Global Warming Debate: Refuting Common Arguments

[jordanfan20]

At school I am constantly called stupid, or an idiot because of my global warming skepticism.
I do not try to get into debates, but kids who think the have a good understanding of global warming try to anchor me to debate them. Although I try to avoid debate I do eventually get in them, and most of the times it results in them using ad hominem, and straw men arguments or they quote Al Gores movie, (Which for the most part is a weak portrayal of anything)

So I came here to ask if any of you guys could give me a hand in finding some material I could print out to show them if they try to make the same arguments, so here are the common arguments they have made.

1. There is a global consensus that man made global warming will cause a catastrophe if not stopped.

2. One kid says that, if ice land melts the whole world will flood. (I don't buy this since I'm pretty sure Iceland won't melt for 1000s of years, and if he is referring to glaciers sliding, this has been refuted, but it would be a great help if someone could link me to this.

3. Everyone who is a skeptic has been paid by Exon mobile.

4. The polar caps are melting, therefore man made global warming is happening and will lead to the major problems.

5. The mere .5 increase in temperature is enough to cause catastrophe.



These are their best arguments, the rest are just calling people stupid and what not.


Thanks guys.

 

[Skyhunter]

Why are you skeptical of global warming?

 

[jordanfan20]

When the first hokey stick graph was debunked, I began to take an interest in global warming. I read different arguments surrounding many of the graphs and models used to predict temperatures. When I saw them I was shocked by how inaccurate they were and their inability to even predict temperature as of now. I was also amazed at the overwhelming number of scientists signatures confirming global warming that had no connection to climate studies what so ever.

As the years seemed to go by Al Gores movie appeared so incorrect I began to wander why so many people took it literally, and like other things I realized that many people only believed it because they thought all people believed it except the crazy skeptics.

I do not deny global warming or man made global warming I merely believe that global warming is not going to cause enormous catastrophe.

 

[Skyhunter]

1. There is a global consensus that man made global warming will cause a catastrophe if not stopped.

Here is the latest report from MIT

http://globalchange.mit.edu/files/document/MITJPSPGC_Rpt180.pdf

2. One kid says that, if ice land melts the whole world will flood. (I don't buy this since I'm pretty sure Iceland won't melt for 1000s of years, and if he is referring to glaciers sliding, this has been refuted, but it would be a great help if someone could link me to this.

I think you mean Greenland not Iceland. Glaciers are losing mass. Here is a Google Earth of sea level change.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/kgCYhU5ISwI&hl=en&fs=1&"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/kgCYhU5ISwI&hl=en&fs=1&" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>

3. Everyone who is a skeptic has been paid by Exon mobile.

I assume you are not

4. The polar caps are melting, therefore man made global warming is happening and will lead to the major problems.

Melting ice is a good indicator of warming temperatures.

5. The mere .5 increase in temperature is enough to cause catastrophe.

The global temperature has already risen ~.6C and this change in climate is causing stress on ecosystems.

 

[jordanfan20]

The Mit Document is interesting and I'd like to do some more research on it.

but to what you were saying before

3. Yes I haven't been paid by Exon mobile, but what I meant was the prominent speculators.

4. I realize that things melting is the result in rising temperatures, however this video doesn't explain how this is not a natural process but instead a man made process. If you view temperatures of the last thousand years there are times when the Earth is warm and times when the Earth is cold.

5. I don't disagree that .6 increase causes stress on an ecosystem but, I am not aware that it could cause the catastrophes described by many. How do you explain why the models predicted changes above 4 degrees when CO2 was doubled, yet our changes have been merely .6 degrees.

 

[Xnn]

http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar4/wg1/ar4-wg1-ts.pdf

The above link is a technical summary of current scientific understanding regarding global warming. It is clear that average surface temperature have warmed, especially since 1950 and especially in the arctic.

The thing about global warming is that the rate of warming is so gradual that it is barely noticeable. Even over a 20 year period, it amounts to such a small amount (0.3C or 0.5F) that it is less than the typical temperature changes we experience every day.

Wether it is a catastrophe depends on if and where one is living. Canada and Russia actually stand to benefit, while places like Florida and Holland will eventually lose land to flooding. However, this is over hundreds of years or so and most all of us will be long dead before then.

 

[Skyhunter]

Exxon did fund a lot of think tanks and bloggers, but they don't anymore.

The current episode of global warming is due to the enhanced radiative forcing brought on by the rise in greenhouse gases, promarily CO₂, from human activities, primarily the combustion of fossil fuels.

