I realize that you only believe data that is Algore approved, but the fact of the matter is that human contribution to the "greenhouse effect" is 0.28%.
Did you worship your lord this Sunday?
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 ...
Sinks. perhaps not. Recent sources, yes: CO2 from fossil fuels has a different distribution of carbon 13/14 than CO2 from other proposed sources, the he observed isotopic trends are very good fit to CO2 from fossil fuel.
Are you saying water vapor affects CO2 concentrations? Or that it affects human activities that emit CO2? Unless the answer to one of those is yes, then it has nothing to do with the question I'm interested in.
If you don't have anything relevant, please don't post to me.
Your graph goes from 270 to 350 parts per million, a delta of 80 units per about 5 inches of vertical computer screen space. If you were to graph the total atmosphere content at this same scale the graph size would have to stretch from your computer screen 1 mile high. If you were to shrink that full graph then the CO2 content would appear to be a straight line, though it wouldn't be large enough to activate even one rounded up pixel on your screen.
Thanks for the link. The effect is small at the 18oC avg surface temp. The slope of the equilibrium constant for carbonic acid, as a function of temp is the heat of formation/R(the gas constant). The solubility of the CO2 is depedant on the absolute temp, so a 1o change is only worth ~0.35%. That's a 0.35% change in both cases. On the other hand, the amount consumed by photosynthesis increases by ~10% for a 1o change. The reaction rate there ~doubles for every 10oC change. The net effect is a decrease in atmospheric CO2 for an increase in temp around the 18osurface temp average.
I realize that you only believe data that is Algore approved, but the fact of the matter is that human contribution to the "greenhouse effect" is 0.28%.
Did you worship your lord this Sunday?
C. GREENHOUSE CATASTROPHE MODELS (GCMs)In these GCMs, the CO2 concentration is not just a forcing, a boundary condition to which the GCM reacts, but exclusively so. In the GCMs, no part of the CO2 concentration is a “feedback”, a consequence of other variables. The GCMs appear to have no provision for the respiration of CO2 by the oceans. They neither account for the uptake of CO2 in the cold waters, nor the exhaust of CO2 from the warmed and CO2–saturated waters, nor the circulation by which the oceans scrub CO2 from the air. Because the GCMs have been split into loosely–coupled atmospheric models and primitive ocean models, they have no mechanism by which to reproduce the temperature dependency of CO2 on water temperature evident in the Vostok data.
A much more detailed description of the solubility factor of CO2 in water precedes this paragraph. In short; the oceans and atmospheric H2O constantly cleanse the atomosphere of so-called "Greenhouse Gases" and in particular CO2. (as do plants which lock up the carbon for eons) The Greenhouse theory of global warming depends upon completely ignoring this longstanding effect of planetary mechanics. The .28% of total Greenhouse gases contributed by human activity can hardly be enough to upset the mechanical effect of all the world's water's ability to absorb the CO2 from the atomosphere which has been going on for millenia.
Wrong. See a previous post on the effect of temperature on the solubility of CO2 in water. This is ONE such effect. I'm sure there are others, probably some yet to be discovered. The atmosphere and the geo- and bio-chemical cycles governing its composition are VERY complex.
The point is that we simply do NOT have sufficient data on causes or effects to take drastic action. The CORRECT thing to do at this point in time is to keep studying the complex cycles, taking better measurements, and building better models--using REAL open science instead of the current politicized IPCC stuff.
Could you in one or two clear sentences tell me how your pie chart can help answer that question?
The chart shows that total human contribution of Greenhouse gases is insignificant in the extreme. That renders it irrelevant to any consideration of atmospheric warming.
My suggestion is that you fire up Excel, graph 20-30 estimated data points based on the first version of that graph, over-ride the default scale to start the Y axis at 0, and then post your result.
BTW, here's the article I was referring to earlier. http://www.rocketscientistsjournal.com/2006/10/co2_acquittal.html. If you look, you'll see that CO2 solubility changes can explain the changes quite well. But obviously temperature dependent increases in photosynthesis can't because the observed correlation is defintiely positive and quite high.
One of the things the guy notes is that in the period considered CO2 changes are time lagged relative to temp changes. That's part of his argument about why CO2 doesn't cause the observed warming. It doesn't address directly the question of whether today's human driven increases might.
Knowing the amount of water vapor in the atmosphere helps answer the question of whether or not recent CO2 increases are explained by human activity because ________________.
" The point is that we simply do NOT have sufficient data on causes or effects to take drastic action."
There's plaenty of good data. The effect is insignificant, until another ~80, or so years. In the mean time, there's plenty of time to install nukes.
Through the use of very precise laboratory instruments taking millions of readings over many years and analyzing them with statistics scientists can barely detect that human CO2 generation exists.
The cyclic change is caused by seasonal variation of plant growth - if you look around the net (GOOGLE "seasonal variations CO2") you will find some nice graphs of concentration shift by latitude and season. We know this, for example, because CO2 with fossil flue carbon isotope markers is relatively stable while the CO2 produced by living organisms varies seasonally.
In regard to the temperature readings that may have been used in making the chart.
Did you know that the temperatures for the Denver Airport are now taken (naturally) at the current Denver International Airport, but 10 years ago they were take at the then being used Stapleton Airport?
What the big deal you say? DIA is North and East of old Stapleton, and is located at a place that is, and always has been, warmer and dryer that the old location.
So now it appears that Denver has gotten 3 to 5 degrees warmer than it used to be, when in fact it hasn't. In fact given the last few years, it's probably colder than it used to be.
Do you know of historical data on the web for global coal and petroleum consumption for the last few hundred years? It'd be very interesting to correlate it with CO2 concentrations.
Annual Global Per-Capita emissions of anthropogenic CO2 have risen to an apparent production/transport limited value of 1.14 ± 0.021 metric tons carbon per per person.
Source: Marland et al. (2006), CDIAC, Oak Ridge National Laboratory
This is especially interesting in light of project world population trends where population growth is becoming linear as opposed to exponential.
and the fact that surface temperature dependance on the absorption of thermal infrared by CO2 is proportional to the 4th root of the logarithm of CO2 concentration.
To put it all in simple terms, incremental temperature increase due to changing CO2 decreases with atmospheric concentration. The potential effectiveness of CO2 as a driver of climate decreases with its concentration in the atmosphere.
In point of fact the direct radiative effect of CO2 on surface temperature is on the order of 0.2oC for each doubling in concentration due to these factors.
What does water vapor have to do with whether or not human emissions of CO2 account for the recent considerable increase in atmospheric concentration?
What impact does CO2 have on temperature?
The effect of water vapor on climate is well understood and at least a factor of 10 greater than the total concentration of CO2, and has more than 100 times the effect of anthropogenic additions of CO2 on climate.
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.
