Hansen says CO2 is NOT the prime driver in this paper

[code1211]

So in 9 days there'll be no water vapor in the atmosphere? What does your moronic "Water vapor remains in the atmosphere for less than ten days" mean? That water vapor is not a factor in Earth climate because Water vapor remains in the atmosphere for less than ten days?

It sounded as if the water vapor works in shifts and does 10 days on, at which time it clocks out and exits the atmosphere and the next shift comes on cold and uses the next 10 days to warm up at which time it clocks out for the next "cold" shift to clock in.

Also that the CO2 is a member of a union that doesn't allow it to work very hard.

 

[saveliberty]

CO2 is now the primary driver because we have dealt with non-CO2 GHG emissions by reducing them. There's absolutely nothing that is inconsistent with his view now and then.

Nope water vapor is a more dominant driver and a bigger quantity in the atmosphere. Feel free to eliminate water vapor. lol

Really? How much more water vapour is there in the atmosphere now as opposed to 100 years ago?

Well if all the glaciers are melting, quite a bit dumbass.

 

[bobgnote]

CodePunk noticed glaciers are melting! I can't find evident humidity trends. Somebody with good DSL go get that, for us, since Code Punk won't hit search, and my reception is bad, on Sunday.

Boundary layer humidity reconstruction for a semiarid location from tree ring ce

July-September boundary layer humidity has been reconstructed from the &#948;18O of cellulose in tree rings of Pinus arizonica growing at an elevation of 2300 m in the Santa Catalina Mountains north of Tucson, Arizona. The annual occurrence of morphological features in the tree rings, often called false rings, allowed accurate subdivision of the tree rings into premonsoon and monsoon growth. Highly significant correlations were found among the stable oxygen isotope time series of the wood produced during the North American Monsoon and 1953-2000 July-September average specific humidity (P < 0.0001) and relative humidity (P < 0.0001) derived from radiosonde data. The correlation coefficients were significant against data from both the Tucson surface (788 m; approximately 922 hPa) and 850 hPa pressure levels, suggesting that the &#948;18O time series can be interpreted as a proxy for mean seasonal boundary layer humidity. Twentieth century July-September reconstructions of specific humidity and relative humidity are presented. There are no long-term trends in the twentieth century reconstructions of boundary layer humidity at this site.

We should be able, to get some kind of humidity graph. When my pages load, I'll go find it.

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

Nope water vapor is a more dominant driver and a bigger quantity in the atmosphere. Feel free to eliminate water vapor. lol

Really? How much more water vapour is there in the atmosphere now as opposed to 100 years ago?

Well if all the glaciers are melting, quite a bit dumbass.

How much more water vapour is there in the atmosphere now as opposed to 100 years ago? Can you use numbers or is that too difficult for your genius?

 

[saveliberty]

2010 was the wettest year on record globally according to the US National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) with Australia experiencing it's wettest September on record, and the wettest year for Queensland with annual rainfall double the average.

2010 wettest year on record globally, and the wettest for Queensland | Climate Citizen

Rain falls from the atmosphere right?

 

[Trakar]

[
Competely irrelevent to what was being discussed,...again. Try actually reading the references and information presented. I'm sorry, I don't know of any papers filled with big brightly colored pictures that explain this in a way you can easily grasp.

You said:

.....whereas the nominal and unqualified atmospheric half-life (residence) for CO2 is measured in centuries.

Perhaps you tell so many lies when discussing climate change that you are unable to remember exactly what you said. As you can clearly see, you claimed that the residence time of atmospheric CO2 is measured in centuries.

Perhaps you are just unaccustomed to using language in a precise and contextually significant manner. As you can clearly see from the references I listed, the atmospheric half-life (residence) time of CO2 (in the context of the anthropogenic percentage increases we were/are discussing) is measured in centuries. If you are still having a difficult time understanding what this means please ask rather than embarassing yourself with further examples of your own incompetencies.

As you can see from the multiple peer reviewed studies, you are clearly wrong and unsuprisingly, you aren't mature enough to even admit that you were wrong. Instead, you simply add another dishonest statement on top of your eroneous claim.