The physics behind AGW, especially CO₂ are well understood. The climate sensitivity is estimated at 2C - 4.5C for a doubling of CO₂.

Here is a good thread on this forum that you might find helpful.

https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=307685

 

[Xnn]

How do you explain why the models predicted changes above 4 degrees when CO2 was doubled, yet our changes have been merely .6 degrees.

CO2 levels have not doubled. They have risen from about 285ppm to 386ppm.
That equates to 0.44 of a doubling (=LOG((386/285),2)-1).
Climate sensitivity over the long term to CO2 doubling is more likely about 3C/doubling.
So, we expect about 1.3C of warmth from the rise in CO2.

However, there has been a increase in cloudiness over the last century from sulfate aerosals
that has resulted in about 0.5C of cooling.

The total temperature increase from 1850-1899 to 2001-2005 is 0.76°C ± 0.19°C.

 

[D H]

1. There is a global consensus that man made global warming will cause a catastrophe if not stopped.

No. There is a consensus that the world has warmed in the last 400 years. That this is caused by man? That consensus is losing steam. That this will cause a catastrophe? No consensus.

That global warming might cause problems for humanity, whether caused by humans or not is a different question. Life is very resilient. It has endured far worse than this global warming. Modern society is a rather fragile compared to life as a whole. What global warming will do to us is a very important question.

2. One kid says that, if ice land melts the whole world will flood. (I don't buy this since I'm pretty sure Iceland won't melt for 1000s of years, and if he is referring to glaciers sliding, this has been refuted, but it would be a great help if someone could link me to this.

That the whole world will flood in the sense of the movie Waterworld is a ridiculous notion. That flooding will affect coastal areas world wide is a realistic notion. It has happened many times in the past, without human help, and it will certainly happen in the far far future, with or without human help. The key issue is how much flooding, and when, is the current global warming going to cause.

BTW, Iceland is not an issue. Greenland is an issue. Antarctica is a very big issue.

3. Everyone who is a skeptic has been paid by Exon mobile.

Assuming for the sake of argument that this is true, so what? Does the fact that a researcher is financed by Exxon-Mobil inherently mean they are lying? This is a logical fallacy called poisoning the well.

More importantly, this assertion is not true. There are plenty of reasoned skeptics who do not work for or consult for "Big Oil", or "Big Anything" for that matter.

4. The polar caps are melting, therefore man made global warming is happening and will lead to the major problems.

That the polar caps are melting is not proof per se that man made global warming is happening. Think of it this way: The polar caps melted a whole lot more 10,000 years ago than they are melting right now. That the polar caps are melting is a sign that the warming that began 10,000 or so years ago is continuing. Is man-made global warming exacerbating this warming? Different issue.

Ice coverage in the Antarctic is currently on the increase. It is the northern ice cap that was getting smaller every year.

5. The mere .5 increase in temperature is enough to cause catastrophe.

Bogus. First off, what catastrophe are your friends talking about? Ask them to be specific. Secondly, the Earth has been a lot warmer than 0.5 degrees warmer than it is now. A 0.5 degree warming is not a catastrophe. A 0.5 degree increase might even be beneficial. Real harm to humanity will require more than a 0.5 degree increase.

Real harm to nature will require even more warming than a paltry 0.5 temperature increase. That said, that there are nearly 7 billion people on the Earth has already done a lot of harm to nature. We have changed the face of the planet. Focusing on the maybe/maybe not global warming problem has, in my opinion, directed attention away from a real problem.

 

[chriscolose]

I smell lots of straw man.

 

[mheslep]

CO2 levels have not doubled. They have risen from about 285ppm to 386ppm...

depending on when one starts counting of course. It's been down to 180ppm several times in the last million years.

 

[Skyhunter]

No. There is a consensus that the world has warmed in the last 400 years. That this is caused by man? That consensus is losing steam. That this will cause a catastrophe? No consensus.

Perhaps the consensus is losing steam at Wattsupwiththat, but in the scientific community, especially the climate science community, the evidence supporting AGW is growing.

http://www.thescientificworld.com/headeradmin/upload/2007.03.91.pdf

That global warming might cause problems for humanity, whether caused by humans or not is a different question. Life is very resilient. It has endured far worse than this global warming. Modern society is a rather fragile compared to life as a whole. What global warming will do to us is a very important question.

Life is resilient true. But it takes millions of years after a major extinction event before it rebounds.

