what's the deal with global warming?

[DanishDynamite]

EvilYeti:

I work in the earth sciences and I am SICK TO DEATH of the amount of ignorance, junk science and downright LIES that are going unchallenged here. This is supposed to be a science forum!

Still, I presume it is possible to dispel this ignorance without arrogance?

If you have something of substance to bring to the table, by all means present it. If you are only interested in picking apart typo's in my posts, go away. It's the last refuge of the forensic failure.

I have already "brought something to the table", as you know. I'm perfectly willing to believe the 60C was a typo, albeit a typo repeated across multiple posts. However, you still need to show that your (rectified) claim ...

If there was no CO2 in the atmosphere our planet would be about 60F cooler and the oceans would freeze.

... is true. Perhaps you overlooked my post where I linked this site and quoted the following:

The major greenhouse gas in the terrestrial atmosphere is water vapor. Minor greenhouse gases that are produced either naturally or by human activity include carbon dioxide, methane, chlorofluorocarbons and nitrous oxide. Of these minor gases, the most important, by far, is carbon dioxide. However, even carbon dioxide absorbs only about 5 percent of the total amount of infrared radiation from the Earth, compared to 90 to 95 percent absorbed by water in the form of clouds and/or water vapor.

If CO2 is only responsible for 5% of the retention of IR, why is it responsible for 15.5C of the 32C warming?

 

[EvilYeti]

Okay, that's what I'm looking for. Is there anything on that on the net? It's frustrating not having access to excellent references like that.

i'm looking for those stats. Can you put them here If they aren't on the net?

Hi Eos of Eons,

The paper you want is "The Seasons, Global Temperature, and Precession" (Science , vol 268, pp 59-67, 7 April 1995).

This has passed peer review and is considered the definitive work on the subject. It has stood unchallenged by the "greenhouse skeptics" for the last eight years. No one has been able to find fault in his methods, data, or results.

You will have to get a copy at your library (any decent library should have it), it is not available online.

Here is a synopsis:

In "The Seasons, Global Temperature, and Precession" (Science , vol 268, pp 59-67, 7 April 1995), Thomson does not argue that solar variability has zero effect on climate, but instead suggests that for the last fifty years the effect of solar variability appears to be swamped by the impacts of mounting concentrations of greenhouse gases.

Thomson reached these and other important conclusions by examining long-term monthly average temperature records going back several centuries. He also studied seasonal variations in the amount of sunlight striking the upper atmosphere. In a sophisticated statistical analysis (including consideration of changes in the earth's orbit), Thomson found that the timing of the seasons began to change dramatically around 1940.

Since 1940, he says, "the rate of change in the timing of the seasons in the Northern Hemisphere is without precedent in the instrumental data records." Thomson warned that "given the importance of a stable seasonal cycle for biological processes and the problems that late springs or early frosts cause for agriculture, an unpredictable ... [change in the timing of the seasons] may be a more serious problem to society than changes in the amplitude of the annual cycle or even of the average temperature."

What might explain the change in the timing of the seasons and the observed increases in temperatures? Thomson analyzed several possible explanations including the effects of solar variability, El Niño events, volcanoes, perturbations in the earth's orbit, and increasing concentrations of CO2 and of atmospheric particles called aerosols. He found that each of these may have contributed to the climate changes. But the correlation was strongest with increasing CO2 levels.

Thomson's analysis will be probed and debated. The impacts of solar variability and CO2 levels on global temperatures and on the seasons still are not completely understood. But his study adds a new dimension to scientists' understanding of climate change and is evidence that a pattern of climate change is emerging in the empirical observations.

While much remains to be known, the best evidence we have points to global warming as a real, human initiated, phenomenon.

 

[EvilYeti]

EvilYeti:Still, I presume it is possible to dispel this ignorance without arrogance?

I'm not arrogant, I'm pissed off.

