Okie and Ican- Read the following with regard to water vapor vs. Co2. I am sure that Paradox cannot rebut it.
*************************************************************
The central point is that the major absorbing gas in the atmosphere is water, not CO2, and although CO2 is the only other significant atmospheric absorbing gas, it is still only a minor contributor because of its relatively low concentration. The radiative absorption “cross sections” for water and CO2 are so similar that their relative influence depends primarily on their relative concentrations. Indeed, although water actually absorbs more strongly, for many engineering calculations the concentrations of the two gases are added, and the mixture is treated as a single gas.
In the atmosphere, the molar concentration of CO2 is in the range of 350"400 ppm. Water, on the other hand, has a very large variation but, using the “60/60” (60% relative humidity [RH] at 60 °F) value as an average, then from the American Society of Heating, Refrigerating and Air-Conditioning Engineers standard psychrometric chart, the weight ratio of water to (dry) air is ~0.0065, or roughly 10,500 ppm. Compared with CO2, this puts water, on average, at 25"30 times the (molar) concentration of the CO2, but it can range from a 1:1 ratio to >100:1.
Even closer focus on water is given by solution of the Schuster"Schwarzschild equation applied to the U.S. Standard Atmosphere profiles for the variation of temperature, pressure, and air density with elevation (8). The results show that the average absorption coefficient obtained for the atmosphere closely corresponds to that for the 5.6"7.6-µm water radiation band, when water is in the concentration range 60"80% RH"on target for atmospheric conditions. The absorption coefficient is 1"2 orders of magnitude higher than the coefficient values for the CO2 bands at a concentration of 400 ppm. This would seem to eliminate CO2 and thus provide closure to that argument.
This overall position can be summarized by saying that water accounts, on average, for >95% of the radiative absorption. And, because of the variation in the absorption due to water variation, anything future increases in CO2 might do, water will already have done. The common objection to this argument is that the wide fluctuations in water concentration make an averaging (for some reason) impermissible. Yet such averaging is applied without objection to global temperatures, when the actual temperature variation across the Earth from poles to equator is roughly "100 to +100 °F, and a change on the average of ±1 °F is considered major and significant. If this averaging procedure can be applied to the atmospheric temperature, it can be applied to the atmospheric water content; and if it is denied for water, it must, likewise, be denied for temperature"in that case we don’t have an identified problem!
****************************************************************
1. Water Vapor- the major absorbing gas, Co2--much more minor
2. Water 25-30 times the malor concentratio of C02
3. Absorbent Coefficent is 1-2 bands higher than the coefficent bands for Co2 values at a concentration of 440 ppm.
4. Water accounts for 95% of the radiative absorbence--on average.
5, To the rejoinder that the wide fluctuations in water concentrations make an average impermissible, it is clear that IF AVERAGES CAN BE OBTAINED FOR GLOBAL TEMPERATURE, AVERAGES FOR RADIATIVE ABSORBENCE CAN ALSO BE OBTAINED.
( As the article notes, the CO2 crowd NEEDS average global temperature measurements)
You notice, Okie, that Cicerone Imposter does not raise his reptilian head on this thread-Global Warming--because he is far too stupid to understand the concepts involved.
@genoves,
Global temperature is about 285 Kelvin.
Without water vapor the earth would be at -270 Celsius.
But that doesn't change the fact that CO2 is important.
Without CO2 the global temperature would be 2 degrees Celsius if we just use a simple calculation. The temperate zones would be gone from the earth if that happened. The author notes that water vapor changes over time. This is caused by evaporation and precipitation. In case you didn't realize it, the author doesn't seem to know it, water vapor is reduced when air temperature goes down. Anyone that has ever lived in a cold climate knows this. Or should know this. Where do you live genoves? Do you understand about water vapor and temperature?
Unlike water vapor, CO2 doesn't vary depending on air temperature. It is constant. Since it is constant it can cause increases in temperature which in turn can cause increases in water vapor which in turn causes increases in warming. It's called water vapor feedback. The author of this article might want to google it.
So.. let's do a simple example. Assume there is no water vapor in a part of the globe. In that case CO2 is the PRIMARY greenhouse gas. When the sun shines and warms the atmosphere CO2 helps retain that heat which in turn can cause water to evaporate. Now the atmosphere can retain more heat because it has water vapor AND Co2.
oh.. wait. I just noticed that the author ASSUMES that the earth's temperature is a constant 60°F and a constant 60% humidity. I love the use of the American Heating, Refrigerating and Air-Conditioning standards as the estimate of the globe. Is it it 60°F today where you are genoves? Is it 60% humidity? It isn't where I am. Is it EVER 60°F and 60% humidity in the tropics? How about at the poles? The standard for air temperatures in the US for heating calculations is NOT the global average for temperature or humidity. The statement is garbage since it uses assumptions that are not relevant to the globe.