Assuming for the sake of argument that this is true, so what? Does the fact that a researcher is financed by Exxon-Mobil inherently mean they are lying? This is a logical fallacy called poisoning the well.

Actually a more accurate characterization would be a red herring fallacy known as an "[URL to motive.
[/URL]

That the polar caps are melting is not proof per se that man made global warming is happening. Think of it this way: The polar caps melted a whole lot more 10,000 years ago than they are melting right now. That the polar caps are melting is a sign that the warming that began 10,000 or so years ago is continuing. Is man-made global warming exacerbating this warming? Different issue.

The warming that began at the beginning of the Holocene peaked about 7000 - 8000 years ago and the Earth has been cooling until the recent Anthropocene epoch.

The Arctic, until recently had been cooling for at least the last 2000 years.

https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=335800

Ice coverage in the Antarctic is currently on the increase. It is the northern ice cap that was getting smaller every year.

Sea ice extent has increased slightly in the Antarctic, but overall ice mass on the continent is decreasing. The Arctic sea ice extent has recovered slightly since the 2007 minimum, but thicker perennial ice is still in decline.

 

[Skyhunter]

depending on when one starts counting of course. It's been down to 180ppm several times in the last million years.

And those doublings resulted in more than 3C, but were associated with changes in insolation and albedo flip.

 

[mheslep]

And those doublings resulted in more than 3C, but were associated with changes in insolation and albedo flip...

I'm not sure what you mean here when you say 'resulted in...' followed by 'but were associated with...'

 

[Andre]

Maybe -from seeing all symtoms in this thread- that global warming is much more interesting as a socialogical case than as climatological case. Of course it's also a splendid example of the prevailance of fallacies over science.

Meanwhile, I wonder what the evidence is, that the difference between the current average temperature and any average temperature from the past, is mainly caused by the increase of concentrations of radiative gasses gasses in the atmosphere.

 

[Vals509]

I feel that whether global warming is true or not, there is still a necessity for us to change our lifestyles. Let's face it, everyone knows that coal and oil are not unlimited and when these resources do run out, we are in a lot of trouble.
It is because of this that we must see that the concept of global warming is like a signal that our current life is not practical and should be changed before its too late. Even if more coal and oil is found, we need to see the wider implications such as petrodictatorship and general public health in particulalry polluted places like beijing.
This is why we should not underestimate the power of global warming true or not.

 

[Skyhunter]

I'm not sure what you mean here when you say 'resulted in...' followed by 'but were associated with...'

What I was saying is that a doubling resulted in more than 3C rise in temperature, closer to 8C. Not all of that rise however was from CO₂.

 

[Skyhunter]

Meanwhile, I wonder what the evidence is, that the difference between the current average temperature and any average temperature from the past, is mainly caused by the increase of concentrations of radiative gasses gasses in the atmosphere.

Of course you do.

Of course it's also a splendid example of the prevailance of fallacies over science.

 

[Andre]

Then why don't you tell it finally?

 

[Skyhunter]

Then why don't you tell it finally?

John Tyndall already did. Modern physics has confirmed it. You simply refuse to believe it in your quest for a black swan.

 

[Andre]

so how did he proof it and what has modern science confirmed?

I still don't see that there is positive proof for the difference between the current average temperature and any average temperature from the past, to be caused mainly by the increase of concentrations of radiative gasses gasses in the atmosphere.

 

[z0rn dawg]

I feel that whether global warming is true or not, there is still a necessity for us to change our lifestyles. Let's face it, everyone knows that coal and oil are not unlimited and when these resources do run out, we are in a lot of trouble.
It is because of this that we must see that the concept of global warming is like a signal that our current life is not practical and should be changed before its too late. Even if more coal and oil is found, we need to see the wider implications such as petrodictatorship and general public health in particulalry polluted places like beijing.
This is why we should not underestimate the power of global warming true or not.

New estimates have been coming out that show there's more oil than once thought. We're developing the technologies to actually get this oil. OPEC can just say there's xxxx oil left when there's actually yyyy oil left. There's an interview with an OPEC representative on YouTube that I'm trying to find.

