No Evidence That Global Warming is manmade

Originally posted by Muaddib
Since when adding more water vapor to the atmosphere would put the water vapor levels to "current equilibrium"?...

During warming events water vapor levels increase which cause more warming, which increases more the natural release of GHGs....you know "feedback forcing"...

The higher the levels of water wapor, whether anthropogenic or natural, the warmer it will become, the warmer it becomes the more the release of GHGs "naturally" that occurs...

Since water vapor is a worse GHG than CO2 a "water car" would only exchange one GHG for another, and in fact it will release a worse GHG than CO2...

You seem to be ignoring the fact that water vapour does not accumulate when released. It is a feedback.

Yes, increasing temperatures will increase water vapour, that's why it is feedback. However, that is not the issue. If I release a million tonnes of water vapour tomorrow, a month later the previous equilibrium would be attained.

If I release a million tonnes of CO2, it would be around for a much longer period. Decades to reach the previous equilibrium.

Therefore give me a water vapour producing car.

Let me give an example of what "millions of cars" which release water vapor to the atmosphere will cause to happen.

Imagine every day and night being like the nights when the skies are very cloudy which cause a lot of warming, that's what "millions of water cars" will do to the Earth constantly...

Originally posted by melatonin

You seem to be ignoring the fact that water vapour does not accumulate when released. It is a feedback.

If your claim was true then the levels of water vapor would not increase and would remain constant, yet it does increase during warming cycles...

BTW, once there are millions of "water or hydrogen cars", water vapor will also become a forcing, because mankind will be releasing high amounts of water vapor in the atmosphere.


[edit on 3-6-2007 by Muaddib]

OK, thought experiment, I'm not sure on the maths but this is ballpark BS maths. I know muaddib will be all over this like a rash, but I'm actually interested in the implications of changing from CO2 to Hydrogen economy. If we accept that any change will result in H20 emission (will it?):

Water vapour has a lifetime of about 14 days, these usually reduce logarithmically (or is it exponentially, not sure on the correct math term, what I'm saying is that it is not linear). So at about 10 days it could well be 10% of the original amount remaining.

Carbon dioxide has a much longer lifetime. Several decades (but could actually be on the order of thousands according to some). A figure we could use is that of about 50% being removed every year by the biosphere sinks.

Lets say we emit 100 tonnes of each every 10 days.

Water vapour - (+100) End of 10 days = 10.0 tonnes
(+100) End of 20 days = 11.0 tonnes
(+100) End of 30 days = 11.1 tonnes
(+100) End of 40 days = 11.11 tonnes
(+100) End of 50 days = 11.111 tonnes

etc etc. after one year we would have about 11.1111111etc tonnes from around 36,000 tonnes. That's about 11.11/36,000 = not much % remains

Carbon dioxide - 36,000 tonnes emitted, 50% removed, 18,000 remain after 1 year, that's 18,000/36,000 = 50% remains.

At the end of the second year, we would have 11.111111 (lots of ones) tonnes of water vapour, and 27,000 tonnes of CO2 (50% of year 1, plus 50% of year 2).

At the end of year 3:

Water vapour: 11.1111111 (more ones than year 2) tonnes.

CO2: 31,500 tonnes (50% of year 2 plus 50% of year 3).

Now, I admit I pulled this from my @ss, I would be interested if anyone has proper figures for such a calculation.

ABE: found something that comes close to assessing the impact of a hydrogen economy (gotta be better than my BS maths):

Air Pollution and Climate-Forcing
Impacts of a Global Hydrogen Economy
Martin G. Schultz,1* Thomas Diehl,1 Guy P. Brasseur,1
Werner Zittel2

If today’s surface traffic fleet were powered entirely by hydrogen fuel cell technology, anthropogenic emissions of the ozone precursors nitrogen oxide (NOx) and carbon monoxide could be reduced by up to 50%, leading to significant improvements in air quality throughout the Northern Hemisphere. Model simulations of such a scenario predict a decrease in global OH and an increased lifetime of methane, caused primarily by the reduction of theNOx emissions. The sign of the change in climate forcing caused by carbon dioxide and methane depends on the technology used to generate the molecular hydrogen. A possible rise in atmospheric hydrogen concentrations is unlikely to cause significant perturbations of the climate system.

