Global Warming vs. Terrorism

Lets talk numbers here instead of more of this he said she said and lets start with things we can agree on.

1.) There has been an increase in the earths temperatures (approximately a degree over the last century). Agree?

2.) Greenhouse gases have increased. Everyones favorite villian CO2 has increased from 280 ppmv (volume in parts per million) from before the industiral revolution to 381 ppmv today. source Agree?

3.) Methane, ozone, Nitrous oxide, fluorocarbon, etc. have also seen increased levels in the atmosphere. Agree?


Where we differ, is the effect those gases listed above have on the climate and exactly what mans contribution to that is. Often absent from global warming projections is the largest factor in global warming and the most abundant greenhouse gas in the atmosphere: water vapor (also agreed upon by all scientists "Water Vapor (H2O). Overall, the most
abundant and dominant greenhouse gas in the atmosphere is water vapor. Inventory of US Gas Emissions and Sinks: 1990-2004 (page 51) 22mb"

A chart illustrating the effects of greenhouse gases that does not include water vapor looks something like this:



Looks impressive doesn't it?


When you include water vapor in that chart, it looks something like this:



Manmade contributions are highlighted in green and listed as a numeric percentage.

Suddenly CO2 contributions look a lot less impressive. Manmade contributions look even less impressive. Of course we have to take into consideration the frequencies and percentages that greenhouse gases retain infrared rays.

This link contains information about both: Energy Information Administration

As you can see, water vapor, in its various forms (including clouds) has a heat trapping efficiency of 50-86%. CO2 does have a slightly higher percentage of 88%. However, considering the huge amounts of water vapor when compared to CO2 the actual effect that CO2 has on warming the planet is a miniscule 3.618% compared to water vapors 95.000%.

Al Gore and others, tends to leave this little bit of information out. When water vapor is figured into the equation it makes CO2 contributions look miniscule. Manmade CO2 looks even smaller at 0.117% contribution to global temperature change.

Now there isn't to much we can do about water vapor. Water tends to evaporate... well naturally. Considering the earth is 2/3rds covered in water, there is a lot of water to evaporate. But there is no glamour in making a movie telling us about naturally occuring green house gases that contribute to naturally occuring global warming that keeps our earth temperature liveable instead of the freezing cold it would be without any global warming. And that discussion rarely takes place.

Instead we end up with childish comments like "I hope you've had a vasectomy" and "your ignorance is a danger to us all" and "you attempted to insult those who hold a realistic view of the world and give credence to science indirectly, although you only made yourself appear uneducated and sophomoric" and on and on and on. Of course plainoldme never actually takes the time to explain exactly how I am endagering this planet by driving my 33mpg Honda civic an average of around 7,000 miles per year (well under the national average). Or takes the time to learn that I am a strict recycler, composter and water conserver. Why bother with facts or information when it is a lot more effective following Al's approach of THE SKY IS FALLING THE SKY IS FALLING

Oh and if you global warming alarmists want to get your blood boiling even more... check out the first hour or so of Mark Bellings show yesterday. Good stuff: http://belling.com/cc-common/podcast.html

JP, good work, nice graphs!

Thanks. It sure does make a difference when all the info is taken into consideration, doesn't it?

JP -- may I ask who the source of those graphs is, and how it measures a gas's impact on global warming?

Thomas, Here.

I got the charts from here:
http://www.clearlight.com/~mhieb/WVFossils/greenhouse_data.html

He lists his references on the bottom of the page.

The effects of the gases was in the link I posted from the EIA. Here it is again: http://www.eia.doe.gov/cneaf/alternate/page/environment/appd_d.html

It states the ranges of infrared lights absorbed and their heat retaining efficiency.

More info in the Belling podcasts which I did not reference but is good info none the less (global warming talk begins about half way through the first hour).

Somehow, global warming and its deniers have become akin to the Jesuits and the Reformation.

Thanks. Reading.

Another point we can all agree on. The question is, who is who?

I'm done addressing you until you have anything of substance to address... and I'm not holding my breath.

Ah, jp, you are sad.

More insults, conjecturing, and absence of facts or information... how surprising.

I guess we'll know when the burnings start. :wink:

jp, don't take plainoldme too serious. In another thread concerning her hated corporations, she assured me if she were in charge, she would outlaw Pringles, as in her opinion they are "crap." No respect for competition or freedom of choice, no sir! She would probably appoint a politburo, probably with a tasting committee, to determine what kind of potato chips should be allowed in the stores. I am not joking, jp. This is the mindset you are dealing with here.

Sorry, JP, but I am unhappy with your source.The problem lies in the formula its analysis begins with:


This formula doesn't work when H2O and CO2 absorb at different points of the infrared spectrum, which they do. He might get away with it if he started from 1850 concentrations of each gas and then plotted marginal changes in concentrations against marginal changes in temperatures. I say "might" because I haven't thought it through yet. But instead, he compares the current greenhouse effect with what we would have if there were no greenhouse gasses at all. And for that comparison, his simple weighted average simply doesn't work.

The author makes this serious mistake, one that would never pass peer review at any scientific journal. And because he made the mistake at the beginning of his analysis, the rest of his numbers is basically meaningless.

Thomas,

Isn't that why he used the GWP multiplier? He clearly states that the numbers are "adjusted for heat retention characteristics, relative to CO2."


But even so, the real power is in the volume of said greenhouse gases. Even if water vapor only absorbed a fraction of infrared rays as CO2 or other greenhouse gases, the shear amount of water vapor, when compared to amount of atmospheric CO2, would have a much greater impact than other greenhouse gases.

The numbers from the EIA state that water vapors have a heat retention rate of 50-86% depending on the form of water vapor (fog, clouds, humidity, etc.)
With a rate of 88% (only 2% higher than some forms of water vapor) heat retention of CO2, but much lower concentrations compared to water vapors, it is hard to demonstrate that CO2 is the main cause of global warming. Considering that CO2 occurs naturally and at much higher percentages than manmade CO2, it is even more difficult to blame man and SUVs for global warming.

Only when eliminating the effect/volume of water vapor and naturally occuring CO2 do you get these doomsday statistics that are used to champion global warming. And I haven't seen anyone that refutes the notion that water vapor is the most abundant of green house gases.

Here's an interesting log on gas emissions.

HERE.

Thanks CI. They once again left out water vapor and naturally occuring emissions, but did use the same GWP conversions as the link I posted used.