whereas CO₂ concentrations just keeps building upon themselves without going away so quickly.

 

 

Freeztar gave a link in post #81 which explains this issue very clearly. :)

 

 

RealClimate - Water Vapor in comparison

 

While water vapour is indeed the most important greenhouse gas, the issue that makes it a feedback (rather than a forcing) is the relatively short residence time for water in the atmosphere (around 10 days).

 

<...>

 

At Day 0 there is zero water, but after only 14 days, the water is back to 90% of its normal value, and after 50 days it's back to within 1%. That's less than 3 months. Compared to the residence time for perturbations to CO2 (decades to centuries) or CH4 (a decade), this is a really short time.

[Michaelangelica]

Because water vapor is also a strong absorber and emitter of visible light (which is why we can see it), I believe the net effect of jet contrails is similar to that of clouds, cooling the Earth by preventing visible light from reaching the surface to heat it and be re-emitted as infrared.

 

Graphs like the one in linked to in post #119 are helpful in visualizing this.

So the more we fly/travel the better?

[freeztar]

So the more we fly/travel the better?

 

No, that's not what he is implying.

Jets leach a lot more than H2O. Clouds are water vapor (+ some other stuff). Contrails are a different beast.

 

I believe the point that Craig was making is that contrails and clouds have similar cooling effects.

[InfiniteNow]

So the more we fly/travel the better?

 

Cost/Benefit analysis shows that the costs of the fuel expenditure are far from trumped by the acute cooling benefit of the water vapor.

 

 

Time flies like an arrow, fruit flies like a banana. :)

[Turtle]

So the more we fly/travel the better?

 

Mmmmm...inspite of the contrails' cooling effects, the combustion of hydrocarbon fuel is producing CO2. So many little details messing up the big picture oh my. ;) Just when you think underwater volcanoes may drive warming a little bit, now we have to consider that the absence of terrestrial volcanism may be driving it a bit. What's a modeler to do? :hihi:

 

Lunar eclipse may shed light on climate change - space - 03 March 2008 - New Scientist Space

Last month's lunar eclipse not only treated skygazers to a ruddy view of the Moon – it revealed that Earth's atmosphere contains little light-blocking volcanic dust.

Some researchers say the low volcanic dust levels in the atmosphere over the last dozen years could be contributing to global warming, but others dispute the claim.

[InfiniteNow]

Hey, would you look at that. More irrelevant non-specific hand-waving from Turtle... aka, Hypography's own George C. Marshall Institute.

 

 

Way to go, man. You're overturning mountains of evidence with each post. :hihi:

[freeztar]

Just when you think underwater volcanoes may drive warming a little bit, now we have to consider that the absence of terrestrial volcanism may be driving it a bit. What's a modeler to do? :hihi:

 

Maybe that's why these aren't included in the models. They balance out. ;) :lol:

[Turtle]

Maybe that's why these aren't included in the models. They balance out. :lol: ;)

 

;) Velly nice. Nice to see you concede things left out. :lol: Now where'd I put that butterfly? ;) As to the investigation I just referenced, I'd say it hasn't been out long enough to include in any simulations, and we well know that is the case for data current & historical on the bottom of the deep blue seas. Can we say conspiracy of little errors? :) Sure we can. :D

 

I'd spend a little more on investigating more of that 1/4 million or more underwater volcanoes if it were my money. Oh wait; some of it IS my money. :lol:

 

Speaking of equalling out, how much charcoal buried in the garden equals out a 170 mile drive @15mpg? I want to pay forward for a hole hunt. :hihi:

[freeztar]

:lol: Velly nice. Nice to see you concede things left out. :lol:

 

I've always agreed with you on that.

 

Now where'd I put that butterfly? ;) As to the investigation I just referenced, I'd say it hasn't been out long enough to include in any simulations, and we well know that is the case for data current & historical on the bottom of the deep blue seas. Can we say conspiracy of little errors? :eek: Sure we can. :D

 

I'd spend a little more on investigating more of that 1/4 million or more underwater volcanoes if it were my money. Oh wait; some of it IS my money.

 

I'd love to see more research in these areas as well.

 

Regardless, I still stand by my assertions that the climate models are fairly accurate, even without these missing factors ("little errors").

 

Speaking of equalling out, how much charcoal buried in the garden equals out a 170 mile drive @15mpg? I want to pay forward for a hole hunt. :eek:

 

That's ~11.3 gallons. Multiply that by the weight of carbon in a gallon of gasoline (~5.5 lbs.) and you end up with ~62 lbs. of carbon to sequester. That's quite a bit of charcoal for a backyard enthusiast and a surprisingly high number for such a relatively short trip.

 

Numbers from here: How can 6 pounds of gasoline create 19 pounds of Carbon dioxide?

[Turtle]

I've always agreed with you on that.

 

I'd love to see more research in these areas as well.