2003, Science, vol 302, p624+

[edit on 4-6-2007 by melatonin]

Sigh...

Can anyone tell me is it hotter at night when the skies are clear, and CO2 is more abundant than the amount of water vapor, or is it generally hotter at night when the skies are clouded and it hasn't rained?

If the wind is up, and depending from the direction of the wind is coming from, the end result might differ even if the skies are cloudy, but in a clouded night, when there is no wind, and it hasn't rained is it cooler or hotter than in a clear night sky with no wind?

I think anyone who has spent sometime outside in the desert at night, or anywhere would know the anwser to that one...

At night all GHGs lose large amounts of heat, except when the skies are clouded...which should give an idea of what is the worse GHG.

So is anyone going to start blaming that evil water vapor for causing "Global Warming"?....

[edit on 4-6-2007 by Muaddib]

That's not really under examination, what is the important factor is whether human emissions of water vapour would have any noticeable effect on climate. Due to its short residence time (days), which means it is feedback rather than forcing, emissions of water vapour will be most likely much less of an issue than CO2 (which has a very long residence time and therefore readily accumulates).

[edit on 4-6-2007 by melatonin]

Not true in the least. first of all and despite you trying to claim the contrary water vapor retains more than twice the amount of heat than CO2 does, and it's levels are constantly replrenished.

The warmer it gets the higher the levels of water vapor. So having millions of cars emitting water vapor will help increase temperatures more and this would increase more the am ounts of water vapor and other GHGs naturally.

Sorry melatonin, but if CO2 was such an efficient heat trapping GHG it would have shown so in experiments, even if those experiments are only imitating regional areas...

If the water vapour that would be emitted doesn't accumulate in large quantities in the atmosphere, then its ability as a GHG is of no consequence.

.... Millions of cars constantly replenishing water vapor in the atmosphere will literally cause "hell on Earth"....

Appart from the natural increase in water vapor which happens during warming events mankind will be increasing those levels even more.

Water vapor is the most important heat trapping greenhouse gas that exists...not CO2..

All GHGs lose heat at night...all of them except clouds... which to anyone who has experienced a cloud covered sky at night without wind or rain knows is a hell of a lot warmer than a clear sky with the same amount of CO2...

[edit on 4-6-2007 by Muaddib]

Originally posted by Muaddib
.... Millions of cars constantly replenishing water vapor in the atmosphere will literally cause "hell on Earth"....

We have enough water around to replenish water vapour already. The fact is that the residence time of water vapour in very short, on the order of days. Anything emitted by us would be quickly taken into the water cycle equilibrium.

Whereas CO2 hangs around for a long time and accumulates pretty quickly.

You have provided nothing to question these points.

Appart from the natural increase in water vapor which happens during warming events mankind will be increasing those levels even more.

Water vapor is the most important heat trapping greenhouse gas that exists...not CO2..

This is irrelevant to the issue. If our emissions would not accumulate why would it matter?

melatonin...

First, you show such an obvious misunderstanding of the most important GHG that it is appaling at times your constant denial of the facts...

Second, it doesn't matter that water vapor stays in the atmosphere about 1 week to 15 days, as it is constantly replenished and during warming cycles the levels of water capor increase naturally, and despite your claims all GHGs lose heat at night, which makes the fact that CO2 stay longer in the atmosphere nothing but a red herring on your part.

Not to mention the part that "CO2" always lags temperature, it is an effect of Climate Changes, and it does not produce the warming which some claim it does.

I dont know if this has been posted, but just to illustrate how much the co2 has the potential to actually absorb heat on top of the water vapor which is at around 40000 parts per million in the first place where co2 is still under 400?




