Reply With Quote
If water vapor is responsible for 95% of the greenhouse effect and we only contribute .001% of atmospheric water vapor, I find it difficult to believe man has any influence on warming the planet.
Manny.
I do understand partial pressure, but I can only guess as to why you say I don't understand. It also makes me think you don't understand, but how can you not understand such a simple concept?
Why do you claim I don't understand partial pressure. Please elaborate. Are you sure you aren't missing a key element that still allows me to be correct? Is there some misunderstanding that needs resolved?
If water vapor is responsible for 95% of the greenhouse effect and we only contribute .001% of atmospheric water vapor, I find it difficult to believe man has any influence on warming the planet.
If water vapor accounts for 95% of the effect, all other contributors, combined, can't be more than 5% - (CO2, Methane,N2O, and other miscellaneous gases).
Ummmm, silly question, but since I just opened this thread and all, did RG ever answer why he thinks climate change denial is little more than pseudoscience? If so, please post it now, and explain everyones arguments to me.....in detail.
Go!
Many reasons.
First, you need a natural source. Volcanoes emit far less CO2 than humans on an annual basis. Something like 1-2% of our emissions. You can also go back and look at the CO2 measurements from the atmosphere around the time of larger volcanic eruptions in the recent past and you'll see that the actual noticeable change is a tiny drop (the thought process is that this might be caused by the aerosol cooling allowing more uptake over a 1-2 year period following a very large eruption).
The ocean is currently taking in more CO2 than its letting out and is a net sink. Yes, as the oceans have warmed they've had reduced solubility but as atmospheric concentrations of CO2 have gone up they have gained solubility as well and the net result is that they are taking in more CO2 than the are letting out. I linked two studies in a response to WC in the past two pages talking about this very subject. I can provide you with those and others if you like.
Second is rate of change. I'm sure at some point you've seen the CO2 records and how they've oscillated between ~190 and ~290 over the past million years. Those changes happened at a very slow rate and a 100pm increase took thousands or tens of thousands of years. The current increase beyond the levels seen for the last 1 million years has been incredibly fast in comparison and has risen well past those other levels. CO2 concentrations in the past have definitely been higher, but you have to go back to very different times in the earth's history where plate tectonics played a much larger role in the CO2 release. We simply don't have that kind of mechanism at work that we can pin the increase on right now. If you look at the rate of CO2 emissions you will see that it follows the curve of CO2 growth (especially when you take into consideration the calculated amount of ocean uptake as given by the studies I posted earlier).
Then you have molecular footprints. Oxygen is actually decreasing in the atmosphere at pretty much the same rate CO2 is going up. This is a strong indicator that the increase in CO2 is tied to oxidation. If the source was volcanic or oceanic in nature, CO2 would be released as CO2 and would there would not be a known process removing oxygen from the atmosphere at the same rate.
Plants take in the lighter carbon elements before the heavier. So, they are going to use Carbon12 more than they will use Carbon13 so the carbon within plants ends up with a C12/C13 ratio that is higher than other sources of CO2. The same signature stays within fossil fuels that formed from ancient plant life. What this means is that CO2 released from burning fossil fuels is traceable by looking at the change in atmospheric carbon isotope ratios. As CO2 levels have gone up, the ratio of C13 to C12 has gone down. This is not what you would see if the CO2 were coming from the ocean or from volcanoes as both sources emit CO2 with different isotopic ratios.
There have been studies done (I'm not very familiar with them or their methods TBH) that show that these ratios are the lowest they've been in a long time.
I can provide the studies to back up these statements if you'd like. I just didn't want to go pull them when I don't have all that much time this morning unless you were actually wanting them. (or anyone else, for that matter)
Water vapor is the strongest greenhouse gas in the atmosphere, but I don't think it has that much of affect. the numbers I see are around 70%. I agree they may be higher than that, but 95% seems unreasonable high to me.
Where do those numbers come from?
Still didn't answer his question. That long winded statement, and still no quantification.
Well, I think it's been pointed out several times that his le doesn't make sense. He hasn't found anyone in the "denial" camp here. We are skeptics. Skeptical of the values the AGW community keeps coming up with. I would say if anything, that the current teaching of climate change is a pseudo science. They use correlation to imply causation, they hide their data and methods, they use closed peer review processes, etc. etc.
I'll address the subject of water vapor once again since its been brought up. I doubt that Yonivore is going to take anything I say and actually process it in but its a useful exercise for me in explaining these subjects anyway.