I have already "brought something to the table", as you know. I'm perfectly willing to believe the 60C was a typo, albeit a typo repeated across multiple posts. However, you still need to show that your (rectified) claim ...
... is true. Perhaps you overlooked my post where I linked this site and quoted the following:
If CO2 is only responsible for 5% of the retention of IR, why is it responsible for 15.5C of the 32C warming?

See, this is why I don't like getting in these discussions. They are very complex and its not always obvious to the layman why things are as they are.

The greenhouse effect caused by water vapor in the atmosphere is a tricky subject. Firstly, its wrong to call water vapor a "greenhouse gas", even though it often is in common usage. I've done this at times as well for simplicity. Water vapor is not a gas and does not behave like a gas. Gaseous H2O is steam.(edit: the term water vapor is often used interchangibly to refer to all three phase states of water, I will use this definition from now on)

The heating/cooling effects of water vapor are multifaceted.

It cools as well as warms the earth, due to the reflection of UV radiation from clouds. This is the subject of much research, some of which an office mate of mine has done and can comment on. Currently the ratio of heating to cooling is not known.

Its concentration is dependent on the ambient temperature. This is very important to understand. Warmer air can hold more vapor than cooler air, so increased greenhouse gasses will cause a positive feedback cycle to occur. More gasses => more heat => more vapor until the system stabalizes.

This is likely the explanation for the discrepancy in the web pages, without any greenhouse gasses the atmosphere would not retain enough heat to support the postive feedback cycle.

The point is moot, regardless, as climate change occurs when the temperature mean rises only a few degrees. Dave Thompson demonstrated this is possible through CO2 pollution alone. The point is doubly moot as methane, the number 2 greenhouse gas, has the unfortunate side effect of turning into water vapor in the upper atmosphere. Some recent studies point to this as a signifigant contributor to global warming as well.

Edit: Gaseous H2O is a GHG, liquid water and ice in the atmosphere can have mixed roles.

 

[DogB]

Water vapor is not a gas and does not behave like a gas. Gaseous H2O is steam.

DogB edited out nasty uncalled for comment.

 

[DogB]

Pardon me?

Sorry, unusually harsh. Put it down to a nasty flu.

But....

Water vapour is gaseous water. Same thing. Same as any other gas. Behaves the same. Looks the same.

Steam is what happens when water vapour condenses to liquid water. The white stuff we call steam is minute droplets of liquid water.

You are representing yourself as an expert in these matters. Mixed up definitions like this don't help your case at all.

P.

 

[Eos of the Eons]

I'm very happy to see logic taking over here and actual knowledge too-kudos to EvilYeti and others!



Thank you for the Synopsis, I can look up the stats and look at what has happened over the last 10 years especially.


DogB: making idiotic statements about others does nothing for the argument/debate and only shows you don't have a leg to stand on because you can't come up with anything decent to back your viewpoint.

(this was being posted as you were making your last post)

The thing about the ozone layer. You can't replace it with another greenhouse gas and have that gas behave with the same properties that the ozone layer has. The ozone in the ozone layer is not considered a greenhouse gas. It's the ozone that may be in the atmosphere other than the ozone layer that may be considered a greenhouse gas. Problem is that CFC's don't stop reacting once they've entered this reaction equation. The more CFCs in the air, the worse the ozone depletion. Mix these reactions together until the ozone layer is gone, and then there is no ozone left to be considered a greenhouse gas.

Having the pollutants (like CFCs) reacting with ozone and depleting the ozone layer to simple water molecules and whatever other product of the reaction is hardly causing ozone to be more of a greenhouse gas.

The earth without an ozone layer. It wouldn't matter how warm or cold it was anymore.

 

[DogB]

DogB: making idiotic statements about others does nothing for the argument/debate and only shows you don't have a leg to stand on because you can't come up with anything decent to back your viewpoint.

Don't have a viewpoint on global warming. Don't know enough to comment.

I do however know enough about physical chemistry to know that in this case EvilYeti is wrong. As I said, I was unacceptably harsh and for that I once again apologize.