Now after that you calculate that humans are responsible for 5% at the most, of the total co2 output thats going on, makes me wonder how that 5% of the total co2 which is like 1% of the water vapors that are constantly in the air absorbing most of the heat in the first place can have this massive destructive effect on the globe.

I strongly suggest people who assume that the story they are being told is based on the data to check the data themself and stop trusting everything you are spoon fed by the media and popular feelings.

Originally posted by Gonjo
Now after that you calculate that humans are responsible for 5% at the most, of the total co2 output thats going on.

We are responsible for almost all of the increase in atmospheric CO2 every year. We emit more than this total yearly increase, about half is taken up by sinks, the rest accumulates.

Whether the biosphere emits much more is inconsequential, because it actually absorbs even more than it emits. There is no net loss in the terrestrial and ocean sinks.

[edit on 7-6-2007 by melatonin]

Originally posted by melatonin

Originally posted by Gonjo
Now after that you calculate that humans are responsible for 5% at the most, of the total co2 output thats going on.

We are responsible for almost all of the increase in atmospheric CO2 every year. We emit more than this total yearly increase, about half is taken up by sinks, the rest accumulates.

Whether the biosphere emits much more is inconsequential, because it actually absorbs even more than it emits. There is no net loss in the terrestrial and ocean sinks.

[edit on 7-6-2007 by melatonin]

well lets have some proof that biosphere is absorbing more than its emitting, that would be a good start.

Originally posted by Gonjo
well lets have some proof that biosphere is absorbing more than its emitting, that would be a good start.

Science 31 March 2000:
Vol. 287. no. 5462, pp. 2467 - 2470
DOI: 10.1126/science.287.5462.2467
Prev | Table of Contents | Next

Reports

Global Carbon Sinks and Their Variability Inferred from Atmospheric O2 and 13C
M. Battle, 1* M. L. Bender, 1 P. P. Tans, 2 J. W. C. White, 3 J. T. Ellis, 4 T. Conway, 2 R. J. Francey 5

Recent time-series measurements of atmospheric O2 show that the land biosphere and world oceans annually sequestered 1.4 ± 0.8 and 2.0 ± 0.6 gigatons of carbon, respectively, between mid-1991 and mid-1997. The rapid storage of carbon by the land biosphere from 1991 to 1997 contrasts with the 1980s, when the land biosphere was approximately neutral. Comparison with measurements of 13CO2 implies an isotopic flux of 89 ± 21 gigatons of carbon per mil per year, in agreement with model- and inventory-based estimates of this flux. Both the 13C and the O2 data show significant interannual variability in carbon storage over the period of record. The general agreement of the independent estimates from O2 and 13C is a robust signal of variable carbon uptake by both the land biosphere and the oceans.

The oceans and terrestrial biosphere are removing CO2. There is no net release from these sources.

Science 2 November 2001:
Vol. 294. no. 5544, pp. 1012 - 1013
DOI: 10.1126/science.1065307
Prev | Table of Contents | Next

Perspectives
CLIMATE CHANGE:
Storing Carbon on Land
R. J. Scholes and I. R. Noble*

Each year, about 120 PgC (1 PgC = 1015 g of carbon) is exchanged in each direction between terrestrial ecosystems and the atmosphere; another 90 PgC is exchanged between ocean and atmosphere. For comparison, 6.3 PgC is emitted by burning fossil fuels, about half of which is taken up again by the biosphere within years to a decade (1). This net uptake, or "sink," is currently fairly evenly split between land and ocean, but the uptake processes are different, as are projected future behaviors of the two sinks.

120 PgC is exchanged by terrestrial. 90PgC exchanged by oceans. There is no overall release by these sources. What they emit, they absorb. That is why CO2 levels were pretty stable for the 800 years before we emitted millions of tonnes of CO2.