Water vapor is definitely the strongest green house gas. Its effect is a little bit more than twice that of CO2. So of course, when someone hears this the intuitive thought is to think that CO2 can't be a huge culprit if a gas that we're not emitting causes more of a green house effect. That being said, water vapor is a feedback and is not a forcing.
There are two main reasons for this. The first is residence time. The atmosphere is a fairly small reservoir when compared to the oceans and even fresh water sources. Residence time is on the order of 10 days.
The second, is that water vapor content in the any given parcel of atmosphere is a function of temperature. How much WV a parcel is able to hold is determined by the temperature that parcel of air is at. When you go above that, you will have precipitation. This is why rain forms as air rises and cools. As the air cools it is no longer to maintain the same level of water vapor as it was when it was warmer and that excess water vapor condenses into precipitation (or at least clouds) and leaves the atmosphere. This is why water has such a low residence time in the atmosphere.
These are the main differences with CO2. If we were emitting water vapor as opposed to CO2 the excess gas would simply leave the system as precipitation and would not buildup and cause a larger greenhouse effect. The saturation of air parcels prevents that from occurring. On the other hand, the mechanisms for taking CO2 of the atmosphere are not as simple as precipitation and the residence time in the atmosphere is much longer (years, not days). However, we're developing a surplus of CO2 in the atmosphere and thereby increasing that residence time by causing "bottlenecks" in the system. This is why CO2 is rising. The system is unable to process the CO2 we put into the atmosphere and it will now wait longer before it is moved through the cycle. This is not the way the water cycle works as I explained above.
A big part of what makes CO2 warming harmful, is that as CO2 increases the temperature of the air it also increases the amount of water vapor the atmosphere is able to hold which then itself adds to the warming. That is what is meant by a feedback. For every degree of Celsius of warming caused by CO2, you can expect another degree to be caused by the water vapor feedback mechanism.
Strongest by which measurement? It definitely has a greater effect because of quan y, but on an equal number of molecules, how does it compare?
One degree for another one degree? that seems pretty exaggerated to me. I'd like to see the numbers if you have them. I don't see the atmosphere as holding enough more water from just an additional one degree change What is the H2O curve? It has to be way more than CO2 to actually cause that severe of a change. Are you saying that only a 7% increase in water vapor increases warming by 1 degree when it's claimed it takes a 100% increase in CO2 to increase temperature between about 3 degrees?
Wow...
that means a doubling of water vapor increases the temperature by 10 degrees. If it really more than 3 times more powerful than CO2 in the AGW community view?
No wonder in sun on the soot on ice is melting the ice so fast!
What about the minor increases in solar output? It has a more dramatic effect of the oceans than on land because of the difference in albedo. It directly creates more water vapor, and doesn't need to be warmer in the air.
Now...
Do you realize how contradictory your statement is?
It took the left a long damn time to find some human activity to blame for the negative aspects of some natural process and, now that they've found it, they're not about to let go easily.
In other words, you couldn't follow my explanation. I'm not surprised.
I followed it fine.
Forcing and feedback are, at best, imprecise because of the infinite possible influences in an atmosphere as large as Earth's and for which there are a mul ude of other influences terrestrial, atmospheric, and celestial.
In one place I looked, the scientist explained the whole think pretty well (by the way, before you bash him, his site agrees with you) by saying, the mixture of greenhouse gases, in the atmosphere is like a pile of of laundry laying on the floor. You can't possibly know how much of the floor is covered by underwear (CO2) and how much is covered by fitted sheets (water vapor) until you start removing them from the pile and measuring their size. But, then, you change the pile and other things fall into the hole you've created...
It went on but, it made sense to me. It also underscores the complexity of the issue and the inadequacy of any model to accurately reflect the behavior of our atmosphere with any degree of certainty.
At worst, calculating the forcing and feedback properties of the various elements involved is just another way for the left to play their carnival road show huckster routine in a way they know they can make too complicated for the average person to understand or even care about.
Bottom line, you can't accurately model the behavior of the atmosphere and you can't accurately measure what's going on in every cubic foot of it, at any given time, and so, you make guesses about why the climate is doing what it is doing, plug those guesses into your models, and -- when you arrive at a conclusion you like -- pronounce the science settled and present the models conclusions and start demanding humanity ins ute draconian measures to change the outcome.
