No Evidence That Global Warming is manmade

Originally posted by forestlady
Could you please explain what you mean by "important"? Important in what ways? Thank you.

It is the most abundant greenhouse gas/trace gas, and it traps more heat than CO2. Methane exists in lower levels than CO2, but it traps about 21-25 times the amount of heat than CO2, although the levels of Methane have been stable for some reason for the past 7-8 years or so, noone can understand exactly why.



[edit on 10-4-2007 by Muaddib]

Originally posted by pavil

Umm... what exactly are clouds made of? Just curious. Do all 4 GH sources you listed generate the same amount of temp trapping?

Ramanathan seems to say the the type and location (altitude) of the clouds greatly impact their GW effeciency. Most Clouds seem to have a net cooling effect on the planet. They raise GH temps but radiate away even more Solar energy than they trap.

That was me who posted that graph, and they don't generate the same amount of heat. Out of those trace gases, water vapor is the one that traps the most heat, hence it warms the most the atmosphere, and since it is the most abundant greenhosue gas, it is more important as a greenhouse gas than CO2.

Clouds are made of water vapor, which condense together in the millions to become clouds.

Originally posted by Muaddib

Originally posted by forestlady
Could you please explain what you mean by "important"? Important in what ways? Thank you.

It is the most abundant greenhouse gas/trace gas, and it traps more heat than CO2. Methane exists in lower levels than CO2, but it traps about 21-25 times the amount of heat than CO2, although the levels of Methane have been stable for some reason for the past 7-8 years or so, noone can understand exactly why.[edit on 10-4-2007 by Muaddib]

But you still haven't explained in what way it is important. So it's the most abundant greenhouse gas, it doesn't mean it's the most important. Important as far as what? Contributing to GW or important as to what it positively contributes to our climate or...?

It may be the most abundant greenhouse gas, and it may trap more gas, but it eventually ends up in clouds, which cool the planet; therefore, it's not as worrisome as some other elements as far as the ability to trap heat. You cannot say with any certainity that it's the most important GHG, as many, many noteworthy scientists themselves (in fact, most) say that CO2 is the one to worry about.

Most water vapor do not become clouds. There will always be more water vapor than clouds, and even clouds do trap 2% more heat than CO2.

Water vapor is the most important heat trapping gas in the atmosphere.

SATELLITE FINDS WARMING "RELATIVE" TO HUMIDITY

A NASA-funded study found some climate models might be overestimating the amount of water vapor entering the atmosphere as the Earth warms. Since water vapor is the most important heat-trapping greenhouse gas in our atmosphere, some climate forecasts may be overestimating future temperature increases.

www.nasa.gov...

[edit on 10-4-2007 by Muaddib]

I will respond to your posts later melatonin. BTW, the Briffa graph that i gave, is one of the graphs used in those 10 extrapolated graphs.

Originally posted by Muaddib
I will respond to your posts later melatonin. BTW, the Briffa graph that i gave, is one of the graphs used in those 10 extrapolated graphs.

There is no Briffa et al 1998 in those reconstructions. Briffa et al 2001 is there though.

en.wikipedia.org...:2000_Year_Temperature_Comparison.png

You need to note that the Briffa data you present stops at 1975, I believe there is a good reason for that, and it's not a truly honest one. Briffa does have a 1998 paper, it assessed volcanic activity with a reconstruction from tree rings, IIRC, but this isn't presented in the wiki graph. The 2001 article was an extension and updating of the original 1998 data (which is the same reason why MBH 1998 is no longer used or present in that set of data).

[edit on 10-4-2007 by melatonin]

Originally posted by forestlady

It may be the most abundant greenhouse gas, and it may trap more gas, but it eventually ends up in clouds, which cool the planet; therefore, it's not as worrisome as some other elements as far as the ability to trap heat. You cannot say with any certainity that it's the most important GHG, as many, many noteworthy scientists themselves (in fact, most) say that CO2 is the one to worry about.

carbon dioxide eventually ends up in plants, so what? it may take longer but what matters is the amount of a certain gas at any given time. while it is true that local fluctuations affect water vapor humidity more than CO2 (absolute humidity varies...) which is why the models simply discount it afaik

the fact that water vapor condenses is irrelevant as long as substantial amounts of vapor remain in the atmosphere, clouds block out light for everyone and everything, CO2 included and therefore cannot be part of our considerations, can it? (correct me if i'm wrong please).