P.

 

[EvilYeti]

Sorry, unusually harsh. Put it down to a nasty flu.

But....

Water vapour is gaseous water. Same thing. Same as any other gas. Behaves the same. Looks the same.

Steam is what happens when water vapour condenses to liquid water. The white stuff we call steam is minute droplets of liquid water.

You are representing yourself as an expert in these matters. Mixed up definitions like this don't help your case at all.

P.

Ok no problem, I deleted the "pardon me" as I realized the definition was incomplete and I should clarify.

This compounded by the fact that steam and water vapor mean different things to different people. To some people steam is gaseous water and water vapor is the visibile portion. Others invert the definition. I was taught the first definition.

This gets more confusing when global warming is involved, as gaseous H2O and liquid H2O behave differently where global warming is concerned. For example, the liquid water that forms clouds has a cooling effect.

For the purpose of this discussion, I think its fair to allow "water vapor" to cover both liquid, solid and gaseous H2O.

(edited to add)

I don't consider myself and "expert", I just work with them! Hence I think I have a better idea of what the prevailing opinion amongst the earth scientists is.

 

[EvilYeti]

I do however know enough about physical chemistry to know that in this case EvilYeti is wrong. As I said, I was unacceptably harsh and for that I once again apologize.

No need to apologize, if anyones to blame its my high school physics teacher, he's the one that taught me that defenition.

Wikipedia says we are both right:

"Besides the pure gas, "water vapor" also refers to water molecules in air and other mixed gases."

Edited to add:

Actually acording to Wikipedia, you are wrong about steam:

Steam is a gas which is composed totally of water, commonly hotter than its boiling point and in a closed container. Gaseous water easily mixes with air and is then called water vapor.

 

[DogB]

This compounded by the fact that steam and water vapor mean different things to different people. To some people steam is gaseous water and water vapor is the visibile portion. Others invert the definition. I was taught the first definition.

Really? OK that's confusing

 

[DogB]

Steam is a gas which is composed totally of water, commonly hotter than its boiling point and in a closed container. Gaseous water easily mixes with air and is then called water vapor.

What a strange definition.

Source: Webster's Revised Unabridged Dictionary (1913)

Steam \Steam\, n. [OE. stem, steem, vapor, flame, AS. ste['a]m
vapor, smoke, odor; akin to D. stoom steam, perhaps
originally, a pillar, or something rising like a pillar; cf.
Gr. ? to erect, ? a pillar, and E. stand.]
1. The elastic, a["e]riform fluid into which water is
converted when heated to the boiling points; water in the
state of vapor.

2. The mist formed by condensed vapor; visible vapor; -- so
called in popular usage.

3. Any exhalation. ``A steam og rich, distilled perfumes.''
--Milton.

I was quoting common usage (definition 2).


Anyway I really didn't mean to derail this thread. As I said previously I don't have any reliable opinion on global warming so I'm off now.

P.

 

[EvilYeti]

Having the pollutants (like CFCs) reacting with ozone and depleting the ozone layer to simple water molecules and whatever other product of the reaction is hardly causing ozone to be more of a greenhouse gas.

Ozone in the ozone layer is created by UV light splitting O2 molecules. This is high enough to not have much an effect on global warming,

The ozone that is considered a GHG is released into the troposphere by industry or created naturally by lightning.

The earth without an ozone layer. It wouldn't matter how warm or cold it was anymore.

Luckily the reduction in CFC has slowed its depletion.

 

[Eos of the Eons]

I'm not sure about global reduction in CFCs. I hear countries like china are using the old type refrigerators and such now banned in North America. They are 'allowed' to develop at their own pace and make the same mistakes we did. Look at their population and polluting capabilities. I hear planes get grounded at Bejing only too often because of smog. I've never seen smog where I live. I don't know if Alberta has ever had smog?

Does anyone have global stats on the release of CFCs and other greenhouse gasses that deteriorate the ozone layer?