I've witnessed this same self-serving phenomenon, first hand, with the EPA's MOBIL model (now called MOVES, I believe -- I've been out of the business awhile). The MOBIL model was designed for governments to plug all the variables of their Air Quality programs and see to what extent they were reducing their contribution to pollution and to determine which programs needed to be added, reduced, enhanced, etc... Once they found the right variables and achieved the most bang for their buck, in terms of an overall program that would improve air quality in their area, region, state, etc..., they would present the plan to the EPA who would approve it and then give them a time table for implementing.
In the time I was involved, the MOBIL model was changed 8 times and they finally threw it out and developed the MOVES model.
NOT ONCE, have any of the models accurately predicted either the reality of pollution or the effects of programs on it. But, they keep trying.
Manny, how much do we need to reduce our CO2 output in order to have a significant impact on the global climate change. Then, when you answer that, how do we get the Chinese and Indians to play along?
Of course they wont.
I wonder where the error is that Manny has in his statement. The air will hold about 13.2% more water to normalize to a 2 degree increase. This means, he is saying it takes a 13.2% increase in CO2 for a 1C increase in temperature. It also means a doubling of H2O increases the temperature by about 17 C. The 17 C is a corrected calculation, simplistic but at least close. Based on air holding 13.2% more water with a 2 C increase, and the 13.2% being responsible for 1C. My error before was assigning only a total 1 C increase when I came up with approximately 10 C/doubling.
Math is your friend Manny... How can this be? I know there are other things that go into such calculations, but they will not be real far off.
If I am to believe that H2O feedback to CO2 matches 1:1, then I will agree with Yoni's number, that H2O is at least 95% of the greenhouse effect, and his 3.5% number for CO2 as well.
Silly me. Here I was thinking CO2 might contribute to as much as 10% of the greenhouse effect.
Last edited by Wild Cobra; 06-16-2012 at 03:55 PM.
I follow it quite well. You are saying the added water vapor adds another degree of warming.
How much more vapor does it add?
Manny...
Where did you get such laughable numbers from?
For the life of me, I cannot believe that H2O is that strong of a greenhouse gas. If it was, we would be so much warmer than we are.
Really now...
A 1C increase for the extra humidity?
Really now...
A calculated 17 degree increase for doubling of H2O...
Don't cook with water!
I guess Manny doesn't see his contradiction.
If H2O has only slightly more than double the greenhouse effect of CO2, then little more added water vapor would never have a 17 degree per doubling effect.
First of all, there is approximately 100 times more H2O in the atmosphere as CO2.
Running guesstimates of numbers, for CO2 to have a 3 C per doubling and H2O to have a 17 C per doubling, I get a factor difference of 9.64 between the effect of H2O in the atmosphere and CO2. I did this at a strait 100:1 ration, in other words, if CO2 was at 400 ppm, H2O was at 40,000 ppm, so of course I have an error range pretty large.
If I use 3% and 383 ppm, I get a factor of 9.37.
OK, since I just did the 383 to 30,000 ppm, I'll use the factor of 9.37. If the 9.37 represents 70% of the greenhouse effect for H2O, then CO2 can only be 7.5% of the greenhouse effect.
Please explain how H2O is only slightly double that of CO2. Apparently, I don't understand.
This becomes more and more interesting as I crunch numbers.
If the IPCC assessment of 1.66 w/m-2 for CO2 increase is correct, and your 1 C increase for the added humidity for 2 C total, then that puts the gross radiative forcing of CO2 at 31.6 and of H2O at 506, for a total of 537.6 W/m-2. This is using a rough sensitivity of 2 W/m-2 per C.
How can that be? Total downward forcing from greenhouse gasses is only around half that value. Now assuming this was correct, the ratios would indicate much closer to Yoni's claim of 3.5% for CO2. The number I get is that by your claim, and by the IPCC's 1.66 number, CO2 is only 4.4% as strong in the atmosphere at a 383 ppm vs. 3% of water in the atmosphere. Under this condition, 70% x 4.4% is 3.1%. Even lower than Yoni's 3.5%.
Yoni...
Where does this number come from. It may have merit.
Last edited by Wild Cobra; 06-16-2012 at 03:56 PM.