The references others listed, for the most part, are talking about an entirely different subject. They are discussing the modelled averaged residency of a single molecule of CO2 from the time it is emitted until the time it leaves the atmosphere. I am talking about the half-life (length of time a volume/mass represented by a given ratio of CO2 takes to be drawn down by natural processes to one half of its current ratio - residence) of atmospheric CO2 levels.

The primary difference is that the same molecule enters and leaves the atmosphere constantly until it is sequestered out of the active carbon cycle of our environment (if we focus on just the carbon, this is an enhancement of process understanding). Due primarily to the length of oceanic overturn circulation it can take tens of thousands of years for oceans and the atmosphere to fully equilibrate with regards to CO2 concentrations. The only longterm sequestration systems that move significant volumes of CO2 (carbon) out of the atmosphere and into long-term reservoirs are in the processes of the formation of stable carbonate minerals or sedimentation processes that physically isolate large volumes of carbonaceous compounds created from CO2.

While the average modelled residence time of a single CO2 molecule emitted into the atmosphere may only be a calculated average period of years before it is absorbed into some other solution, once carbon from a sequestered reservoir source is introduced to the active carbon cycle of our planet it will, conservatively, take centuries(/millenia - largely dependent upon overall volume of Carbon) before natural processes re-sequester half of that carbon back into long-term reservoirs.

 

[wirebender]

. I am talking about the half-life (length of time a volume/mass represented by a given ratio of CO2 takes to be drawn down by natural processes to one half of its current ratio - residence) of atmospheric CO2 levels.

I know what you are talking about and you are still wrong. You are spewing IPCC propaganda not based on anything like observable fact.

 

[Old Rocks]

Really? How much more water vapour is there in the atmosphere now as opposed to 100 years ago?

Well if all the glaciers are melting, quite a bit dumbass.

How much more water vapour is there in the atmosphere now as opposed to 100 years ago? Can you use numbers or is that too difficult for your genius?

Here is an article on the process of GHGs creating water vapor feedback. Of course, it is from those dummies at NASA. You know, giggle, snigger, chuckle, SCIENTISTS.

NASA - Water Vapor Confirmed as Major Player in Climate Change

Water Vapor Confirmed as Major Player in Climate Change11.17.08 The distribution of atmospheric water vapor, a significant greenhouse gas, varies across the globe. During the summer and fall of 2005, this visualization shows that most vapor collects at tropical latitudes, particularly over south Asia, where monsoon thunderstorms swept the gas some 2 miles above the land.

Water vapor is known to be Earth’s most abundant greenhouse gas, but the extent of its contribution to global warming has been debated. Using recent NASA satellite data, researchers have estimated more precisely than ever the heat-trapping effect of water in the air, validating the role of the gas as a critical component of climate change.

Andrew Dessler and colleagues from Texas A&M University in College Station confirmed that the heat-amplifying effect of water vapor is potent enough to double the climate warming caused by increased levels of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere.

With new observations, the scientists confirmed experimentally what existing climate models had anticipated theoretically. The research team used novel data from the Atmospheric Infrared Sounder (AIRS) on NASA’s Aqua satellite to measure precisely the humidity throughout the lowest 10 miles of the atmosphere. That information was combined with global observations of shifts in temperature, allowing researchers to build a comprehensive picture of the interplay between water vapor, carbon dioxide, and other atmosphere-warming gases. The NASA-funded research was published recently in the American Geophysical Union's Geophysical Research Letters.

"Everyone agrees that if you add carbon dioxide to the atmosphere, then warming will result,” Dessler said. “So the real question is, how much warming?"

The answer can be found by estimating the magnitude of water vapor feedback. Increasing water vapor leads to warmer temperatures, which causes more water vapor to be absorbed into the air. Warming and water absorption increase in a spiraling cycle.

Based on climate variations between 2003 and 2008, the energy trapped by water vapor is shown from southern to northern latitudes, peaking near the equator.

Water vapor feedback can also amplify the warming effect of other greenhouse gases, such that the warming brought about by increased carbon dioxide allows more water vapor to enter the atmosphere

 

[Old Rocks]

Really? How much more water vapour is there in the atmosphere now as opposed to 100 years ago?

Well if all the glaciers are melting, quite a bit dumbass.

How much more water vapour is there in the atmosphere now as opposed to 100 years ago? Can you use numbers or is that too difficult for your genius?

