The Evolution of "Manmade Global Warming"

[CrusaderFrank]

It is late so I will check this in the morning. But to understand you correctly you disagree with:
"Carbon dioxide (CO2) is the primary greenhouse gas emitted through human activities. In 2010, CO2 accounted for about 84% of all U.S. greenhouse gas emissions from human activities."
Carbon Dioxide Emissions | Climate Change | US EPA

Say good-night to Cleo with the solar fan for me.

Correct. CO2 is a miniscule GHG compared to water vapor which is THE dominant GHG.

In the real world, CO2 accounts for about 20% of global warming, which is only "miniscule" when seen through crazy denier cult eyes. Of course, the really important point is that CO2 is a 'forcing' that doesn't just raise temperatures on its own but also causes 'feedbacks', of which water vapor is one, such that the temperature increase created by the increased CO2 levels causes more water to evaporate thus raising the water vapor levels in the atmosphere which increases the greenhouse effect, further raising the temperatures.

Climate myths: CO2 isn't the most important greenhouse gas
New Scientist
by David L Chandler
(excerpts)

Water is a major greenhouse gas too, but its level in the atmosphere depends on temperature. Excess water vapour rains out in days. Excess CO2 accumulates, warming the atmosphere, which raises water vapour levels and causes further warming. Firstly, there is the greenhouse effect, and then there is global warming. The greenhouse effect is caused by certain gases (and clouds) absorbing and re-emitting the infrared radiating from Earth's surface. It currently keeps our planet 20°C to 30°C warmer than it would be otherwise. Global warming is the rise in temperatures caused by an increase in the levels of greenhouse gases due to human activity.

Water vapour is by far the most important contributor to the greenhouse effect. Pinning down its precise contribution is tricky, not least because the absorption spectra of different greenhouse gases overlap. At some of these overlaps, the atmosphere already absorbs 100% of radiation, meaning that adding more greenhouse gases cannot increase absorption at these specific frequencies. For other frequencies, only a small proportion is currently absorbed, so higher levels of greenhouse gases do make a difference. This means that when it comes to the greenhouse effect, two plus two does not equal four. If it were possible to leave the clouds but remove all other water vapour from the atmosphere, only about 40% less infrared of all frequencies would be absorbed. Take away the clouds and all other greenhouses gases, however, and the water vapour alone would still absorb about 60% of the infrared now absorbed.

By contrast, if CO2 alone was removed from the atmosphere, only 15% less infrared would be absorbed. If CO2 was the only greenhouse gas, it would absorb 26% of the infrared currently absorbed by the atmosphere. A simplified summary is that about 50% of the greenhouse effect is due to water vapour, 25% due to clouds, 20% to CO2, with other gases accounting for the remainder. But the overall quantities of these other gases are tiny. Even allowing for the relative strength of the effects, CO2 is still responsible for two-thirds of the additional warming caused by all the greenhouse gases emitted as a result of human activity. Water vapour will play a huge role in the centuries to come, though. Climate models, backed by satellite measurements, suggest that the amount of water vapour in the upper troposphere (about 5 to 10 kilometres up) will double by the end of this century as temperatures rise. This will result in roughly twice as much warming than if water vapour remained constant. Changes in clouds could lead to even greater amplification of the warming or reduce it - there is great uncertainty about this. What is certain is that, in the jargon of climate science, water vapour is a feedback, but not a forcing.

So, it's H2O as the primary GHG dwarfing CO2.

Thank you for that.

"Even allowing for the relative strength of the effects, CO2 is still responsible for two-thirds of the additional warming caused by all the greenhouse gases emitted as a result of human activity" Translation, CO2 is still a rounding error but with tricky sentence structure we can make it appear that its responsible for 2/3 of the warming

 

[flacaltenn]

So tell me Rolling Dunder:

These water vapor feedbacks are they positive or negative? You've become suddenly a smarter warmer. Because the theory has always been that CO2 is the TRIGGER for accelerated climate change, not the entire forcing function. For that -- I applaud your latest post.

But then -- if these feedbacks are underestimated and poorly modeled (which they are) -- why is it that OTHER forcing functions like TSI and orbital dynamics are not similiarily underrated. Because the Earth doesn't know the diff between 1W/m2 forcing function from CO2 and 1W/m2 from TSI does it?

And you might get together with emptystep and figure out HOW the Earth went thru 4 or 5 major glaciations and warmings WITHOUT a huge modulation in CO2.. And a lot of data we have shows that CO2 FOLLOWED temp changes as much as it LED temp changes. Could it be that water vapor feedback plays a LARGER ROLE in driving temp than the models attribute? What about all the excuses of water vapor not being resident long enough in the atmos to make a diff?

I'm in a questioning mood today..

 

[westwall]

Is this a made up graph also?

No, that looks correct. However, take a look at the graph around 8000 years ago. Now realise that the temps 8000 years ago were MUCH warmer than today. All without the added benefit of CO2. So according to your theory how did that happen? According to you, CO2 is THE driver of temps. So how did the planet get so much warmer without the benefit of your all important CO2?