I don't know how accurate this is, but I calculated using the IPCC numbers for CO2 and CH4, and Manny's claim of 1C for an increase of H2O by 13.2%. Since this was more than double the downforcing of the greenhouse effect, I then scaled the sum of the three to 95% of the greenhouse effect, and have these values for doubling of:
H2O: 7.8 C
CO2: 0.8 C
CH4: 0.15 C
Forcing at 2004 levels:
H2O: 231.1
CO2: 14.5
CH4: 0.46
Change in forcing 1750 to 2004:
H2O: not calculated
CO2: 0.76
CH4: 0.1
Of course, cannot scale all like this. I just think it's interesting.
Last edited by Wild Cobra; 06-16-2012 at 04:31 PM.
What? Are you saying we can't possibly know how much CO2 is in the atmosphere? Thats utter nonsense
It went on but, it made sense to me. It also underscores the complexity of the issue and the inadequacy of any model to accurately reflect the behavior of our atmosphere with any degree of certainty.
At worst, calculating the forcing and feedback properties of the various elements involved is just another way for the left to play their carnival road show huckster routine in a way they know they can make too complicated for the average person to understand or even care about.
Oh, I'm sorry that you're not able to keep up with it (yet this has not somehow prevented you from deciding its not true) but that doesn't meant there aren't plenty of people across the world who ARE. Remind me again what the majority of them think on the subject?
This is more utter nonsense. No one is trying to model the global atmosphere (or even on the regional level) down to the cubic foot. Thats a beautiful strawman you set up there.Bottom line, you can't accurately model the behavior of the atmosphere and you can't accurately measure what's going on in every cubic foot of it, at any given time, and so, you make guesses about why the climate is doing what it is doing, plug those guesses into your models, and -- when you arrive at a conclusion you like -- pronounce the science settled and present the models conclusions and start demanding humanity ins ute draconian measures to change the outcome.
The idea that we can't model the atmosphere is some of the dumbest I've ever heard. Weather forecast is 99% now handled by computer models and is more accurate than it has ever been in the past. Weather forecast is FAR more chaotic than climate forecasting because it is done at very high resolutions.
You can keep on saying that we can't model the atmosphere but it won't make it anywhere near true. We've been modeling the atmosphere for decades and what slows us down now is not our understanding or a large number of variables (you also misuse the word infinite quite a bit) but the amount of computing power we have available. The reason computer modeling of the atmosphere has gotten better in recent years has far more to do with faster computers than it does with any new understanding of the way the atmosphere works.
I don't care if you witnessed (allegedly) a model that didn't work. I know you've witnessed models that do work on a daily basis. Saying HEY THIS MODEL DOESN'T WORK SO ALL MODELS ARE JUNK is the kind of absolute horse you love to toss around. Its so incredibly devoid of logic.I've witnessed this same self-serving phenomenon, first hand, with the EPA's MOBIL model (now called MOVES, I believe -- I've been out of the business awhile). The MOBIL model was designed for governments to plug all the variables of their Air Quality programs and see to what extent they were reducing their contribution to pollution and to determine which programs needed to be added, reduced, enhanced, etc... Once they found the right variables and achieved the most bang for their buck, in terms of an overall program that would improve air quality in their area, region, state, etc..., they would present the plan to the EPA who would approve it and then give them a time table for implementing.
In the time I was involved, the MOBIL model was changed 8 times and they finally threw it out and developed the MOVES model.
NOT ONCE, have any of the models accurately predicted either the reality of pollution or the effects of programs on it. But, they keep trying.
Manny, how much do we need to reduce our CO2 output in order to have a significant impact on the global climate change. Then, when you answer that, how do we get the Chinese and Indians to play along?
I don't know. I'm not a policy wonk and have no desire to be a policy work. My interests lie in the interaction of the atmosphere, cryosphere, and hydropshere and not in what politicans want to do.
Well said.
No...
He's saying you cannot accurately determine the effect from CO2 in the mix. That it's complicated.
Don't you understand such simple things, or do you automatically assume what ever you can that indicates a person is wrong, like FuzzNutz does?
https://sites.google.com/site/coelho...attredirects=0The authors find that for the clear sky case the contribution due to water
vapor to the total longwave radiative forcing is 75 W m-2, while for carbon dioxide it is 32 W m-2.
LOL...
Knew I should have used blue. Don't you get it... H2O cannot be only a little more than two times stronger if it increases temperature 1:1 with CO2.
Please elaborate. If your statement is correct, then CO2 is far less a greenhouse gas than even I thought.
Please explain to me how you get those numbers.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