Here's my questions about global warming:
1. What's the proof that anthropogenic release of CO2 is causing global warming? Is it just association as causation? Graphs that I've seen show that temperature rises before CO2, which leads me to believe that something besides CO2 initially causes global warming. And according to the IPCC's 2001 report, over 97% of CO2 in the atmosphere is natural and not from man.
2. What are Al Gore's qualifications? Or any politician really? Al Gore has a degree in political science IIRC. He's not an expert in natural science, so why is he considered an authority? Plus he got sued for fraud. And his "documentary" had at least 11 falacies according to the UK. His "documentary" was filled with lies. I've heard many politicians talk about global warming/climate change. Most of them talk out of their rear ends.
3. Why doesn't the IPCC (or Al Gore) cite water vapor as a greenhouse gas? I'm pretty sure it is and there's a lot of it. Something like 95% of all greenhouse gas is water vapor. That's not to say that 95% of the greenhouse effect is attributed to water vapor, but if you take water vapor out of the equation, CO2 looks like a huge problem.

 

[Xnn]

3. Why doesn't the IPCC (or Al Gore) cite water vapor as a greenhouse gas? I'm pretty sure it is and there's a lot of it. Something like 95% of all greenhouse gas is water vapor. That's not to say that 95% of the greenhouse effect is attributed to water vapor, but if you take water vapor out of the equation, CO2 looks like a huge problem.

I'm not going to bother discussing Al Gore's qualifications for obvious reasons.

Anyhow, Earth is covered with water and the amount of water vapor is a function of other factors. So, it'd be silly to cite water vapor as a climate driver; similar to wondering about Al Gore.

The amount of water vapor in the atmosphere is primarily a function of CO2 and CH4 levels.
Without CO2 or CH4, there'd be almost no water vapor in the atmosphere.

 

[Andre]

The amount of water vapor in the atmosphere is primarily a function of CO2 and CH4 levels.
Without CO2 or CH4, there'd be almost no water vapor in the atmosphere.

So how about an empirical test?

Take a chamber with water on the bottom and above it ,one atmosphere of inert gas and one chamber with any radiative gas, CO2 whatever.

Have both chambers heated with an insolation flux of 1367/pi , that's roughly the average solar energy at the equator. Since there was no water vapor and hence no clouds, the albedo of those chambers could be about the same as the moon, say 12% so we have about 383 w/m2left that is absorpted and that heats the chambers to a temp of 287 Kelvin. At that average temperature (14C) water can evaporate, without help of CO2, to attain http://www.humidity-calculator.com/index.php .

So how much water vapor would both chambers contain after stabilisation? Why would the chamber without radiative gasses hold no water vapor?

And what if the CO2 less air of that hypothetical Earth is getting to several gram/m3 at the equator, would that not start greenhouse effect and create positive feedback?

Also the residence time of water vapor in the atmosphere is very short, which is the reason why it is thought that it is a feedback of CO2. But water evaporates all the time and the vapor that disappears by condensation, clouds and precipitation, is simply replaced with new water vapor especially in the equator, sustaining it's own greenhouse effect, regardless of the residence time.

 

[mheslep]

...Anyhow, Earth is covered with water and the amount of water vapor is a function of other factors. So, it'd be silly to cite water vapor as a climate driver; ...

Er not really. If I understand correctly, the reason why water vapor is not germane to forcings is that near the ground water vapor completely dominates and shuts off nearly all long wave outward radiation, and thus near the ground the only outward bound thermal paths are conduction/convection. Thus near the ground more or less CO2 doesn't matter. Most of the potential for radiative change is at the higher altitudes where water vapor is not, and CO2 is.

The amount of water vapor in the atmosphere is primarily a function of CO2 and CH4 levels.
Without CO2 or CH4, there'd be almost no water vapor in the atmosphere.

That's not a useful statement. With out a great many factors there'd be no water vapor in the atmosphere, and yes w/ no greenhouse effect at all the water would nearly all be ice. Obviously solar insolation is the primary driver. I think you want something like "for human caused changes to water vapor in the atmosphere, increases to CO2 are the primary agent" - and I don't know if even that is true.

 

[Skyhunter]

so how did he proof it and what has modern science confirmed?

I still don't see that there is positive proof for the difference between the current average temperature and any average temperature from the past, to be caused mainly by the increase of concentrations of radiative gasses gasses in the atmosphere.

And there is nothing anyone can say to change your mind. You seem to ignore fact that certain gasses are transparent to SW radiation (incoming) and opaque to LW radiation (outgoing) by itself is proof that adding more of these gasses will result in higher temperatures at the surface. The only question is how much. Denial of the basic physics is unscientific.