Title: OCEANIC UPTAKE OF FOSSIL-FUEL CO2 - C-13 EVIDENCE
Author(s): QUAY PD, TILBROOK B, WONG CS
Source: SCIENCE 256 (5053): 74-79 APR 3 1992
Document Type: Article
Language: English
Cited References: 23 Times Cited: 224
Abstract: The delta-C-13 value of the dissolved inorganic carbon in the surface waters of the Pacific Ocean has decreased by about 0.4 per mil between 1970 and 1990. This decrease has resulted from the uptake of atmospheric CO2 derived from fossil fuel combustion and deforestation. The net amounts of CO2 taken up by the oceans and released from the biosphere between 1970 and 1990 have been determined from the changes in three measured values: the concentration of atmospheric CO2, the delta-C-13 of atmospheric CO2 and the delta-C-13 value of dissolved inorganic carbon in the ocean. The calculated average net oceanic CO2 uptake is 2.1 gigatons of carbon per year. This amount implies that the ocean is the dominant net sink for anthropogenically produced CO2 and that there has been no significant net CO2 released from the biosphere during the last 20 years.

This is from one of my earlier posts.

Are you kidding me? youre trying to claim that even though the sea water has gotten warmer it is not releasing co2. The fact that the southern hemisphere is getting cooler while northern is getting warmer should give you some indication whats going on and yes the sea water is warming on both hemispheres, on top of the fact that the co2 in the athmosphere is nothing compared to what it was during and after the mini-iceage.

Only reason why we have increse in temperature is because the sun is more active and that is heating up the oceans and that is releasing the co2. During the mini-iceage the sun had literaly no magnetic anomalies what so ever aka sunspots so we got alot less radiation and solar wind from the sun.

The sad fact is that the co2 models we are being presented totally ignore key factors out there. Suns activity and water vapor. Are you seriously claiming that the suns activity has nothing to do with our temperatures and that co2 is the main source of the greenhouse effect even though the amount of co2 in the athmosphere compared to water vapors is 370 co2 and 40000 water vapor parts per million? That is less than 1%!

Also the amount of heat co2 can absord is absorbed already and is a tiny amount compared to the spectrum water vapor can and is absorbing. There is no way you can absorb more infrared rays from the sun by the increased co2 if its already been fully absorbed by the gasses in the air already. If you could do that we would have finally solved the age old mystery of free energy!

More solar activity > more radiation > more heat > more co2.

only way co2 can absorb more heat is if you increase the radiation from the sun and that my friends is hardly something we can quite yet control or affect as far as I am aware of and even so the mass bulk of the heat is absorbed and kept on the planet by water vapor.

If co2 is such an effective greenhouse gas why in the hell is mars not warming more? its athmosphere is 95%+ co2 and it has also received about the same amount of increase of temperature. Not to mention that every single planet we have temperature data on and have gotten new data lately seem to be having similar global warming problem.

I'll answer this part first, you seem to be doing an internet version of the gish-gallop, so we'll work on this gradually...

Originally posted by Gonjo
Are you kidding me? youre trying to claim that even though the sea water has gotten warmer it is not releasing co2.

You say you like data, but seem to be falling into an argument from incredulity. That is what the data suggests. The oceans are also getting more acidic, which is another indication of CO2 absorption rather than emission.

However, with increasing temps, the solubility will decrease and eventually we may see a release of CO2 from the oceans.

Only reason why we have increse in temperature is because the sun is more active and that is heating up the oceans and that is releasing the co2. During the mini-iceage the sun had literaly no magnetic anomalies what so ever aka sunspots so we got alot less radiation and solar wind from the sun.

Solar effects are unable to account for all of the current trend in warming. The highest recent estimate is about 25-35% from Scafetta & West (2006), and this is not widely accepted.

I've posted Solanki's works on solar activity in the 'spot the global warming' thread, check it out. The correlation between solar activity and climate decoupled in the latter 20th century.