 

[EvilYeti]

I found a great quote regarding the water vapor dodge so popular with the junk science crowd:

"It is extremely misleading, however, when scientists cite the role of water vapor as a greenhouse gas," Mann explained. "The concentration of water vapor in the atmosphere can not be controlled by us directly. It is fixed by the surface temperature of the Earth."

It is the trace gases - methane, C02, nitrous oxides, and chlorofluorocarbons - that "we can actually control," Mann explained.

---Michael Mann, University of Virginia environmental sciences professor and a lead author of the United Nation's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) Third Assessment Report

 

[EvilYeti]

I have no comment. I just wanted to capture this for future generations.

I corrected my mistake, care to correct any of yours?

 

[rockoon]

Forgive me, I'm not a dendrochronologist, so I'm working my way through the science.

According to the FAQ:


So how are these variables separated? Furthermore what is the sensitivity curve of a tree to temperature?

I have read quite a few dendrochronology sites, and all of them state that for best measure of climatic variation, tree ring samples should be taken from specimens on the margins of viability.

I don't want to have to buy a book only to find it doesn't answer my question. Can you assist?

I am not one either but I believe the gist of it all is that we are aware of some of the variables that existed while the tree ring was formed to begin with. I don't think tree rings are used very often to measure the temperature from thousands of years ago. They sample living trees and as such we do have some records of precipitation and the like.

In some cases we know for certainty the precipitation and temperature in an area at the time the ring was formed. Such situations allow for calibration of the technique. This is no more unique than carbon dating which also makes various assumptions.

They limit themselves to areas with low precipitation to isolate the sample on temperature.

Certainly there is a margin of error and certainly there are assumptions. But thats no different than most fields of this kind. They can look at areas with known precipitation AND temperature to test the predictive properties of the method.

Its no proof for sure.

 

[rockoon]

Oh, everything you've just posted can be shot down, easily.

The Oregon Petition is so transparently fraudulent it falls apart under even the slightest scrutiny.

First of all, they list MEDICAL doctors and DENTISTS in the petition! How do they count as earth scientists? Explain.

Second, for a survey that is based out of La Jolla, one would think many of the CA respondents would be employed at the Scripps Insitute of Oceanography, also in La Jolla, correct?

Scripps list their employees on the web, I encourage anyone who is curious to try and cross-reference the CA petition names with anyone employed there.

For example, here is a listing of the academic earth scientists employed at SIO. link

None of them have signed the petition. I would be very surprised if you could find a SINGLE Scripps employee who has. The survey is fraudulent and is in no way representative of the earth science communtiy.

I wonder who did sign the petition then, who are all these people?

Lets look up the first CA signer listed, Earl Aagaard, PhD. I wonder who he is?

HE IS A BIOLOGIST AND A CREATIONIST! Look it up
here!

Why should his opinion count for anything? Explain.

Why do you blindly accept propaganda without putting even the smallest effort into verifying it first? It would save you from future emabarassments.

Amazing. You found a name on there that you don't like.

Did you know that petitions dont limit who might sign it?

Obviously that name you found invalidates the whole petition. Right?

I must refer you to the logical fallacies page here..

http://www.datanation.com/fallacies/index.htm

..since you obviously fail to grasp or knowlingly ignore the concepts within it.

 

[Diamond]

Originally posted by Diamond

A classic straw man. I have not stated that I believe that rising CO2 does not have a anthropogenic component, nor do I know of any reputable climatologist who doesn't.

Whats your point then?

My point is that you claim statements I have not made in order to produce a nice convenient straw man to knock down

Only in an academic ivory tower could someone come up with such a ridiculous statement. There is considerable doubt that carbon dioxide enrichment causes temperature rise. There are many studies from ice cores which show that carbon dioxide rise FOLLOWS temperature rise by centuries. There are NONE that I know of that show the reverse.

Go ahead and post your citations. Most likely they don't say what you think they say.