And how do you explain the Vostock ice core data that clearly shows rising CO2 as a RESULT of warming (lagging an increase in warmth by up to 800 years, coincidentally it is 800 years since the MWP, so the CO2 increase we are enjoying now could be a result of that cycle) not as a driver of temps.

 

[Wolfmann]

Frankie Boy, you are such an ignorant dumb fuck.

CO2 has a resident time in the atmosphere of a couple of hundred years. Water vapor, less than ten days.

Add CO2, and you increase the amount of heat that is retained in the atmosphere, more water evaporates, which creates even more heat. But that water is gone in ten days, but the CO2 is still there. Decrease CO2, and there is less heat, less water evaporates. And the atmosphere is cooler. To the point that a couple of times in the geological history of the earth, when extreme weathering removed most of the CO2 present at that time from the atmosphere, the oceans froze over almost to the equator.

CO2 is the primary GHG in our atmosphere. It determines how much heat the atmosphere retains. Water vapor is a feedback, and the level of water vapor is dependent on the level of CO2.

I don't know if any of you did this in college, but in Botany class (Soph level) we actually did an experiment in class what should the effects of CO2 emmissions on vegetation. This experiment was not a one time thing but SOP for that level. Guess what we found?

 

[Old Rocks]

So tell me Rolling Dunder:

These water vapor feedbacks are they positive or negative? You've become suddenly a smarter warmer. Because the theory has always been that CO2 is the TRIGGER for accelerated climate change, not the entire forcing function. For that -- I applaud your latest post.

But then -- if these feedbacks are underestimated and poorly modeled (which they are) -- why is it that OTHER forcing functions like TSI and orbital dynamics are not similiarily underrated. Because the Earth doesn't know the diff between 1W/m2 forcing function from CO2 and 1W/m2 from TSI does it?

And you might get together with emptystep and figure out HOW the Earth went thru 4 or 5 major glaciations and warmings WITHOUT a huge modulation in CO2.. And a lot of data we have shows that CO2 FOLLOWED temp changes as much as it LED temp changes. Could it be that water vapor feedback plays a LARGER ROLE in driving temp than the models attribute? What about all the excuses of water vapor not being resident long enough in the atmos to make a diff?

I'm in a questioning mood today..

OK. I am in an answering mood today.

The variation in CO2 during the Ice Age cycles is 70 ppm to 120 ppm. Today we have already added about 120 ppm. We are very close to 400 ppm of CO2 right now. The prior high was 300 ppm 120,000 years ago. During the ice ages CH4 has never been above about 800 ppb. Today, that level is over 1800 ppb. That increase represents at least the equivelent of 50 ppm of CO2. When 120,000 years ago the CO2 stood at 300 ppm, the sea level was twenty feet higher than it is today. So, even though the sea level increase at present is being measured in mm per year, we can be sure that as the warming accelerates the melting of the ice, that our descendents will have to use scuba to see most of our present seaports.

The point about the resident time of water vapor in the atmosphere is that it is less than ten days. So if you had 99% humidity over the whole globe, in two weeks it would be back to normal. If you removed all but 1% of the water vapor in the atmosphere, in even less time it would be back to normal, because the air would evaporate water from the oceans.

Now, if you removed most of the CO2 from the atmosphere, in a few years there would be sea ice almost to the equator. We know that because it has happened in the past. If you add large amounts of CO2 to the atmosphere, it takes centuries for the level to return to normal. And during those centuries, the earth will warm significantly. We saw that in the PETM, in the PT Extinction Event, and in several other extinction events as well.

Well, why are not TSI changes responsible for the very major affects we are seeing. First, we know very precisely how much the changes in TSI have increased or decreased the energy delivered to the surface of our planet. And the increase in energy is simply not enough to even begin to account for the increase the global temperature that we are seeing. We can also calculate how much heat the GHGs are absorbing. And, according to those calculations, we should be somewhat warmer. However, there are several caveats to these calculations. One is aerosols in the atmosphere. In this case, since Pinatubo was the last major volcanic eruption, the aerosols are from the dirty industries in India and China.

Yet, even though we are a bit cooler than predicted, the effects are far greater than predicted. So, what is going on? As you stated, we need to be looking hard at feedbacks. It was assumed that clouds would be a feedback that would help cool the planet. It this really the case? Clouds also hold in heat at night, and they are concentrated water vapor, the prime natural greenhouse gas. The jury is presently out on the role of clouds in feedback.

Albedo. Snow goes off mountains weeks, and sometimes a month earlier than it used to. In the fall, it is later in the year, by weeks to a month, before the mountains are covered with snow. Glaciers cover far less area than they used to, and at the terminus, many now have lakes that were not there before. Lakes that absorb the sunlight rather than reflect it.
The north polar cap now covers 50% less area than it did only 40 years ago. Once again, a change from 90% reflection to 90% absorption for 50% of the polar cap.