 

Regardless, I still stand by my assertions that the climate models are fairly accurate, even without these missing factors ("little errors").

 

Acknowledged on the holy bridge...errr...holey bridge, twixt us. ;) :eek:

 

 

That's ~11.3 gallons. Multiply that by the weight of carbon in a gallon of gasoline (~5.5 lbs.) and you end up with ~62 lbs. of carbon to sequester. That's quite a bit of charcoal for a backyard enthusiast and a surprisingly high number for such a relatively short trip.

 

Numbers from here: How can 6 pounds of gasoline create 19 pounds of Carbon dioxide?

 

Spank my bottom & call me Sally! :eek: If I make the charcoal myself in my little retort, with its 7 to 1 return on wood/charcoal, that's a whopping 434 pounds of woot. :lol: What if I walk there at ~ 2 miles an hour? :lol:

[freeztar]

Acknowledged on the holy bridge...errr...holey bridge, twixt us. :D ;)

 

Very clever Turtle. :D

 

Spank my bottom & call me Sally! :eek:

 

Uhhh...let me check my calendar....yep, I'm busy for the rest of...my life, sorry. :eek:

 

If I make the charcoal myself in my little retort, with its 7 to 1 return on wood/charcoal, that's a whopping 434 pounds of woot. :lol: What if I walk there at ~ 2 miles an hour? :lol:

 

Yeah, it's a little disheartening when you look at the numbers this way.

But, thinking in terms of acres of farmland, yet to be charred, it becomes much more hopeful (not so much for the backyard enthusiast unfortunately).

 

Offset underwater-volcano carbon influx through char

[Michaelangelica]

Fox News Promotes Global Warming Deniers, Says US Should Fear "Cooling"

 

Posted by Ali Frick, Think Progress at 3:57 PM on March 3, 2008.

This staged conference "proves" little more than that a group funded by Big Oil can easily attract sham scientists to tout the industry’s line.

 

This morning, Fox and Friends trumpeted the Exxon-funded Heartland Institute’s global warming skeptics conference, taking place this week in New York City. Fox hosted Dan Gainor, the vice president of the Business and Media institute, a group run by the right-wing Media Research Center.

 

Fox host Steve Doocy used to segment to tout the “bitterly cold” weather and the “worst winter,” suggesting global warming is a sham:

 

Despite it being bitterly cold outside in the Northern plains, we hear a lot about global warming, and that we better do something to fix it or we’re doomed. But is there another side to this story? Many scientists would say yes, but most media outlets, the mainstream media, only cover Al Gore’s earth has a fever perspective. […] In fact, last week we were reporting that this is the worst winter in some parts of America and around the world, and perhaps we should be worried now about global cooling.

AlterNet: Blogs: PEEK: Fox News Promotes Global Warming Deniers, Says US Should Fear "Cooling"

 

[Reaper]

I see that you too also have your share of deniers. Ah well, time to pull out a little known graph I came across in my travels...

 

Wait, hold on, can't put in an image either. Well, here's the link, just copy it and put it in: solar-center.stanford.edu/sun-on-earth/Climate_Change_Attribution.png

 

You will see a graph.

[freeztar]

Welcome Reaper! :doh:

 

That is a good graph. I'm pretty sure it's been posted here before, but it's one worth repeating.

 

[Turtle]

Welcome Reaper! :)

 

That is a good graph. I'm pretty sure it's been posted here before, but it's one worth repeating.

 

 

Mmmm...so that shows volcanism going down, (I presume that's terrestrial volcanism and not including underwater volcanism we have no data for), and that derease in terrestrial volcanism by the new evidence I earlier posted is potentially driving driving warming. I get the sense the graph means to imply otherwise as if it is only a concern about CO2 emitting from volcanoes. :shrug:

Lunar eclipse may shed light on climate change - space - 03 March 2008 - New Scientist Space

Furthermore, because there is a general match between model and actual circumstance, the implication is that the model is accurate, never mind the wide variations on shorter scales one see there or the tweeking along the way as time flows and the model is ammended to match results.

 

No need to respond, I'm sure the next model is going to be much better. :)

[InfiniteNow]

Furthermore, because there is a general match between model and actual circumstance, the implication is that the model is accurate, never mind the wide variations on shorter scales

 

Turtle, can I ask that you, at the very least, express this quantitatively? Your qualitative comment is vague, does not have any parameters, and is not consistent.

 

I suggest that your comment above is more like "that was a super on the scale of awesome," as opposed to the more appreciated scientific feedback of, "I noticed an error +/- 3% due to the minimum and maximum of the volcanic forcing graph. I'd like to ask more about that..."

 

 

Can you appreciate the importance of this request? When you do math, you don't give an answer of "x equals a blueish sort of color with a faint like hue of cloudy marine skies." You say, "x = this."

 

Why should your challenges of global climate change be any different?