Climate Change-Global Warming-Polar Bears-Ice Melting-Cow Farts-the loons love this stuff it gives them something to splutter and blubber about, they aren't happy unless they're trashing somebody or something especially after a Republican Moron slapped them around at the polls (TWICE) if Pant Suit Hillary or Oboomba Big Ears gets elected it will all go away, THE POLAR BEARS FUR WILL TURN WHITE AGAIN

__________________
Stupid Harry Boy

.

Way too many people have way too much idle time on their hands these days.

Too bad Al Gore, Sr., never taught Al, Jr. a way to make an honest living. Maybe Jr.'d be a happier person if he had.





//

__________________
"All that is required for evil to triumph is for good to do nothing."

Gore:
He's a lunatic and Bush pushed him over the edge, he belongs in an Insane Asyluum, watch his eyes when he's waving his finger and Bellowing, if I was Tipper I'd be scared sh!tless of him.

Tipper should keep a can of pepper spray between her breasts

__________________
Stupid Harry Boy

Maybe she does.





//

__________________
"All that is required for evil to triumph is for good to do nothing."

Couple of links with data and a bit of perspective on CO2

http://mysite.verizon.net/mhieb/WVFo...ouse_data.html


http://www.ilovemycarbondioxide.com/graphic.html

__________________
If the devil can keep you from asking the right questions he never has to worry about the answers.

More fun with numbers:


http://www.john-daly.com/carbon.htm

__________________
If the devil can keep you from asking the right questions he never has to worry about the answers.

This is an interesting debate that I've been following; thanks to both PAtsFaninVA and patsfan13 for the civil back and forth.

Well for my part, thanks, STF. I have to say that I try to stay civil but am not always entirely successful. I think PF13's been a model of civility in this discussion.

As politicians regularly demonstrate, when debate gets snarky, there's a snarkiness feedback loop, and each occurence further warms already hot air, blanketing discussions with clouds of smug which just create even more hot air. Scientists call this the Outhouse Effect, and it's largely to PF13's credit that we've avoided it for the most part.



PFnV

PFinVA can generally be counted on to present his case and material supporting it in a civil way. IMO this sort of conversation is more fun that shouting and getting angry.

Thanks for your comment.

__________________
If the devil can keep you from asking the right questions he never has to worry about the answers.

PF13, I've read your links on water vapor and the subsequent math. I think there are 3 things that these analyses regularly (and somewhat disturbingly) omit:

1. The calculations/discussions are for the temperature rise we've recently witnessed, which are then divided by (likely incorrect) values for the role of water vapor.

But the role of water vapor is in the greenhouse effect writ large, i.e., that 33degrees celcius that keeps the planet from being one big ice ball. One could further minimize the role of carbon by taking the effect of the atmosphere and adding it to the effect of solar radiation and geothermal heat, and say that of the 500+ degrees fahrenheit between present-day earth and absolute zero, a miniscule percentage is caused by man.

Then we could take that miniscule percentage, multiply it by the actual changes since the industrial age, and come up with a tiny fraction of a degree of heat.

Needless to say, the methodology is faulty. If you're measuring the role of anthropogenic carbon against entirety of the greenhouse effect -- that is, the thermal delta caused by the presence of an atmosphere -- you come up with a tiny fraction.

You then say, "aha! This is the fraction of all warming caused by anthropogenic carbon!", and multiply that by the recent warming -- since the recent warming is part of the overall 33 degrees of greenhouse effect.

So, you multiply the tiny fraction of the entire system -- man's involvement --by our temperature change over the last century -- .7 degrees c mean temperature -- to yield an even tinier number.

Presto! Nothing to worry about, throw another log on the fire!

Now, if we believe that all things are equal, and equally changing all the time, this might make sense. But they're not Natural cycles do not often result in rapid changes such as the ones we're seeing. (see below.)

2. The absorption of longwave radiation, such as IR (heat,) is different for water vapor and CO2. The effect size usually used in sources like your links ignore this difference; and of course, you knew this was coming -- CO2's ability to trap heat is therefore underestimated (see table, and article, here: http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=142)

3. The "residence time" for water vapor in the atmosphere is about 1-2 weeks on average. YMMV regarding the local retention of water vapor. Relative humidity is approximately constant, since the variation in WV concentration is "self-correcting."

That is to say, in the presence of universally warmer air, water vapor will indeed increase, and therefore it acts as a feedback (rather than a forcing). But in the absence of temperature increases from other sources, the balance of evaporation and precipitation/condensation of WV will not spontaneuously increase or decrease.

So in other words: WV is a component of a large natural system, which goes through cycles measured in the millenia or even the millions of years. The cycles do provide the opportunity for more/less WV in the atmosphere, when temperatures rise. WV then acts to trap additional heat, providing a feedback loop.

You are still correct that the majority of greenhouse effect is from water vapor -- about 70%-90% including cloud formation. You are incorrect in concluding that CO2 is therefore insignificant. Of course, it's easier to be significant to us when the percentage of effect (9-26%) is applied to the whole greenhouse effect (33 degrees c), not solely the delta over 100 years (.7 degrees c).

When you apply the big change over the last couple of centuries (industrial activities increasing atmospheric carbon about 25%,) to the entirety of the Greenhouse effect (about 33 c), you curiously enough get about .7c -- about the amount the atmosphere has warmed in the last century:

.09 (low end of the range of influence of atmospheric carbon within gh effect)
x.25 (25% change in atmospheric carbon due to anthropogenic activities)
x33 (degrees centigrade greenhouse effect adds to current earth temp.)
----
.7425

Persistence of carbon for decades if not centuries guarantees that we will be dealing with sequelae of the current state of affairs, even absent further buildup of carbon. Remember, the surface of the oceans are taking up about 2 gt of carbon, and land surfaces take up about 1. We are churning out 7.3 at present. Assuming that uptake capability is not affected (i.e., by disruption of currents which provide the un-carbonated deep water to the surface to account for new uptake,) we are 4.3 gt over budget per annum. (Remember, total atmospheric carbon is currently about 750 gt, so 4.3 gt is not a trifling amount. Also remember we have not had this concentration in our atmosphere for at least 650,000 years.)

The "panic" you see is that we've crossed a threshold as regards carbon forcings. Do you really want to see another 86gt infused in the atmosphere within 20 years, for a total of 836? the rapidity of these changes, as compared with the natural scale of things, is what causes the sense of urgency among climatologists.

In the next century, in addition to new carbon forcings, we have feedbacks and the previously injected carbon still to cope with. Hence the 1.7-5 degree predicted change. By the way, if you take those mean temp changes and compare them to the mean global temp change between the present and the "little ice age", the range of difference is from about 2 to 5 times larger. These small global changes are reflected in larger local changes (witness the ongoing loss of the earth's sea ice -- which, as we mentioned, creates yet another feedback.)

What the sources you quote do is multiply the cause of the change by the change.

The reality is that the change is the outcome of multiplying the cause of the change, by the entire gh effect prior to anthropogenic inputs. I would argue that this is the more accurate and appropriate way to measure the impact of the variable on the constant, using non-anthropogenic gh effect as the constant here, and with the recognition that (slower) natural changes are always in play.

PFnV