Originally posted by Long Lance
carbon dioxide eventually ends up in plants, so what? it may take longer but what matters is the amount of a certain gas at any given time. while it is true that local fluctuations affect water vapor humidity more than CO2 (absolute humidity varies...) which is why the models simply discount it afaik

What also matters is the ability of certain components to absorb radiation, and CO2 is more efficient than H20 at this (its small abundance is not comparable to its absorption - small things can have big effects).

the fact that water vapor condenses is irrelevant as long as substantial amounts of vapor remain in the atmosphere, clouds block out light for everyone and everything, CO2 included and therefore cannot be part of our considerations, can it? (correct me if i'm wrong please).

And you suggest the models are simplistic. CO2 absorbs radiation at some wavelengths that H20 doesn't have much affect. The 15 micron wavlength is most important for CO2, WV barely figures in this wavelength. Check Muaddib's absorption graph earlier.

You need to see the atmosphere as a window that allows certain wavelengths through more than others. H2O is very effective at absorbing certain wavelengths, CO2 at others. By increasing CO2 we are making these particular wavelengths more opaque, trapping more heat.



[edit on 10-4-2007 by melatonin]

i believe that global warming is always happening and always has done and i think the only think mankind has done is speed up the process the earth has a cycle and it needs to complete it.

Originally posted by TheAvenger


Gerhard

Jack Barrett

Courtney

Beck


Khilyuk and Chilingar

It is now time to have a look at the papers I posted earlier in this thread. It's good to see that the thread went on just fine in my absence. The Gerhard paper was posted only for the non-scientist, not to discuss, although Dr. Gerhard has published scores of papers.

I must point out that I disagree with limiting valid scientific evidence to papers published in Journals. There are many peer-reviewed research papers and articles published in sources like Nature, Science, Climate, etc. melatonin doesn't like Mr. Courtney's work, so we won't bother with that. It seems I must start with Dr. Barrett's writings. I will start a new post on after I look over the questions of the past few days.

I'm not certain that my opinions will be meaningful to some here, because I already have been advised that my opinion does not matter to these persons. Nevertheless, we will move forward shortly.








[edit on 4/10/2007 by TheAvenger]

[edit on 4/10/2007 by TheAvenger]

Jack Barrett is a GW skeptic who has been subjected to many attacks by the GW believers. His paper is a nice review of basic infrared spectroscopy which I enjoyed. He speaks much of the radiative forcing of various GHGs, Water vapor, CO2, CH4 and N2O, their I.R. spectra and the various wavelength "windows" through which radiation can pass, be absorbed or be EMITTED.

Perhaps you overlooked table 2 which shows that a doubling of CO2 in the atmosphere has the water vapor GH contribution % lowering from 78.5% to 77.1% and the CO2 GH contribution % raising from 19.6% to 20.9%, increasing global temp by just 0.07 degree C, a very trivial amount. That is Jack Barrett's confirmed conclusion, when asked. I did wish that his I.R. spectra had better resolution than that shown. A minor problem.

I am glad everyone readily agreed with Jack's findings, although I'm quite sure they aren't what you thought they were. This would would be a very cold planet were it not for CO2 in our atmosphere.



[edit on 4/10/2007 by TheAvenger]

Moving on the Khilyuk and Chilingar, skipping good IR work By Beck for some reason, the question is asked "what do I find so compelling about this paper"
That seems to be asked as a debate question, rather than a scientific one.

My thoughts:

1. They point out that solar radiation is the dominating source of heat and light to the planet. 99.95% is the figure they give for Earth's energy derived from the sun. The heating and cooling of the atmosphere are mostly due to insolation of the Earth.

2. They cite models, other sources and state that a 1% increase in solar radiation increases the temp of the planet 0.86 degrees C.

3. They state that the combined energy produced by humankind is very small compared to solar energy. All man-made activities combined used to heat the atmosphere would increase the atmospheric temperature by 0.01 degree C or less.

4. They talk of Orbital deviations and mass redistribution of the Earth. A chart is shown comparing the deviation of temp to solar magnetic cycles. They match very closely. They say that natural cycles control temps and the recent (last century) 0.56 degree C change is meaningless.