 

[Andre]

The denial part is a strawman. Nobody is denying any basic physics. It's more that one should consider all of the applicable physics and not only the absorption of LW transmission, simply because absorption also means retransmission.

But a principle is not proof. There are many factors considered to be forcing the climate or not. How is it proved that LW absorbtion and retransmission is the most important one?

 

[Skyhunter]

Here's my questions about global warming:
1. What's the proof that anthropogenic release of CO2 is causing global warming? Is it just association as causation? Graphs that I've seen show that temperature rises before CO2, which leads me to believe that something besides CO2 initially causes global warming. And according to the IPCC's 2001 report, over 97% of CO2 in the atmosphere is natural and not from man.

Isotopic fractionation of the carbon atom is proof that the buildup of CO₂ in the atmosphere is from anthropogenic sources, which is to be expected since humans are adding an additional 7-8 gigatons of carbon a year to the atmosphere.

If the graphs you are referring to are from the Antarctic ice cores, then yes, the initial forcing that terminates a glacial epoch is from orbital forcings. However, those are slight forcings that cannot account for the temperature differential from glacial to interglacial epochs. CO₂ and CH₄ are feedbacks in those cases. There are other periods in Earth's history however when CO₂ leads. The current Anthropocene is one of those epochs. The present day global warming is being driven by enhanced radiative forcing due to atmosphere becoming optically thicker from GHG.

Human emissions are ~5% of the natural carbon cycle. The cycle is generally in equilibrium, humans are adding more to the positive side of the equilibrium. Natural sinks can only take up about half of these emissions, while the rest builds up in the atmosphere. Additionally, the ocean is becoming more acidic due to the higher rate of absorption.

2. What are Al Gore's qualifications? Or any politician really? Al Gore has a degree in political science IIRC. He's not an expert in natural science, so why is he considered an authority? Plus he got sued for fraud. And his "documentary" had at least 11 falacies according to the UK. His "documentary" was filled with lies. I've heard many politicians talk about global warming/climate change. Most of them talk out of their rear ends.

What are your qualifications? What orifice are you talking out of?

3. Why doesn't the IPCC (or Al Gore) cite water vapor as a greenhouse gas? I'm pretty sure it is and there's a lot of it. Something like 95% of all greenhouse gas is water vapor. That's not to say that 95% of the greenhouse effect is attributed to water vapor, but if you take water vapor out of the equation, CO2 looks like a huge problem.

The IPCC does cite water vapor as a GHG.

Water vapor accounts for ~66% of the greenhouse effect, Clouds and water vapor ~85%, and CO₂ ~12%. Water vapor is not a forcing, it is a feedback since specific humidity is dependent on atmospheric temperature and a source for evaporation. The warmer the Earth is the more water vapor that is present in the atmosphere.

 

[Skyhunter]

The denial part is a strawman. Nobody is denying any basic physics. It's more that one should consider all of the applicable physics and not only the absorption of LW transmission, simply because absorption also means retransmission.

But a principle is not proof. There are many factors considered to be forcing the climate or not. How is it proved that LW absorbtion and retransmission is the most important one?

Andre we have been over this time and time again.

The Earth's blackbody temperature is 255K, the surface is 288K.

If GHG are not the mechanism driving the 33K temperature differential, (as every climatologist believes) then what do you propose is the mechanism?

 

[jordanfan20]

http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=7320Most of this stuff is way over my head since I am only a high school student, but from what I've read Steve Mcentire does a pretty amazing job debating climatologist and presenting the side of skeptics. I'm not sure if this is the correct hyper link or not but he released a paper that was pretty incredible.

 

[Skyhunter]

http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=7320


Most of this stuff is way over my head since I am only a high school student, but from what I've read Steve Mcentire does a pretty amazing job debating climatologist and presenting the side of skeptics. I'm not sure if this is the correct hyper link or not but he released a paper that was pretty incredible.

McIntyre is not a climatologist, and his website is not a credible source for this forum.

For the most part he is just a nay sayer, attacking the work of others and offering very little to the scientific body of knowledge.

 

[Xnn]

Why would the chamber without radiative gasses hold no water vapor?

Without greenhouse gases like CO2 and CH4, water freezes into ice or snow and albedo goes up. So evaporation ceases, water vapor levels drop and it cools off.

The key is that water can exist in more than 1 state and it's albedo is much higher when it cools.