[edit on 7-6-2007 by melatonin]

You say you like data, but seem to be falling into an argument from incredulity. That is what the data suggests. The oceans are also getting more acidic, which is another indication of CO2 absorption rather than emission.

Ok so here you tell me how ocean is getting acidic and that indicates co2 is being absorbed. They are also heating up though which means...

However, with increasing temps, the solubility will decrease and eventually we may see a release of CO2 from the oceans.

Here you point out warming will increase co2 being released from the oceans. Now if we have seen over 1 degree increase in the ocean temperatures globally in last 100 years how is it that you "claim" that ocean is absorbing manmade co2 and aparently it has nothing to do with the increased amounts of co2 being released in the athmosphere when infact its very well known ocean is the largest source of co2 along with photosynthesis.

Solar effects are unable to account for all of the current trend in warming. The highest recent estimate is about 25-35% from Scafetta & West (2006), and this is not widely accepted.

Article about "the hockey stick"



Oh I see so because the people running around collecting this "data" industry dont think the sun does anything this time even though they pretty much just look into ways to explain how co2 is bad, even though they said it in 1975 when we were told to prepare for an iceage. Not to mention their methods of doing these new graphs are not really upto the standards of a real scientific work. Read up on the link above and you get the idea.

I've posted Solanki's works on solar activity in the 'spot the global warming' thread, check it out. The correlation between solar activity and climate decoupled in the latter 20th century.

Nice graph doesnt really fit with the official "hockey stick" one though but still I suppose thats possible...

Is that supposed to give proof that sun has no part in the global warming trend? It actually shows the temperature following the suns activity alot better than any co2 data and it seems like its taken a massive dive just before the chart ends. I wonder whats that about, must be just a fluke.

You also seem to be saying that there was no mideval warming period or small iceage before this time so I guess it doesnt really matter what data you are presented with as you will only accept the data from the latest "expert" who are trying the same fearmongering tactics they did back in the 1975 with little or no interest in anything but co2.



So basicly you are saying that 0.028% of that part of the infrared spectrum light is captured by co2 is the cause of global warming? Wow, here I thought terraforming planets would be difficult and take a long time. Seems like we have a solution here. Add 0.028% of any GHG to any planet and the heat is on!

Shocking ICPP knowledge on the matter

There they pretty much let us know how well they have mapped this whole problem first thing you should notice is the fact that they dont really seem to know all that much about sun but thats not the real whopper. Apparently H2O aka water has nothing to do with the problem even though it is 95% of the total of GHG. And I should take anything these "scientists" tell me seriously?




Heres something to look at. Clearly we have some serious co2 related global warming going on.

Originally posted by Gonjo
Ok so here you tell me how ocean is getting acidic and that indicates co2 is being absorbed. They are also heating up though which means...

That's because the oceans are not saturated at this point, they are still able to remove more than they release. However, they seem to be becoming less efficient absorbers over time.

You say you like data, so why not actually accept it?

aparently it has nothing to do with the increased amounts of co2 being released in the athmosphere when infact its very well known ocean is the largest source of co2 along with photosynthesis.

Because oceans and terrestrial biospheres are also the most significant sinks of CO2. They absorb more than they emit at this point. When this changes, it won't be a good thing. Then all of the CO2 we emit will accumulate.

Oh I see so because the people running around collecting this "data" industry dont think the sun does anything this time even though they pretty much just look into ways to explain how co2 is bad, even though they said it in 1975 when we were told to prepare for an iceage. Not to mention their methods of doing these new graphs are not really upto the standards of a real scientific work. Read up on the link above and you get the idea.

Nice to see the change from a person who supports using and forming opinions from data to one who suggests we have data and 'data'. I assume the scary quote data is that which doesn't conform to your opinion.

There was no real consensus that global cooling was occuring, a few scientists were concerned, and the media hyped this. The consensus at the time was that we didn't really know enough about climate to make useful predictions.

Nice graph doesnt really fit with the official "hockey stick" one though but still I suppose thats possible...

