The reason that water vapor is important is because water vapor has a greenhouse gas effect that is orders of magnitude greater than the greenhouse gas effect of CO2, as you can see from the previous graph.
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 ...
If you have all this data at your fingertips, seems odd that you can't come up with a graph.
What does water vapor have to do with whether or not human emissions of CO2 account for the recent considerable increase in atmospheric concentration?
One thing that is interesting from the Lampedusa Island, Italy CO2 concentration data, is that it is very cyclical with a single year period. Obviously, the CO2 spikes in the summer, when it is warm, and drops dramatically in the winter, typically the min-to-max range is 10-15 ppm. obviously, warm temperatures cause the CO2 level to spike, while the colder winter temperatures cause the CO2 levels to dip. This further suggests that it is temperature that is driving CO2 concentrations instead of CO2 concentrations driving temperature. If it were CO2 concentrations driving temperatures, there should not be an oscillation of the CO2 concentrations in such a cyclical fashion.
Now how about a tabular form of the CO2 concentration data?
Nope. There's no way in hell that we even REMOTELY know all the sources and sinks for CO2. To assume so is the height of arrogance.
Not a month goes by that there isn't some reportage on yet another "previously unidentified" driver (positive OR negative) for "global warming". To name just two that have been discovered recently, and which are NOT included in any GW models---the emission by phytoplankton of organic sulfur compounds, and cosmic rays--and the concomitant effect of both on cloud cover (and hence on global warming).
To the best of my knowledge, NO GW math model treats cloud cover AT ALL, and yet the clouds and their effect on albedo are a major factor in real-world warming and/or cooling.
What are you talking about? What data have I said I had at my fingertips? What graph am I supposed to come up with?
With my blessing :^).
The reason that water vapor is important is because water vapor has a greenhouse gas effect that is orders of magnitude greater than the greenhouse gas effect of CO2, as you can see from the previous graph.
CO2 is a component of atmospheric heat retention in a sum total of causes. That component has a particular value.
" In fact, there is some data that says it is "global warming" that causes the increase in CO2."
There is none. Heat retention does not cause increases in atmospheric CO2. It causes decreases.
That's good point and there was a very interesting article posted recently that analyzed Vostok ice core temp and CO2 inferred data in those terms. Specifically he suggested that the correlation between global temperatures and CO2 concentrations was explained by the temperature dependence of CO2 solubility in water.
The chart you're referring to shows, in addition to the yearly variation, a distinct upward trend. If we had the regional temps for that time range, we might be able to test your hypothesis in that other guys terms.
An increase in ocean temperature decreases the solubility of CO2 in the oceans, increasing the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere. A decrease in ocean temperature increases the solubility of CO2 in the oceans, decreasing the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere. This is exactly why a shaken hot beer foams a lot more than a shaken cold beer when you open it.
The oceans have been known as a global CO2 sink for a long time.
Not so. Recently there was an article posted that looked at Vostok ice core temperature and atmospheric CO2 concentrations and related their correlation to temperature dependence of CO2's solubility in water. As water temperatures increase, it accepts less CO2.
What does that have to do with whether or not recent increases in atmospheric CO2 are attributable human activity?
If the effect of CO2 is orders of magnitude lower than the effect of water vapor, then it doesn't matter.
Atmospheric CO2 levels have been orders of magnitude higher than today and the world did not end as you claim it will, plus humans weren't around to contribute to the high CO2 levels, so they must by your definition have been "natural."
Very well put.
I've yet to read how we cope with the tides, caused by the gravitational pull of the moon. There are mucho feet between high and low tide on a daily basis and we more than manage.
In fact, it may be that the sea level at a location varies more on a daily basis than it does between ice ages. Am I missing something?
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.