@parados,
Man made global warming is a SCAM.
@H2O MAN,
H2O MAN wrote:
Man made global warming is a SCAM.
A round earth is a SCAM too..
Everybody knows it's flat.
@blatham,
Well. Blotham is back. How was your EKG, Blotham?
@Cycloptichorn,
Cycloptichorn wrote:
The phrase 'global warming' needs to die; and be replaced with the far more accurate 'Climate instability.'
you can change the phrase all you want, but it's still a SCAM.
@parados,
I see that you are still projecting your ignorance... so sad.
Why Don't you try rebutting the WHOLE post, Paradox?
Okie and Ican- Read the following with regard to water vapor vs. Co2. I am sure that Paradox cannot rebut it.
*************************************************************
The central point is that the major absorbing gas in the atmosphere is water, not CO2, and although CO2 is the only other significant atmospheric absorbing gas, it is still only a minor contributor because of its relatively low concentration. The radiative absorption “cross sections” for water and CO2 are so similar that their relative influence depends primarily on their relative concentrations. Indeed, although water actually absorbs more strongly, for many engineering calculations the concentrations of the two gases are added, and the mixture is treated as a single gas.
In the atmosphere, the molar concentration of CO2 is in the range of 350"400 ppm. Water, on the other hand, has a very large variation but, using the “60/60” (60% relative humidity [RH] at 60 °F) value as an average, then from the American Society of Heating, Refrigerating and Air-Conditioning Engineers standard psychrometric chart, the weight ratio of water to (dry) air is ~0.0065, or roughly 10,500 ppm. Compared with CO2, this puts water, on average, at 25"30 times the (molar) concentration of the CO2, but it can range from a 1:1 ratio to >100:1.
Even closer focus on water is given by solution of the Schuster"Schwarzschild equation applied to the U.S. Standard Atmosphere profiles for the variation of temperature, pressure, and air density with elevation (8). The results show that the average absorption coefficient obtained for the atmosphere closely corresponds to that for the 5.6"7.6-µm water radiation band, when water is in the concentration range 60"80% RH"on target for atmospheric conditions. The absorption coefficient is 1"2 orders of magnitude higher than the coefficient values for the CO2 bands at a concentration of 400 ppm. This would seem to eliminate CO2 and thus provide closure to that argument.
This overall position can be summarized by saying that water accounts, on average, for >95% of the radiative absorption. And, because of the variation in the absorption due to water variation, anything future increases in CO2 might do, water will already have done. The common objection to this argument is that the wide fluctuations in water concentration make an averaging (for some reason) impermissible. Yet such averaging is applied without objection to global temperatures, when the actual temperature variation across the Earth from poles to equator is roughly "100 to +100 °F, and a change on the average of ±1 °F is considered major and significant. If this averaging procedure can be applied to the atmospheric temperature, it can be applied to the atmospheric water content; and if it is denied for water, it must, likewise, be denied for temperature"in that case we don’t have an identified problem!
****************************************************************
1. Water Vapor- the major absorbing gas, Co2--much more minor
2. Water 25-30 times the malor concentratio of C02
3. Absorbent Coefficent is 1-2 bands higher than the coefficent bands for Co2 values at a concentration of 440 ppm.
4. Water accounts for 95% of the radiative absorbence--on average.
5, To the rejoinder that the wide fluctuations in water concentrations make an average impermissible, it is clear that IF AVERAGES CAN BE OBTAINED FOR GLOBAL TEMPERATURE, AVERAGES FOR RADIATIVE ABSORBENCE CAN ALSO BE OBTAINED.
( As the article notes, the CO2 crowd NEEDS average global temperature measurements)
According to the authoritative IPCC, under a reasonable set of assumptions for global economic and population growth, the world should expect to warm by about 2.8c over the next century. Also, according to the IPCC, a global increase in temperature should cause the world to lose about 3 percent of its economic output.
A government program to force emission reductions to avoid some of these potential future losses would impose a cost of its own.
If we can only avoid some of the alleged damage(3% of economic output more than 100 years from now, THE NET BENEFIT OF EMISSIONS REDUCTION WILL LIKELY BE A V E R Y S M A L L FRACTION OF TOTAL ECONOMIC OUTPUT.