Is that supposed to give proof that sun has no part in the global warming trend? It actually shows the temperature following the suns activity alot better than any co2 data and it seems like its taken a massive dive just before the chart ends. I wonder whats that about, must be just a fluke.

It isn't meant to fit with the 'hockey-stick' data, it only contains the observed temperature data (i.e. ca. 150 years worth), multi-proxy reconstructions assess 1000 years worth of climate.

The graph is meant to show that solar activity cannot account completely for the current warming trend. No-one ignores solar effects, no-one suggests the sun plays no part.

So basicly you are saying that 0.028% of that part of the infrared spectrum light is captured by co2 is the cause of global warming? Wow, here I thought terraforming planets would be difficult and take a long time. Seems like we have a solution here. Add 0.028% of any GHG to any planet and the heat is on!

When removed from climate models, CO2 accounts for 9-26% and water vapour about 36-66% of the greenhouse effect. The range is due to the IR absorption overlap. For example, in Ramanathan & Croakley (1978), removing H20 reduces the GH effect by 36%, removing CO2 reduces it by 12%.

So, again, the 0.028% figure is totally misleading and incorrect.

[edit on 8-6-2007 by melatonin]

The graph is meant to show that solar activity cannot account completely for the current warming trend. No-one ignores solar effects, no-one suggests the sun plays no part.

Oh I see so the official graph that shows a steady slowly increasing graph of CO2 instead thats clearly going up even when the temperatures were actually going down in the 1940-1980 and claim that it shows that CO2 is to blame here and shows the truth? Even though the whole icecore, treering and coral data is pretty much a joke to anyone because theres actual temperature measurements and CO2 flask measurements from the 1800 which everyone seems to forget about, maybe because the data shows that in the 1800 we had way higher CO2 than we have now and that the temperatures werent really skyrocketing at that time. Whats more interesting the CO2 went down until about the start of the 1900 century and now its dipping back up again.

When removed from climate models, CO2 accounts for 9-26% and water vapour about 36-66% of the greenhouse effect. The range is due to the IR absorption overlap. For example, in Ramanathan & Croakley (1978), removing H20 reduces the GH effect by 36%, removing CO2 reduces it by 12%.

So, again, the 0.028% figure is totally misleading and incorrect.

36-66% and 9-26% wow thats really narrowing it down!

So now you start telling me someone who investigated the global cooling back in the 1978 came up with those numbers for their iceage models and those are now used as a fact of some sort? Did they also model the fact that theres 100 times less CO2 in the athmosphere than H2O vapor? I mean if you look at the IR wavelengths the water vapor pretty much covers the CO2 to begin with, not to mention the fact that theres 100 times less CO2 as pure PPM. And I guess its a good thing to just forget the fact that man made CO2 increase is 19ppm from 1950?

Unless you claim that the fact that the oceans have heated by 1 degree has no effect on the natural release of CO2 what so ever and all the increase of CO2 is man made. Oh and another thing, you cant really remove CO2 or H2O from any model and claim that any result from it is shows anything, thats not how things work in real life, but hey what ever makes you happy.

Also are you seriously telling me some dudes model when theres agreement we have iceage on our hands, from 1978 proofs how much of an effect CO2 will have. I mean that should say something about their models to begin with. Theres also the small matter of a fact that the GHG in the athmosphere already absorbs all the IR we have going back up there that CO2 can ever absorb to begin with so increaing the CO2 does absolutely nothing to the temperatures unless our sun desides to burn us to a crisp. Even though they are called greenhouse gasses they cant create energy or IR from something thats not there.

If CO2 had anything to do with the temperature raise we would have raising temperatures in the athmosphere, which we dont so why dont we stop this nonsense and face the facts the sun is radiating more, which causes the temperature rise as shown better than any CO2 nonsense which have no scientific proof behind it. Unless you claim that drilling ice, trees and coral actually gives us more accurate data than actual measurements at the time.

I find your beliefs misleading and incorrect.