 

[Xnn]

If I understand correctly, the reason why water vapor is not germane to forcings is that near the ground water vapor completely dominates and shuts off nearly all long wave outward radiation, and thus near the ground the only outward bound thermal paths are conduction/convection. Thus near the ground more or less CO2 doesn't matter.

It's true that water vapor dominates at lower elevations. However, CO2 does influence temperatures at lower elevations by increasing the total height of the active atmosphere.

I think you want something like "for human caused changes to water vapor in the atmosphere, increases to CO2 are the primary agent" - and I don't know if even that is true.

A 100,000 years ago, when humans had negligible impact, the amount of water vapor in the atmosphere was still linked to the levels of CO2 and CH4. The physics of the relationship between water and greenhouse gases has not changed.

 

[mheslep]

It's true that water vapor dominates at lower elevations. However, CO2 does influence temperatures at lower elevations by increasing the total height of the active atmosphere.

If that means that the CO2 blocked long wave in the upper atmosphere radiates/conducts back down to the lower elevations - yes.

A 100,000 years ago, when humans had negligible impact, the amount of water vapor in the atmosphere was still linked to the levels of CO2 and CH4. The physics of the relationship between water and greenhouse gases has not changed.

Perhaps. I was taking issue with the use of "the atmosphere is primarily a function of ", which has now changed to a more reasonable "linked".

 

[Andre]

Without greenhouse gases like CO2 and CH4, water freezes into ice or snow and albedo goes up. So evaporation ceases, water vapor levels drop and it cools off.

The key is that water can exist in more than 1 state and it's albedo is much higher when it cools.

Maybe the problem is that the whole hypothetical Earth is treated as been in it's average temperature - radiation state of the black body assumption. However a large part of the Earth receives enough solar radiation all the time to have an average temperature well above freezing, generating it's own water vapor feedback effect without help of other greenhouse gasses.

 

[Skyhunter]

Maybe the problem is that the whole hypothetical Earth is treated as been in it's average temperature - radiation state of the black body assumption. However a large part of the Earth receives enough solar radiation all the time to have an average temperature well above freezing, generating it's own water vapor feedback effect without help of other greenhouse gasses.

Where is your evidence?

255K is -18.15C. Water freezes at 0C.

And you are proposing that water vapor is the only GHG? How do you explain the snowball Earth events? Or do you deny them as well? How do you explain the glacial interglacial epochs?

The truth is that neither current climate nor paleo climate can be explained without the contribution from the known radiative forcing of the various GHG, all of them, not just the convenient ones to support your denial.


Here is the absorption spectrum.

http://www.te-software.co.nz/blog/auer_files/image001.gif

You throw out a statistical analysis that demonstrates antipersistent process in climate sensitivity as a refutation of WV and albedo feedbacks, without any explanation of a physical mechanism to support that conclusion. When the simple fact is that the primary feedback is thermal emission, and yes it is negative. Therefore Karner's paper does nothing more than prove the obvious, and says nothing about climate sensitivity in regards to absolute humidity or albedo.

And then you have the gall to insinuate that others are being unscientific.

 

[Skyhunter]

It's true that water vapor dominates at lower elevations. However, CO2 does influence temperatures at lower elevations by increasing the total height of the active atmosphere.

If you look at the absorption spectrum for water vapor you will notice that CO₂ fills in a gap in the water vapor spectrum around 15 microns. Therefore CO₂ does have an effect at lower elevations.

 

[Andre]

Where is your evidence?

255K is -18.15C. Water freezes at 0C.

That's again once more the average, while I have shown twice here that you cannot treath the Earth for it's average. What is the black body temperature on the equator? Is that 255K too? Maybe peek here.

Therefore Karner's paper does nothing more than prove the obvious, and says nothing about climate sensitivity in regards to absolute humidity or albedo.

No Karner shows that the total measured output of all the series that he investigated show non-persistency. Total means for me, including all feedbacks, none excluded. And there is no need to explain what you measure. It doesn't change what you measure.

And then you have the gall to insinuate that others are being unscientific.

That's a strawman I never said that. Others may perhaps judge in which posts here the fallacies dominate the science, for instance:

And you are proposing that water vapor is the only GHG?

Strawman,

How do you explain the snowball Earth events? Or do you deny them as well? How do you explain the glacial interglacial epochs?

three times red herring in a nice slippery slope construction but still totally irrelevant

 

[Skyhunter]

Andre,

Your water vapor feedback hypothesis and experiment in a closed chamber is plain silly. The Earth is not a test tube and the little water vapor that might ablate from the equator would be quickly dissipated and have a negligible effect on LW absorption. Any heating that occurred during the day would be quickly lost overnight.