Salient, ....and compelling. If thats not enough:

They go on to talk of Earth's outgassing,Inner-Earth energy, smoothing of the ocean, microbial activity in the atmosphere, and ice ages. A short discussion of global warming vs. global cooling indicating again that the evidence shows that CO2 in the atmosphere did not cause the global warming of the past 150 years. They conclude that radiation and other forces of nature along with their variations caused the temperature change, that humans account for 0.01 degree C of the change, and finally that signing the Kyoto Protocol would be ignorant, that it has cost a fortune and achieved very little.

There are charts, equations and references are copiously cited everywhere.
Obviously very well done and convincing research. An excellent paper.


I have communicated with Richard Lindzen recently. As you probably know, he has many, many peer reviewed publications which offer much information regarding A.G.W. I'm quite certain Dick is #1 on the A.G.W. believers hate list. I may offer some of his material here soon.

Unfortunately, I am still very busy for the next few days as a tax volunteer. April 16 will be the last of it. I will look in from time to time. Meanwhile, I have a couple of questions:


1. Since there is an overwhelming "consensus" that global warming is largely man-made, why has no one conducted a totally independent survey to prove it?


2. Since A.G.W. is so real, why is there a need for A.G.W. proponent ghostwriter activists to provide material to help debaters prove the "consensus"of scientists and their overwhelmingly powerful and irrefutable scientific evidence? (read, Gristmill)

I hope you can help me with these two quick questions because I don't know a single chemist, geologist, meteorologist, geophysicist or any other scientist in my state who believes A'G.W. is anything but a very minor contributor to global warming.





[edit on 4/10/2007 by TheAvenger]

Originally posted by TheAvenger
Perhaps you overlooked table 2 which shows that a doubling of CO2 in the atmosphere has the water vapor GH contribution % lowering from 78.5% to 77.1% and the CO2 GH contribution % raising from 19.6% to 20.9%, increasing global temp by just 0.07 degree C, a very trivial amount. That is Jack Barrett's confirmed conclusion, when asked. I did wish that his I.R. spectra had better resolution than that shown. A minor problem.

Of course, this is not accepted at all. Climate sensitivity studies generally suggest around 1.5-4.5'C depending on model, or around 3'C from paleoclimate analyses, for doubling CO2.

For example, Stainforth et al. (2005) in a Nature article suggest an even higher range from 2K to 11K.

The range of possibilities for future climate evolution1–3 needs to be taken into account when planning climate change mitigation and adaptation strategies. This requires ensembles of multidecadal simulations to assess both chaotic climate variability and model response uncertainty4–9. Statistical estimates of model response uncertainty, based on observations of recent climate change10–13, admit climate sensitivities—defined as the equilibrium response of global mean temperature to doubling levels of atmospheric carbon dioxide—substantially greater than 5K. But such strong responses are not used in ranges for future climate change14 because they have not been seen in general circulation models. Here we present results from the ‘climateprediction.net’ experiment, the first multi-thousand-member grand ensemble of simulations using a general circulation model and thereby explicitly resolving regional details15–21. We find model versions as realistic as other state-of-the-art climate models but with climate sensitivities ranging from less than 2K to more than 11 K. Models with such extreme sensitivities are critical for the study of the full range of possible responses of the climate system to rising greenhouse gas levels, and for assessing the risks associated with specific targets for stabilizing these levels.

So, basically, Barrett's figures just do not add up. Numerous studies since the 70s have been showing figures around 2-4'C for a doubling of CO2. So the weight of the literature is against Barrett's numbers.

But I guess time will tell.

I am glad everyone readily agreed with Jack's findings, although I'm quite sure they aren't what you thought they were. This would would be a very cold planet were it not for CO2 in our atmosphere.

I don't think I quite agreed with everything in this article. Like with Muaddib, I was just using your own presented data against a point you made.

So, it's more a case of I'm glad you now know that CO2 is a bit more than "5% of the thing".

Originally posted by TheAvenger
There are charts, equations and references are copiously cited everywhere.
Obviously very well done and convincing research. An excellent paper.

And most from obscure russian journals, websites, and petroleum associated journals. Not exactly great scholarship. Quite funny you criticised my ability to see good science, this article is far from it.

