Posted on 02/14/2007 7:33:25 AM PST by jonno
"Let's just say that global warming deniers are now on a par with Holocaust deniers, though one denies the past and the other denies the present and future." -- Ellen Goodman
"Global warming is a false myth and every serious person and scientist says so. It is not fair to refer to the U.N. panel. IPCC is not a scientific institution: it's a political body, a sort of non-government organization of green flavor. It's neither a forum of neutral scientists nor a balanced group of scientists. These people are politicized scientists who arrive there with a one-sided opinion and a one-sided assignment. Also, it's an undignified slapstick that people don't wait for the full report in May 2007 but instead respond, in such a serious way, to the summary for policymakers where all the "but's" are scratched, removed, and replaced by oversimplified theses. This is clearly such an incredible failure of so many people, from journalists to politicians." -- Czech President Vaclav Klaus
Pundits, politicians, and the public have a hard time coming to grips with uncertainty. This makes the atmosphere for debating global warming policy especially foul, because the key issues with global warming are the uncertainties involved. Those who would try to reduce the issue of global warming to a yes-or-no question ("do you believe or do you deny?") are not scientists.
Real scientists understand uncertainty. Real science deals with uncertainty through relentless, skeptical inquiry. Real science resolves arguments not with consensus, but with data.
My understanding of global warming is influenced by my background in applied statistics and economics. There certainly are scientists who have spent more time than I have analyzing the meteorological data. However, before you call me a "hack," make sure that you are capable ...
(Excerpt) Read more at tcsdaily.com ...
The eq I = A ln(C/Co) Represents an increase in absorbance over some fixed concentration Co. The factor A, must be evaluated at some fixed Po and Co. If either of those change, the relation no longer holds.
Ahem, interesting that for logarithmic relationships, my spread sheet and slide rule demonstrates otherwise.
The change is a fixed amount for a given percentage change in concentration no matter what initial Co one may select, the constant is a never mind where change in forcing is concerned, necessary only for when one needs to express the total cumulative change from 0 concentration, which is not what the functions convey, nor can they, as 0 concentration is undefined in a logarithmic relation as well as when chosen as a denominator in a fraction.
On a logarithmic curve, it doesn't matter what I choose as my Co as long as it is not 0 and the log relationship holds in the range I wish to evaluate. The increment in the result remains fixed for a percentage change in C. That is an inherent characteristic of the log function and why it is the basis of the slide rule.
The change from any Co remains constant for a doubling or indeed for any percentage one chooses to evaluate. It doesn't matter what your initial Co is as long as the selected value of Co is such that it is within the empirical range of values for which the logarithmic relation holds.
JUst using numbers from memory. The Earth's avg temp is 18oC.
Actually, the estimates are closer to 288K-273. i.e 15oC give or take half a degree for global average surface temperature circa 1990. But I digress.
You gave a value of 1.2W/m2 for the additional absorption due to doubling the CO2, instead of the 3.7W/m2 for a dry atmosphere. I assume the 1.2W/m2 is due to absorption outside the band overlap? Then the temp rises 0.22oC from CO2.
Correct.
That would result in a 1.01% increase in avg water vapor concentration, and 0.062oC of cooling, resulting in a net increase of 0.16oC.
Possibly, assuming clear sky and that clouds and precipitation do not change in response to the change in atmospheric conditions.( The other and greatest uncertainty when attempting to model climate change in response to anything.)
What temp increase would the 1.01% increase in water, plus the overlap increase in CO2 give?
Assuming that increase, the approximate increase in absorption due to a 1.01% increase in water vapor in the atmosphere would be in the ball park of 0.25 w/m2 if you use 1 w/m2 absorbed per 1 mm increase in total column water vapor [http://www1.cira.colostate.edu/Climate/wvre/wvre.HTM], given that total column water vapor (aka precipitatble water vapor) is about 24.5 mm at present http://isccp.giss.nasa.gov/products/browseatmos.html.
Looks like about an additional 0.05oC give or take a bunch for a 1.01% increase in water vapor content of the atmosphere.
P.S. to answer your question, the net with water vapor absorption, using your figure for cooling, the net works out to be +0.207K change in temperature at the surface give or take the accuracy of the CIRA & ISCCP empirical atmospheric water vapor studies.
The oscillations are due to seasonal uptake of CO2 by northern deciduous forests.
That's incorrect. The use of very precise instruments and observations of the change in both the 14C/12C ratio and the 13C/12C ratio (in seawater and tree rings and carbonate sediments and ice cores) indicate that the increase in atmospheric CO2 concentrations since the mid-1800s is due primarily to fossil fuel combustion for energy production.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.