Yes Karner did analyze the total output and found that negative feedbacks dominate according to his analysis. But as I pointed out, thermal emission is the dominant feedback, and it is negative. Therefore he simply affirmed the obvious and leaped to an illogical conclusion.

You definitely insinuated in this thread and others that those who disagree with your fringe hypothesis are resorting to fallacies over science. Then you go on to wrongly characterize my questions as fallacies.

Why do you not answer the questions?

Because you cannot. You cannot explain current climate, or paleoclimate without greenhouse gasses. Instead you declare the question a fallacy which is itself an ad hominem fallacy.

 

[z0rn dawg]

Isotopic fractionation of the carbon atom is proof that the buildup of CO₂ in the atmosphere is from anthropogenic sources, which is to be expected since humans are adding an additional 7-8 gigatons of carbon a year to the atmosphere.

Over 97% (according to the IPCC's 2001 report) of CO₂ in the atmosphere is from natural sources. I'm not arguing that anthropogenic release of carbon dioxide is in the atmosphere; it just seems so insignificant that making a decision based on that may not be the best course of action.

Human emissions are ~5% of the natural carbon cycle. The cycle is generally in equilibrium, humans are adding more to the positive side of the equilibrium. Natural sinks can only take up about half of these emissions, while the rest builds up in the atmosphere. Additionally, the ocean is becoming more acidic due to the higher rate of absorption.

IPCC's 2001 report stated that upwards of 98% of CO₂ is absorbed, nowhere near the 50% you cited. I'd suspect it's a bit lower now, but not 48% lower.

What are your qualifications? What orifice are you talking out of?

My whole point is that Al Gore isn't an expert. From what I've read (and from what he's said), I really don't think this guy should be considered an "authority" on the topic. Obviously, not everyone thinks he's an expert, but too many Americans take what he says as fact. The fact is he lied in his "documentary", was sued by 30,000 scientists, and was found guilty of fraud in the UK. He's been torn apart in Congress and all he's done IMO is spread propaganda. Even IPCC scientists think he's lying. As for me, I'm a natural science major (I can go bio, chem, or biochem...haven't officially declared yet). I've spoken to post-baccs and doctors about it. I've studied both sides of the research and made my decisions based on that. I think Gore has his own agenda, and it's dangerous what he's doing.

Water vapor accounts for ~66% of the greenhouse effect, Clouds and water vapor ~85%, and CO₂ ~12%. Water vapor is not a forcing, it is a feedback since specific humidity is dependent on atmospheric temperature and a source for evaporation. The warmer the Earth is the more water vapor that is present in the atmosphere.

So is carbon dioxide. As Earth's temperatures rise, the solubility for gas in the ocean decreases and they release CO₂ in the atmosphere. So, they both are dependent on the temperature.

From what I've read, many scientists don't believe that CO₂ is the major cause of global warming.

 

[Skyhunter]

Over 97% (according to the IPCC's 2001 report) of CO₂ in the atmosphere is from natural sources. I'm not arguing that anthropogenic release of carbon dioxide is in the atmosphere; it just seems so insignificant that making a decision based on that may not be the best course of action.

Could you provide a citation to the page where this is stated?

IPCC's 2001 report stated that upwards of 98% of CO₂ is absorbed, nowhere near the 50% you cited. I'd suspect it's a bit lower now, but not 48% lower.

I said ~5% not 50.

Here is the carbon cycle.

http://worldenergyblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/09/carbon_cycle_NASA.jpg

My whole point is that Al Gore isn't an expert. From what I've read (and from what he's said), I really don't think this guy should be considered an "authority" on the topic. Obviously, not everyone thinks he's an expert, but too many Americans take what he says as fact. The fact is he lied in his "documentary", was sued by 30,000 scientists, and was found guilty of fraud in the UK. He's been torn apart in Congress and all he's done IMO is spread propaganda. Even IPCC scientists think he's lying. As for me, I'm a natural science major (I can go bio, chem, or biochem...haven't officially declared yet). I've spoken to post-baccs and doctors about it. I've studied both sides of the research and made my decisions based on that. I think Gore has his own agenda, and it's dangerous what he's doing.

I get your point. You don't like Al Gore or his politics. That has absolutely no bearing on his film. And BTW he was not sued by 30,000 scientists. He was threatened with a lawsuit by deniers, but that was more a publicity stunt on their part that never amounted to actual court action. He was not found guilty of fraud in the UK. His film is still being shown to students in the UK with caveats, so that students don't confuse advocacy with science.