I'll answer properly manana, need sleep.

For those doubting Richard Courtney's credentials:

Richard S Courtney is a Member of the European Science and Environment Forum (ESEF) and acts as a technical advisor to several UK MPs and mostly-UK MEPs. He is Chairman of the Southern Region of a
Trade Union (BACM-TEAM) affiliated to the UK’s Trades Union Congress. He was the Vice-President of BACM-TEAM from 1995 until May 2000, and he was also a Member of the Executive of the Federation of European Energy Industry Executives throughout that time. Having been the contributing
Technical Editor of CoalTrans International, he is now on the Editorial Board of Energy & Environment. His present work mostly consists of providing commissioned advice to national governments, although he has recently conducted research studies of energy interactions at sea surface. Richard is a respected authority on energy issues, especially clean coal technology. He has been the Senior Materials Scientist of the UK’s Coal Research Establishment, has served as a Technical Advisor to the European Coal and Steel Community (ECSC), possesses several patents, and has published papers in many journals including Nature, Microscopy and Filtration. He is the author of the chapter on coal in Kempes Engineers Yearbook. His scientific achievements have obtained much recognition. The British Association for the Advancement of Science appointed him as a Member of the Association of British Science Writers in recognition of his “clear presentation of scientific information to politicians”. The UK’s Royal Society for Arts and Commerce appointed him as a Life Fellow in recognition of his “services to British industry”.PZZK (the management association of Poland’s mining industry) gave him an award in recognition of his “services to Europe’s industry”. He has broadcast on radio and TV around the world in response to requests from several media companies, notably the BBC, and he lectures around Europe. His knowledge of energy and environment issues is widely respected. He has been called as an expert witness by the UK Parliament’s House of Commons Select Committee on Energy and also House of Lords Select Committee on the Environment. UNESCO commissioned a paper from him on Coal Liquefaction. An Expert Peer Reviewer for the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), in November 1997 he chaired the Plenary Session of the Climate Conference in Bonn at the joint request of the European Academy of Science, the Science and Environment Project (USA), and the Europaische Akedemie fur Umweltfragen e.v. (Germany). In June 2000 he was one of 15 scientists invited from around the world to give a briefing on climate change at the US Congress in Washington DC, and he then chaired one of the three briefing sessions. Richard is also an Accredited Methodist Preacher. He is a founding Member of the Christ and the Cosmos Initiative that explores the interactions of religious and scientific ideas. The Initiative started in the UK but became active in 28 countries.

Richard avoids confusion about him in his scientific and religious activities by rarely citing his academic achievements, but his material science qualifications include a DipPhil (Cambridge), a BA (Open) and a Diploma (Bath).

He may be contacted at:
Address: 88 Longfield
Falmouth
Cornwall





[edit on 4/11/2007 by TheAvenger]

Al Gore and teams of scientists are right. Global warming is occurring as indicated by many scientists. Big industry and carbon dioxide are responsible for hastening the death of the human race. Have a nice day.

Originally posted by melatonin
The 15 micron wavlength is most important for CO2, WV barely figures in this wavelength. Check Muaddib's absorption graph earlier.

clouds consist of water droplets (= liquid or solid), water vapor is a GAS, it's pretty obvious that clouds don't just block out WV's spectral lines otherwise we could see through them.

[edit on 11.4.2007 by Long Lance]

Originally posted by Long Lance
clouds consist of water droplets (= liquid or solid), water vapor is a GAS, it's pretty obvious that clouds don't just block out WV's spectral lines otherwise we could see through them.

Yeah, thanks. This would be important if we were worried about the visible wavelengths rather than IR. Cloud longwave absorption mainly overlaps water vapour absorption, it has less effect on other GHGs (not to say it has none).

Originally posted by carnival_of_souls2047
Al Gore and teams of scientists are right. Global warming is occurring as indicated by many scientists. Big industry and carbon dioxide are responsible for hastening the death of the human race. Have a nice day.

That would be your opinion I gather. Lots of people believe that. I don't. Thanks for the post.

The dinosaurs caused the last ice age by having large shadows wich cooled the earth to dangerously low temperatures. I believe the cavemen melted the last ice age with their constant meddling campfires.