which greenhouse gases is the most powerful?
http://royal.okanagan.bc.ca/mpidwirn/atmosphereandclimate/greenhouse.html [Broken]Gases Involved
A number of gases are involved in the greenhouse effect (see Table below). These gases include: carbon dioxide (CO2); methane (CH4); nitrous oxide (N2O); chlorofluorocarbons (CFxClx); and tropospheric ozone (03). Of these gases, the single most important gas is carbon dioxide which accounts for about 55 % of the change in the intensity of the Earth's greenhouse effect. The contributions of the other gases are 25 % for chlorofluorocarbons, 15 % for methane, and 5 % for nitrous oxide. Ozone's contribution to the enhancement of greenhouse effect is still yet to be quantified.
Concentrations of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere are now approaching 360 parts per million (see Figure). Prior to 1700, levels of carbon dioxide were about 280 parts per million. This increase in carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is primarily due to the activities of humans. Beginning in 1700, societal changes brought about by the industrial revolution increased the amount of carbon dioxide entering the atmosphere. The major sources of this gas include: fossil fuel combustion for industry, transportation, space heating, electricity generation and cooking; and vegetation changes in natural prairie, woodland and forested ecosystems. Emissions from fossil fuel combustion account for about 65 % of the extra carbon dioxide now found in our atmosphere. The remaining 35 % comes from the conversion of prairie, woodland and forested ecosystems primarily into agricultural systems. Natural ecosystems can hold 20 to 100 times more carbon dioxide per unit area than agricultural systems.
Artificially created chlorofluorocarbons are the strongest greenhouse gas per molecule. However, low concentrations in the atmosphere reduce their overall importance in the enhancement of the greenhouse effect. Current measurements in the atmosphere indicate that the concentration of these chemicals may soon begin declining because of reduced emissions. Reports of the development of ozone holes over the North and South Poles and a general decline in global stratospheric ozone levels over the last two decades has caused many nations to cutback on their production and use of these chemicals. In 1987, the signing of the Montreal Protocol agreement by 46 nations established an immediate timetable for the global reduction of chlorofluorocarbons production and use. [continued]
http://www.abc.net.au/science/planetslayer/qa/greenhouse_qa2_9_f.htmSince water vapor is the most important heat-trapping greenhouse gas in our atmosphere, some climate forecasts may be overestimating future temperature
Water vapor is really the primary greenhouse gas in the atmosphere and has a greater influence on global warming than carbon dioxide
Water vapour is a bit different. It's the major contributor to the greenhouse effect
As I understand it, he compared the random walk pattern of temperatures with Brownian motions ands Mandelbrots derivations. He concludes that the patterns are stable and that the atmosphere is not containing any mechanism (like positive water vapour feedback) that would suggest instability to increase temperature fluctuations.Global average tropospheric temperature anomaly behaves similarly to
the solar irradiance anomaly. Their daily increments show antipersistency for scales longer than 2 months. The property points at a cumulative negative feedback in the Earth climate system governing the tropospheric variability during the last 22 years. The result emphasizes a dominating role of the solar irradiance variability in variations of the tropospheric temperature and gives no support to the theory of anthropogenic climate change
Which of course could mean that the vast majority of scientists disagree.Andre said:But instead of getting the Nobel Prize for saving the world, Kärners work is just on top of that other water vapour evidence for the ending of the ice ages, in that that same circular archive bin.
Here you assert a conclusion while you admit later that the actual effect is unknown.Andre said:And as usual the greenhouse gas with the strongest effect is neglected, conviently enough, since it hampers the alarmist vision on catastrophic carbondioxide.
In which case it should be fairly easy to google up some discussion about his work. The only argument I hear is that Kärner is a statistician and hence cannot have an opinion about climate. On the other hand climatologists have no idea about uncertainty calculations and stability of temperature series. They may understand even less of his paper than I do. No, Kärners paper is either unknown or forgotten as quickly as possible.Kärners work ...
Which of course could mean that the vast majority of scientists disagree.
Please clarify.Here you assert a conclusion while you admit later that the actual effect is unknown.
I meant that you are self trained in climatology. I refer to physics because I have a BS in physics and can at least gauge arguments in that arena with a little expertise, to a point anyway. I can't guage the arguments nearly as well in this arena.Andre said:I am not a "self trained" physicist. I minored in physics, remember? Main subject system responce, Laplace, Fourier analysis, higher order open and closed loop systems etc
You are still missing my point. I'm not the expert. When we see your position represented in journals like Nature or Science then I'll get a lot more interested. How many papers linked were actually published? This is the best measure of credibility. If you are right then eventually your point of view will prevail. For now it certainly doesn't. In fact the momentum is just the opposite.Would you consider Kärner wrong, for being part of a minority? Or Roy Spencer or John Christy, Wilie Soon, Hans Erren? You have no idea of the battle that is going on in AGW circles. There is a huge discrepancy between the scientific basis of IPCC and the real field evidence. Just choose your weapon Satelite and weather ballons? The hockey stick, Urban heat islands? Sea levels? Albedo changes? I'm ready.
Yes Bystander, I know you also argue against the current consensus; or certain individuals, or the process, or peer review. Again, if you are right then we will know soon enough. Until then I see this as the explanation of last resort. To me it actually sounds more like denial.Bystander said:You two, Andre and Ivan, should consider having Ian and Monique move this to philosophy of science.
I give you a link to NOAA's boundary layer carbon dioxide concentration map, and you "don't care." This is data showing a seasonal increase of carbon dioxide concentration as a function of latitude. You have asserted that you have a degree in physics. Explain the concentration profile as a function of latitude. Ask yourself if the interpretation of the global warming crowd that this seasonal increase is anthropogenic is consistent with the latitudes of northern hemisphere population centers and the fact that carbon dioxide has a perfectly normal diffusion coefficient in air. Got it?Ivan Seeking said:(snip) What I'm asking is where in the core publications these conclusions of yours and Andre's are supported. (snip)
and the "scientific basis":Long-term global temperature trends calculated both from the full land surface network, and from rural stations only, turn out to be very similar (differing by about 0.05 °C per 100 years), despite some differences in regions sampled (e.g., India has few long-term rural stations) (Peterson et al., 1999).
Now let's do some exploration of our own:Clearly, the urban heat island effect is a real climate change in urban areas, but is not representative of larger areas. Extensive tests have shown that the urban heat island effects are no more than about 0.05°C up to 1990 in the global temperature records used in this chapter to depict climate change. Thus we have assumed an uncertainty of zero in global land-surface air temperature in 1900 due to urbanisation, linearly increasing to 0.06°C (two standard deviations 0.12°C) in 2000.
Again the personal attacks? I had hoped for more.Bystander said:Climatology IS physics, Ivan. Don't claim you're a physicist, and are totally ignorant of the physical processes involved in climate study.
"Formal training?" You've studied with Madame Cleo? Kenny Kingston? The Psychic Hotline, perhaps?