Nope. We haven't had much of any citations other than one study based on a climate model which ignores or minimizes the effects of solar variability. When you start producing some evidence for your absolute claim that recent warming is due mostly or entirely to human factors, then this debate will move forward.

As it is, you've made too many basic mistakes in science and logic that I wonder about your level of knowledge at all.

In any case, no mention has been made of solar variability even though we know the sun has increased in brightness since the Maunder Minimum of the 17th Century. Its probably just a fluke.

David Thompson's paper refutes this.

Except that it doesn't. Even the citation you quoted makes it clear that solar variability is a large (unknown) factor. He then goes on to ignore this and other evidence of the link between cosmic rays and cloudiness. This paper does not constitute refutation. It demonstrates the extent to which the debate has been formulated: as long as we ignore all the confounding factors we can't model, then a rise in a trace gas for which we are partially responsible, is to blame.

Yes. It's probably a different science that I study. In YetiScience, dogmatic statements are made with exact figures, then when questioned the YetiScientist claims that it can't be studied without studyng an atmosphere without its most frightening constituent. So where does this figure come from? Tibet?

What figure are you talking about? The average temperature of the planet?

Nope the figure of 60F for the contribution of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere.

I have offered references and detailed technical explinations of the science of global warming. David Thompsons paper, which has been published in Science magazine, passed peer review and had not been refuted to date. It shows a DRAMATIC increase in the rate of climate change coinciding with the start of the industrial revolution. I'll post a link when I can find one. If you can't wait go to the library and check out the 1995 series of science magazine.

Except that it has been trumped by other studies before and since. Passing peer review does not mean that it is correct, merely that it does not contradict previously known certain facts (of which there are very few in climate science)

YOU HAVE OFFERED NOTHING BUT DOGMA. No references, no cites, no data, not even simple explanations, NOTHING. Just empty assertion after empty assertion. "Ice core stuides have shown..." whatever. Post the damn cite so I can review it.

This is the bit in the debate called "reversing the burden of proof" I have not made a dogmatic statement - I have challenged you to produce yours in support of your dogmatic statements.

1. That carbon dioxide is available in significant quantities to cause this measureable effect.

Its about 1% of the atmosphere. Thats more than enough. Look it up if you don't believe me. Or run your own experiments, don't make an argument from ignorance.

The latest figure from Mauna Loa show that carbon dioxide constitutes 370 ppm or 0.037% of the atmosphere.

If you can't get basic figures correct, what chances are there that the rest of your argument is correct?

2. It ignores the effects of clouds, ice crystals and the water balance.

You ignore that fact that water vapor is not a gas and dependant on greenhouse gasses to present. Cold air holds less moisture than warm air.

Water vapor is not a gas? What is it? Its not a solid, liquid or plasma? Is there a fifth state of matter?

As for cold air holding less moisture than warm air, that's called Bad meteorology

Yet another basic error of science you've committed. The omens do not look good.

3. It assumes that the effect of carbon dioxide in the upper atmosphere is the same as at the surface.

Again demonstrating you have no understanding of the mechanisms of global warming or even simple physics. The sun doesn't heat up the atmosphere, the earth does. The higher you go, the farther from the earth you get and the cooler the atmosphere gets.

What about the thermosphere? Again you make dogmatic statements of "fact" which are subsequently shown to be wrong. The omens don't look good.

Actually, I don't even know what point you are trying to make. Are you suggesting atomic forces work differently depending on where molecules are in the atmosphere?

Nope. Simply two statements:

1. Carbon dioxide is depleted in the upper atmosphere making it even less available to warm the atmosphere than the 0.037% I cited earlier.

2. That carbon dioxide warming may simply cause the water vapour level to rise, forming more clouds which block the sun from reaching the surface of the earth. In other words a NEGATIVE FEEDBACK.

Big assumptions. No citations. No proof.

This is simple, basic, earth science 101. Go talk to any earth scientist. Don't take my word for it. You have listed no citations and no proof.