Outgassing of CO2 and CH4 from permafrost and ocean clathrates. As the Arctic has warmed up, there has been a significant increase in outgassing of CO2 and CH4 from the thawing permafrost in North America and Siberia. Last year, one kilometer areas of methane boiling out of the ocean bottom clathrates were observed on the East Siberian Continental Shelf. Now the standard number given for the effectiveness of CH4 as a GHG is given as 20 to 25 times that of CO2 over a period of a century. But at present levels of CH4, half of it is gone in 15 years. It is oxidized to H2O and CO2. However, for the first ten years of that fifteen, it is at least 60 times of an effective GHG as CO2. The average comes from the gradual degradation over time. Now, if we just had one injection of CH4, then it degraded over time, we would get a brief kick in the pants from it, then it would go away pretty much in a humans lifetime. However, the increase to 1800 ppb is a constant one, with more on the way, according to the curve over the past years. So that increase of 1 ppm of CH4 represents at least the equivelent of 60 ppm of CO2.

You are absolutely right that we do not have an adaquete understanding of all the relationships that increasing the amount of GHGs in the atmosphere affects. But rather than believing that is a reason for relief, I find it a reason for concern. The most dangerous thing in the world is to work on a system that you are ignorant of. In my trade that kills and maims more men than any other single factor. Yet, we are running an experiment on the whole of our atmosphere, mostly ignorant of it's end effects. The addition of anthropogenic GHGs is the single biggest event in the recent history of our atmosphere. Possibly not even matched by the eruption of the Yellowstone Caldera.

 

[Old Rocks]

Is this a made up graph also?

No, that looks correct. However, take a look at the graph around 8000 years ago. Now realise that the temps 8000 years ago were MUCH warmer than today. All without the added benefit of CO2. So according to your theory how did that happen? According to you, CO2 is THE driver of temps. So how did the planet get so much warmer without the benefit of your all important CO2?

And how do you explain the Vostock ice core data that clearly shows rising CO2 as a RESULT of warming (lagging an increase in warmth by up to 800 years, coincidentally it is 800 years since the MWP, so the CO2 increase we are enjoying now could be a result of that cycle) not as a driver of temps.

Relative timing of the Storegga submarine slide, methane release, and climate change during the 8.2 ka cold event

Abstract

This paper highlights the similarity in the timing between the 8.2 ka cold event across the North Atlantic region and one of the world’s largest underwater slides, the Storegga submarine landslide that took place on the continental slope west of Norway. We argue on the basis of a reinterpretation of the age of tsunami deposits that date the slide, as well as published ages of sediment directly resting upon the slide surface, that the slide occurred between 8100 and 8200 cal. yr, near the end of the 8.2 ka cold event. Because sediment exposed at the base of the slide contained less methane-gas-hydrate c. 8200 years ago than exists today and because Greenland ice cores do not show an increase in methane at the time of the slide, it is argued here that the slide did not release significant volumes of methane to the atmosphere and did not contribute to any change in temperature during or after the 8.2 ka cold event.

 

[konradv]

Worse yet -- is that water vapor is responsible for both Negative and Positive feedback. If it all went to clouds -- It would be negative and the earth would cool. It becomes a GHG when it is distributed and well mixed. Could this be a major reason why the Climate Sensitivities are REGIONAL and even SEASONAL?

It is in effect in the Arctic this minute actually. The greater sensitivity of the Arctic is not because of CO2 distribution. It's because of water, ice, and water vapor --- isn't it? Of course it is..

The Arctic isn't melting because of a 0.25degC change due to CO2 warming. It's been amplified by water, ice albedo change and vapor cycling. Something that the Arctic has plenty of.. We've probably underestimated the ability of these water based feedbacks for ANY increase in forcing function especially solar irradiation.

Doesn't matter how long water vapor stays in the atmosphere. There is an ample supply being converted every moment by excess surface temp. BTW: CO2 doesn't reside in the atmos for 100 years.. It starts getting cycled as soon as it's released. SOME FRACTION might persist for 100 years, but the bulk is very likely long gone after 20 or 30 yrs.

But that doesn't say much when you have situation where humans put more into the atmosphere in DAYS than all the volcanoes on earth do in a normal year!

 

[CrusaderFrank]

To show you how big a fraud AGW is, I'm going to quote from their Bible, a peer reviewed study on how an additional wisp of CO2 was going to destroy the planet.

"But as a percentage of the total atmosphere, CO2 represents only about .03 percent of the molecules that make up the air, or 355 parts per million. Even so, it has always played a critical role as the greenhouse gas that triggers enough warming to increase the amount of water vapor that evaporates from the oceans into the atmosphere. This extra water vapor, in turn, traps nearly 90 percent of the infrared rays radiated from the surface of the earth back toward space..." -- Al Gore, "Earth in the Balance" page 92

I highlighted the key passage where Gore blames water vapor as the culprit.

H2O =/= CO2

Do you see that?

Water vapor is the culprit that traps the heat, not CO2.

I'm so old I remember when they blamed the "warming" on water vapor