It is against forum rules to make false assertions. If you have any evidence to prove otherwise please link it.

So is carbon dioxide. As Earth's temperatures rise, the solubility for gas in the ocean decreases and they release CO₂ in the atmosphere. So, they both are dependent on the temperature.

Whether CO₂ is from ocean off gassing or human emissions is irrelevant to it's radiative properties in the atmosphere.

From what I've read, many scientists don't believe that CO₂ is the major cause of global warming.

Then I suggest you broaden your list of literary selections.

 

[Andre]

This thread is going in circles and is pointless when peer reviewed articles by experts can simply be declared void here without any substantiation.

 

[Skyhunter]

This thread is going in circles and is pointless when peer reviewed articles by experts can simply be declared void here without any substantiation.

What are you talking about?

I agreed with Karner, antipersistency in climate sensitivity does support negative feedbacks being dominant.

I disagree with his conclusion that his analysis changes the accepted 2C - 4.5C per doubling of CO₂.

Thermal emission is the dominant feedback and it is negative. The positive feedbacks are not going to overcome it.

 

[Xnn]

Over 97% (according to the IPCC's 2001 report) of CO₂ in the atmosphere is from natural sources. I'm not arguing that anthropogenic release of carbon dioxide is in the atmosphere; it just seems so insignificant that making a decision based on that may not be the best course of action.

IPCC's 2001 report stated that upwards of 98% of CO₂ is absorbed, nowhere near the 50% you cited.

I doubt these claims regarding the 2001 IPCC report are true.
Besides, the most current IPCC report is 2007.
Why reference and out of date version?

Please provide a link and reference to the page number on which it appears.

 

[Xnn]

If you look at the absorption spectrum for water vapor you will notice that CO₂ fills in a gap in the water vapor spectrum around 15 microns. Therefore CO₂ does have an effect at lower elevations.

Thanks Skyhunter;

I appreciate your post and corrections!

 

[mheslep]

If you look at the absorption spectrum for water vapor you will notice that CO₂ fills in a gap in the water vapor spectrum around 15 microns. Therefore CO₂ does have an effect at lower elevations.

Good point, though I think you mean from 1 to 5 microns? Of the predicted total heat gain from CO2, I wonder how much of it is attributed to action at various elevations?

 

[Xnn]

This thread is going in circles and is pointless when peer reviewed articles by experts can simply be declared void here without any substantiation.

What peer reviewed articles are you referring to?

Anyhow, getting back to climate models.

Consider 2 planets covered with ice at the same distance as the Earth is from the sun.
They are frozen solid.
The albedo is so great that there is not enough warmth to melt the ice.
Some ice sublimates during the day, but the water vapor in the atmosphere is very low and condenses every night.

Planet A has a atmosphere of Nitrogen and Oxygen.
Planet B has a similar atmosphere, but we are allowed to vary the level of CO2.

Which planet will be warmer?

Most people realize that Earth was at one time much warmer than it is now.
It was also much colder during the ice ages.
In each extreme case, the level of CO2 was either lower or higher than it is now.

Proof positive!

 

[Skyhunter]

Good point, though I think you mean from 1 to 5 microns?

There is little emission at the 1-5 micron wavelength.

http://www.te-software.co.nz/blog/auer_files/image001.gif

Notice the arrow on the right. It is pointing at peak Earth emission and where water vapor drops off precipitously. You'll note that the CO₂ absorption band peaks right where water vapor begins to drop. There is some overlap, but without CO₂ that portion of the spectrum would not be saturated.

Of the predicted total heat gain from CO2, I wonder how much of it is attributed to action at various elevations?

That is computed by a line by line analysis of the radiation code at different pressures.

 

[mheslep]

There is little emission at the 1-5 micron wavelength..

Yes, sorry I was clumsy there looking back and forth\ between pages.

 

[Vals509]

New estimates have been coming out that show there's more oil than once thought. We're developing the technologies to actually get this oil. OPEC can just say there's xxxx oil left when there's actually yyyy oil left.

Even if that is true, there is still the fact that oil is not something that is produced over a short time. In addition to this, human populations are exploding and also demand for oil is bound increase greatly. Even if there is 'yyyy' oil left, eventually it WILL GET OVER and as i have mentioned before, we will be in great trouble.