Increase In Atmospheric Moisture Tied To Human Activities

The atmosphere's water vapor content has increased by about 0.41 kilograms per cubic meter (kg/m²) per decade since 1988, and natural variability in climate just can't explain this moisture change. The most plausible explanation is that it's due to the human-caused increase in greenhouse gases."

More water vapor - which is itself a greenhouse gas - amplifies the warming effect of increased atmospheric levels of carbon dioxide. This is what scientists call a "positive feedback."

You might ask the people in the Florida Panhandle what their opinion on this is right now

 

[Trakar]

You are comparing the readings of instruments of today with the readings of proxies of the past.

It's not much different from comparing the readings of a tuning fork to the readings of a fishing line.

This is your apparently unqualified, unevidenced and generally completely uncompelling assertion. Not fact, not science, not much other than unsupported and unfounded rhetoric.

All of that said, according to the proxies, the global climate has cooled by about 6 degrees over the last 5 million years.

File:Five Myr Climate Change Rev.png - Global Warming Art

I don't agree with your reading of the chart particulars (looks to me like the last 10,000 years or so are demonstrating unprecedented and unequalled warming after nearly 3.5 million years of cooling and then cool conditions) but I generally agree with the statement and don't find it surprising given that we have been in the midst of a planetary ice-age (any period of time in which substantive masses of water remain frozen on the surface throughout the year). The current ice-age began 2-3 million years ago, about the same time our remote ancestoral species were evolving into our man-like (hominid) predecessors. Our own civilization arose in the transition from glaciation to interglacial episodes.

Human factors removed, our planet would be cooling slowly back to cool. We would see glaciers slowly advancing, ice caps and snowlines would be gradually increasing in mass and in their advances down the mountain slopes. Sea levels would be getting lower both as the colder waters become more dense and as more snow gets added to the icecaps. Storms generally become less energetic and average temps get lower as summer average highs become more moderate.

It really speaks a lot to timing/providence, If our civilization had of arisen 10,000 years either way, and our impacts would probably be so masked by glaciation background climate inertia that we wouldn't have noticed or realized what was happening until it was far too late to have done anything about our actions. Causation would have definitely been more apparent and dramatic, but like I said, system inertias would have kept us from noticing as quickly. May be something worth adding to the list of considerations regarding Fermi's paradox.

 

[Old Rocks]

Here is a very good lecture from the 2009 American Geophysical Union Convention by Richard Alley, one of the world's leading glaciologists.

A23A

 

[skookerasbil]

A "glaciologist"????

HOLY MOTHER OF GOD.............

What will it be next?


Hey Westwall...........soon, we'll be haring about Polarbearologists!!!!


This is a whole science to itself..........making up new "science guys".

 

[Trakar]

We have been through this all before rwatt and you lost so badly that you ran away and reappeared under your present moniker and are still spouting the same crapola that you did under your old name.

This is the only name I have ever used on these boards, it is the same name I've used online for most of the last 25 years (I'm sure there are still usenet posts from the late '80s that ought to be searchable), and it is, in fact, one of my real life, actual names. I don't know who rwatt is, or was, but I can easly understand why anyone would quickly get tired of wasting their time trying to discuss and explain to you why your confused distortions of reality didn't match up with the facts and mainstream understandings of the real world.

 

[code1211]

You are comparing the readings of instruments of today with the readings of proxies of the past.

It's not much different from comparing the readings of a tuning fork to the readings of a fishing line.

This is your apparently unqualified, unevidenced and generally completely uncompelling assertion. Not fact, not science, not much other than unsupported and unfounded rhetoric.

All of that said, according to the proxies, the global climate has cooled by about 6 degrees over the last 5 million years.

File:Five Myr Climate Change Rev.png - Global Warming Art

I don't agree with your reading of the chart particulars (looks to me like the last 10,000 years or so are demonstrating unprecedented and unequalled warming after nearly 3.5 million years of cooling and then cool conditions) but I generally agree with the statement and don't find it surprising given that we have been in the midst of a planetary ice-age (any period of time in which substantive masses of water remain frozen on the surface throughout the year). The current ice-age began 2-3 million years ago, about the same time our remote ancestoral species were evolving into our man-like (hominid) predecessors. Our own civilization arose in the transition from glaciation to interglacial episodes.