"Reversing the burden of proof" again. Actually it is your basic science that fails again and again. This does not inspire confidence that you know what you're talking about.

I said show your working. That means equations. I did not ask you to restate your claim. I asked for emprical evidence.

I'm still waiting.

Why should I bother? You obviouslly wouldn't be able to understand it and therefore won't accept it.

Actually that isn't the danger. The danger for you is that I get to see that you can't do basic science to back up your dogmatic claims.

Why don't you do the math yourself and present it to us? Seems that would be pretty damning of my position. Do the work yourself and prove to me that you understand the math and physics. Or at least make the effort.

What's damning is that you make fundamental mistakes in basic science and claim to be working in Earth Sciences.

Again I will not "reverse the burden of proof" It's your claim. You prove that carbon dioxide is responsible for 60C or even 60F of climatic warmth.

Because I am not the one claiming that without carbon dioxide, the earth would be 60C cooler.

I meant 60F and corrected the typo. The link posted by DD claims 90F with no greenhouse gasses and no water vapor.

Yes. "Water vapor". The most dominant greenhouse gas producing 95% of the greenhouse effect, according to the citation.

That doesn't leave 60F to be caused by carbon dioxide, does it?

You have all the answers, why don't you tell us what the temperature of the earths atmosphere would be sans CO2?

Lessee. According to DD's citation that would be 95% of 90F = 85.5F. There's carbon dioxide, methane, NO2 and CFCs in the atmosphere...lets say half is produced by CO2, so that would be 2.25F or about 1.25C

Woah! That's the TOTAL contribution of carbon dioxide. Its less than the diurnal range or the seasonal range.

It's a lot less than 60F. So lets your your citations and your workings for the 60F claim.

As I stated before, no-one has claimed that CO2 is not a greenhouse gas, nor that the Earth is currently in a warming phase (since the bottom of the Little Ice Age), so please stop with the stupid straw man argument.

So what do you think the billions of tons of CO2 we are dumping into the atmosphere every year is doing.

1. Warming the earth.
2. Cooling the earth.
3. No effect.

We don't know. The small effect of carbon dioxide is swamped by natural climatic variation and solar variation in particular.

We do know the earth is greening as a result of carbon dioxide enrichment. We do not know that the earth is warming because of the same.

Patterson is a geologist, not a climatologist. Lindzen is a meteorologist. Do you even know what a climatologist is?

Lindzen was one of the main authors of the IPCC report and a professor of climatology.

I do know what a climatologist isn't. You.

 

[Diamond]

I am not one either but I believe the gist of it all is that we are aware of some of the variables that existed while the tree ring was formed to begin with. I don't think tree rings are used very often to measure the temperature from thousands of years ago. They sample living trees and as such we do have some records of precipitation and the like.

In some cases we know for certainty the precipitation and temperature in an area at the time the ring was formed. Such situations allow for calibration of the technique. This is no more unique than carbon dating which also makes various assumptions.

They limit themselves to areas with low precipitation to isolate the sample on temperature.

Certainly there is a margin of error and certainly there are assumptions. But thats no different than most fields of this kind. They can look at areas with known precipitation AND temperature to test the predictive properties of the method.

Its no proof for sure.

Thanks for that. Can we tackle this on another thread? At the moment I'm tackling a Yeti with scientific halitosis.

There is a reason I'm skeptical about measuring temperature using tree rings.

 

[Brian the Snail]

Perhaps you overlooked my post where I linked this site and quoted the following:
If CO2 is only responsible for 5% of the retention of IR, why is it responsible for 15.5C of the 32C warming?

I know that this wasn't addressed to me, but just to point out that Wikipedia gives a different value:

Water vapor (H2O) causes about 60% of the Earth's naturally-occuring greenhouse effect, with others carbon dioxide (CO2) (about 26%), methane (CH4), nitrous oxide (N2O) and ozone (O3) (about 8%), collectively known as greenhouse gases.

Make of it what you will....