William Nordhaus, who heads the widely respected ENVIRONMENTAL-ECONOMICS MODELING GROUP AT YALE, estimates the total expected net benefit of an OPTIMALLY designed, implemented and enforced global system, and the side deals made to put in place even an imperfect system would likely have costs that would dwarf 0.2 percent of global economic consumption.
NOW, this assumes that all countries of the world would agree to some kind of a plan.
Note the next post:
To all who contribute to this thread--
All of this posting will be irrelevant after the Climate conference is over. This conference will be held in December 2009 in Copenhagen. Anyone, even the esteemed president of the United States who presses for ruinous economic constraints which will cause a loss of Millions of Jobs, should be ignored WHEN China and India refuse to go along with the proposals to "reduce" the "alleged" global warming because they are developing countries.
Signals have already been sent by China and India that they will not co-operate unless a huge subsidy is given to them.
http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Minority.Blogs&ContentRecord_id=f80a6386-802a-23ad-40c8-3c63dc2d02cb
As of December 20, 2007, over 400 prominent scientists--not a minority of those scientists who have published their views on global warming--from more than two dozen countries have voiced significant objections to major aspects of the alleged UN IPCC "consensus" on man-made global warming.
Quote:
http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Minority.SenateReport#report
275
NASA consultant and former space shuttle engineer John L. Casey of the Florida based Verity Management Services Inc. (VMS), has found solar influences on the climate dominate. An April 3, 2007 press release from VMS touted "A new theory for how the sun contributes to the heating and especially the cooling of the Earth." The release from Casey, who has conducted satellite launch studies for the U.S. Department of Defense, explained, "Discovered in the process of doing research into a book on natural disasters he is writing, the theory uncovered by Casey has identified two important cycles of the sun. One is between 90 and 100 years long and another 207 years long, that he says are the primary cycles for weather patterns in the US and possibly around the globe. ‘The surprise,' said Casey ‘was the near 100% match between low temperatures and solar activity lows between now and as far back as 900 AD. A correlation this strong is rare and exciting. The data is reliable enough for me to call an end to the current 207 year or ‘Bi-Centennial' cycle with the next solar sunspot period, and with it the start of a new period of declining temperatures.' If the theory's fundamental cycles play out as he predicts, over the next ten years we will be well on our way into a global cool down. He estimates by the peak of the next solar sunspot cycle which he calculates for the year 2012, there should be strong signs the cooler period has started in accordance with the relational cycle theory. He also says signs of a Bi-Centennial cycle changeover are already occurring although modestly. His observations are based on lower sunspot counts and year to year comparisons between 2006 and 2007."
Scientists say Kyoto protocol is 'outdated failure'
By Steve Connor, Science Editor
The international effort to curb man-made emissions of greenhouse gases " as enshrined in the Kyoto protocol " is a miserable failure that needs to be swept away and replaced, according to a new report.
Climate policy after 2012, when the Kyoto agreement comes to an end, will disintegrate unless the principles behind the present treaty are overhauled and a new approach is taken, says the study, published in the journal Nature.
"The Kyoto protocol... as an instrument for achieving emissions reductions, has failed," it says. "It has produced no demonstrable reductions in emissions or even in anticipated emissions growth."
Gwyn Prins, of the London School of Economics, and Steve Rayner, of Oxford University, criticise Kyoto for being the wrong tool for controlling emissions.
Too often, they say, its failure is blamed on the US and Australia for not signing up to it. They argue that the protocol was misconceived from the start because it was based on previous international treaties to protect the ozone layer, to stop acid rain and to control the proliferation of nuclear weapons.
"This borrowing simply failed to accommodate the complexity of the climate-change issue," they say. "Kyoto has failed... also because it has stifled discussion of alternative policy approaches."
@H2O MAN,
Hey squirt....
Since you think you are so smart. Tell us which wavelengths CO2 absorbs.
@genoves,
rebutted..
Why don't you address my rebuttal Possum?
oh.. wait.. you don't have the ability to do so. You will only repost the same thing over and over and never reply to any rebuttal because you can't.
Oh, no, Parados---- No, I will wait until you reply to every single one of my posts that I laid down which you did not answer to. You can start with the last four---You don't know much about debating skills do you?
a. Kyoto Protocol a failure-- You did not respond.
b. Solar Influence on Climate
c> December meeting in Copenhagen re: Climate
d. William Nordaus findings on long term effect of cap and trade.
Oh, no, Parados---- No, I will wait until you reply to every single one of my posts that I laid down which you did not answer to. You can start with the last four---You don't know much about debating skills do you?
a. Kyoto Protocol a failure-- You did not respond.
b. Solar Influence on Climate
c> December meeting in Copenhagen re: Climate
d. William Nordaus findings on long term effect of cap and trade