Human factors removed, our planet would be cooling slowly back to cool. We would see glaciers slowly advancing, ice caps and snowlines would be gradually increasing in mass and in their advances down the mountain slopes. Sea levels would be getting lower both as the colder waters become more dense and as more snow gets added to the icecaps. Storms generally become less energetic and average temps get lower as summer average highs become more moderate.

It really speaks a lot to timing/providence, If our civilization had of arisen 10,000 years either way, and our impacts would probably be so masked by glaciation background climate inertia that we wouldn't have noticed or realized what was happening until it was far too late to have done anything about our actions. Causation would have definitely been more apparent and dramatic, but like I said, system inertias would have kept us from noticing as quickly. May be something worth adding to the list of considerations regarding Fermi's paradox.

Are you seriously saying that the instrument measurements and the proxies have the same sensitivity to quick changes in temperature? The proxies as listed vary wildly from each other and only in concert do they reveal anything at all. If you are reading the two through the same lens, I don't know how you can expect to determine anything.

The cycle of ice ages seems to have started at the time that the Isthmus of Panama closed due to continental drift and interrupting the flow of ocean currents.

After that, the Milankovitch Cycles dictated the advance and decline of the great ice sheets.

We are currently about 6000 before the next glaciation.

 

[code1211]

We have been through this all before rwatt and you lost so badly that you ran away and reappeared under your present moniker and are still spouting the same crapola that you did under your old name.

This is the only name I have ever used on these boards, it is the same name I've used online for most of the last 25 years (I'm sure there are still usenet posts from the late '80s that ought to be searchable), and it is, in fact, one of my real life, actual names. I don't know who rwatt is, or was, but I can easly understand why anyone would quickly get tired of wasting their time trying to discuss and explain to you why your confused distortions of reality didn't match up with the facts and mainstream understandings of the real world.

Just a note in passing...

I find it amazing to be discussing this or anything in this forum with access to the accumulated knowledge of mankind at our fingertips.

You were accessing this medium in the 80's? Like most of the world, i was not aware that this existed in any form at that time. I assume it was much less user friendly at that time.

The possibilities are mind boggling.

Back to our regularly scheduled debate.

 

[Trakar]

Nope water vapor is a more dominant driver and a bigger quantity in the atmosphere. Feel free to eliminate water vapor. lol

Under current conditions, water is a feedback, not a forcing agent nor driver of climate. It is not surprising to hear you assert such, however, given the level of scientific understanding apparent in your posts.

 

[code1211]

Nope water vapor is a more dominant driver and a bigger quantity in the atmosphere. Feel free to eliminate water vapor. lol

Under current conditions, water is a feedback, not a forcing agent nor driver of climate. It is not surprising to hear you assert such, however, given the level of scientific understanding apparent in your posts.

Without the Sun, there is no warming at all.

It seems reasonable to think that the Sun is the Primary Driver of Climate and all other forcing agents except Cosmic Rays as conjectured by CERN are feedbacks.

 

[Trakar]

You are comparing the readings of instruments of today with the readings of proxies of the past.

It's not much different from comparing the readings of a tuning fork to the readings of a fishing line.

This is your apparently unqualified, unevidenced and generally completely uncompelling assertion. Not fact, not science, not much other than unsupported and unfounded rhetoric.

All of that said, according to the proxies, the global climate has cooled by about 6 degrees over the last 5 million years.

File:Five Myr Climate Change Rev.png - Global Warming Art

I don't agree with your reading of the chart particulars (looks to me like the last 10,000 years or so are demonstrating unprecedented and unequalled warming after nearly 3.5 million years of cooling and then cool conditions) but I generally agree with the statement and don't find it surprising given that we have been in the midst of a planetary ice-age (any period of time in which substantive masses of water remain frozen on the surface throughout the year). The current ice-age began 2-3 million years ago, about the same time our remote ancestoral species were evolving into our man-like (hominid) predecessors. Our own civilization arose in the transition from glaciation to interglacial episodes.

Human factors removed, our planet would be cooling slowly back to cool. We would see glaciers slowly advancing, ice caps and snowlines would be gradually increasing in mass and in their advances down the mountain slopes. Sea levels would be getting lower both as the colder waters become more dense and as more snow gets added to the icecaps. Storms generally become less energetic and average temps get lower as summer average highs become more moderate.

It really speaks a lot to timing/providence, If our civilization had of arisen 10,000 years either way, and our impacts would probably be so masked by glaciation background climate inertia that we wouldn't have noticed or realized what was happening until it was far too late to have done anything about our actions. Causation would have definitely been more apparent and dramatic, but like I said, system inertias would have kept us from noticing as quickly. May be something worth adding to the list of considerations regarding Fermi's paradox.

Are you seriously saying that the instrument measurements and the proxies have the same sensitivity to quick changes in temperature?

I don't see where, in the above, that I said anything even approaching that. What I did say, is that the black and white dichotomous analogy you attempted to use to portray the differences between the accuracy and validity of the different assessment systems is not accurate nor supported by any evidences that I have seen or been offered.

The proxies as listed vary wildly from each other and only in concert do they reveal anything at all. If you are reading the two through the same lens, I don't know how you can expect to determine anything.

That's generally due to the fact that all proxies approximate conditions through the interactions of a variety of factors rather than solely through the reactions to a single variable. That is precisely why multiple proxy studies are always preferrable to any single proxy study, the more varied the type of proxy the better. In combining the different systems the overlap commonality provides the signal as the outlier impacts of other factors are averaged out of the signal.

No, especially in shorter time-span intervals, most proxies are of more limited use. Given the multivariable nature of most proxies, any proxy study is going to be limited by the quality and limitations of the proxies used. I don't know anyone that wouldn't prefer to have calibrated and verified instrument data to work with but it isn't always available.

The cycle of ice ages seems to have started at the time that the Isthmus of Panama closed due to continental drift and interrupting the flow of ocean currents.

(we have to be careful about distinguishing between glaciations and ice ages, there is a tendency, even within the field to refer to glaciations - periods during an ice age when polar icecaps expand and spread toward the equator - as ice ages. Technically, ice ages exist whenever the planet possesses substantive expanses of year round surface ice.)

There are a number of things that happened at about this time. As Antarctica settled firmly onto the south pole the first glaciations which started to from icecaps in the mid-Antarctic mountain range 15 million years ago finally spread across the continent sealing its fate and dramatically impacting the planet's ocean circulations which were further disrupted by the Panamanian Isthmus formation, but I think the biggest cause goes back almost 50 million years ago when India's collision into the belly of asia began building the himalyan mountains (actually a lot of hountain building around the world occurred roughly coincident to the himalyan uplift). Mountain building always soaks up a lot of CO2 from the atmosphere. Then about 3-4Mya the himalayan mountains got high enough that they dramatically altered atmospheric circulation patterns, bringing the monsoons to southern asia and deflecting warm moist air currents northward. These and a strong confluence of Milankovitch cycles probably worked in concert to start this ice age. For the most part the Milankovitch cycles are the primary factor involved in the glaciations and integlacials of the last few million years.

We are currently about 6000 before the next glaciation.

"were"

We've already overshot any subsequent glaciations for 30-50ky and maybe for at least the next couple of hundred thousand years (it'd take that long just to drop atmospheric CO2 concentrations down low enough where glaciations could occur). There is a very good chance we may have ended the current ice age entirely, we'll have to wait and see precisely where the new equilibrium point is.

 

[Trakar]

Nope water vapor is a more dominant driver and a bigger quantity in the atmosphere. Feel free to eliminate water vapor. lol

Under current conditions, water is a feedback, not a forcing agent nor driver of climate. It is not surprising to hear you assert such, however, given the level of scientific understanding apparent in your posts.

Without the Sun, there is no warming at all.

It seems reasonable to think that the Sun is the Primary Driver of Climate and all other forcing agents except Cosmic Rays as conjectured by CERN are feedbacks.

The Sun, or rather the amount and character of solar radiance that intersects our planet, is the primary Driver of Climate, how our surface compostions and systems interact with the climate drivers are the various forcing factors that together, in concert, determine whether that energy exits the system with little delay leaving less energy in our planet's environment or lingers in our system adding more energy into our planet's surface environment.

 

[FactFinder]

Hansen says CO2 is NOT the prime driver in this paper

Who is Hanson and why should I give a crap what he says?