There is nothing invented about a positive water vapor feedback. There has been a measured increase in water vapor in the atmosphere.
You're right, CO2 does not generate much direct infrared heat itself. I releases the heat it gains by absorbing infrared mostly in collisions with other molecules in the atmosphere, in effect heating them up.
The measurements from around the world are all independently valid on their own. The fact that they are all in pretty good agreement with each other gives a strong indication that they must be getting it right. Measuring the concentration of a substance is pretty basic chemistry.
This animated graph that I posted elsewhere shows the evolution of CO2 levels from the North Pole to the South Pole since 1979. So I guess those independent measurements are all confirming each other in a big circle jerk?
Human burning of fossil fuels releases more than twice as much CO2 to the atmosphere each year as the yearly increase in CO2. Measurements of the change in the C12/C13 ratio show that atmospheric CO2 is being diluted by fossil carbon. What more do you need?
The "suspicion" of CO2 as a warming agent is based on the physics of CO2, specifically its property of absorbing infrared radiation which is easily measured in the laboratory. Why would you think it wouldn't do the same thing in the atmosphere or what is it in the Earth system that negates the effect?
I think you got that backwards. In the yearly cycle CO2 levels reach their peak in early May when plant growth in the northern hemisphere absorbs it back down to a minimum in September or October when CO2 released by decaying plant matter again becomes dominant. It has almost nothing to do with temperature except for the fact that it influences plant growth. In other words the seasons cause the yearly CO2 cycle, not vice versa.
Although global cooling got some publicity in Time and Newsweek the main stream of climate science was still on CO2 and the potential for global warming.
The 100 ky cycle is mostly driven by Milankovitch Cycles which change the insolation of the surface. The cycles are also modified by feedbacks such as the release of CO2 from the oceans as they warm or increasing albedo as more snow accumulates during the cooling side of the cycles.
I think you need to look at it a little more deeply. The increase in water vapor won't be spread out evenly throughout the whole atmosphere. The tropical atmosphere circulation (aka Hadley Cells) where warm moist air rises at the equator and (relatively) cold, dry air descends around 30 degrees (N&S) latitude are the reason most of the worlds great deserts including the Sahara are located where they are. There's even some evidence that the Hadley Cells are expanding a bit due to global warming which could bring the dry air a bit further north and south than it is now which is bad news for Southern Europe and the American Southwest.
I have my doubts about the accuracy of charting of Antarctica from the mid-millennium (1500s?) but if you could point to some reference about it I'll take a look. Also you're talking a period of transition from the Medieval Warm Period to the Little Ice Age so I'm not surprised if ice shelves increased somewhat.
Why would you think the scientists involved are such dumb asses that they wouldn't be well aware of that fact and that they wouldn't take steps to compensate when local volcanic activity contaminated the sample? Also, this isn't the only place in the world that atmospheric CO2 is measured, just the first place with a long continuous record. The other places CO2 is measured back up the Mauna Loa observations.
Yes, that will work, over the next million years or so. Consider how long it took to lay down those beds of coal and oil and gas in the first place compared to how fast we're burning them.
Yes but when did they change it from climate change to global warming? Here's a paper published in 1970 titled Carbon Dioxide and its Role in Climate Change ]PDF] by George Benton. It's always been climate change but global warming is also descriptive of what's happening.
Most of what Solyndra was about was an issue the Republicans could browbeat Obama about in last year's Presidential race. The program that loaned the money to Solyndra was budgeted for an 11% failure rate and last I heard it was still under 5% failures even with Solyndra.
Natural gas is still a fossil fuel. It's merely more efficient at producing energy/ton of CO2 released than other fossil fuels. In the long run it will be necessary to reduce our net CO2 emissions to zero which means natural gas is only a bridge on the way to zero emissions, not a solution in itself.
Right, and no nuclear reactors will be built, especially in the United States, without massive government subsidies of one sort or another. Why should we subsidize nuclear and not other energy technologies?
Energy is energy no matter what the source. If the price of fossil fuels truly encompassed the cost it's use imposes on us it would probably be priced somewhere around twice the price it currently is. That would certainly make renewable energy more competitive.
Either you are painting with a rather broad brush there or someone forgot to send me the memo. By most lights I would be considered to be a flaming liberal in the US (more middle of the road in Europe) yet I have severe disagreement with some of the things the Obama administration has done. However I also think Romney or McCain would have been even worse in many respects and there elections would have given power the the TEA Party faction that scares the hell out of me. It's sad the political situation in the US has devolved to this but it is what it is. I voted 3rd party last election but probably would have voted for Obama if the outcome had been in doubt in my state.
Slashdot Mirror
There is nothing invented about a positive water vapor feedback. There has been a measured increase in water vapor in the atmosphere.
You're right, CO2 does not generate much direct infrared heat itself. I releases the heat it gains by absorbing infrared mostly in collisions with other molecules in the atmosphere, in effect heating them up.
The measurements from around the world are all independently valid on their own. The fact that they are all in pretty good agreement with each other gives a strong indication that they must be getting it right. Measuring the concentration of a substance is pretty basic chemistry.
This animated graph that I posted elsewhere shows the evolution of CO2 levels from the North Pole to the South Pole since 1979. So I guess those independent measurements are all confirming each other in a big circle jerk?
Here's an animated graph that shows CO2 measurements from 90N to 90S from 1979 to 2006. Mauna Loa is the big red dot north of the equator.
Yes, humans like round numbers and tend to make note of them. They're easier to remember than 399.73.
Human burning of fossil fuels releases more than twice as much CO2 to the atmosphere each year as the yearly increase in CO2. Measurements of the change in the C12/C13 ratio show that atmospheric CO2 is being diluted by fossil carbon. What more do you need?
The "suspicion" of CO2 as a warming agent is based on the physics of CO2, specifically its property of absorbing infrared radiation which is easily measured in the laboratory. Why would you think it wouldn't do the same thing in the atmosphere or what is it in the Earth system that negates the effect?
This is called Confirmation Bias.
Huh!?!
How does making multiple independent measurements that agree with Mauna Loa do anything but validate the measurements taken there?
I think you got that backwards. In the yearly cycle CO2 levels reach their peak in early May when plant growth in the northern hemisphere absorbs it back down to a minimum in September or October when CO2 released by decaying plant matter again becomes dominant. It has almost nothing to do with temperature except for the fact that it influences plant growth. In other words the seasons cause the yearly CO2 cycle, not vice versa.
Although global cooling got some publicity in Time and Newsweek the main stream of climate science was still on CO2 and the potential for global warming.
The 100 ky cycle is mostly driven by Milankovitch Cycles which change the insolation of the surface. The cycles are also modified by feedbacks such as the release of CO2 from the oceans as they warm or increasing albedo as more snow accumulates during the cooling side of the cycles.
I think experience has shown the human race that directly addressing a problem is usually cheaper than ignoring it and hoping it goes away.
mya
This essentially sounds like ADS-B for ground vehicles.
I think you need to look at it a little more deeply. The increase in water vapor won't be spread out evenly throughout the whole atmosphere. The tropical atmosphere circulation (aka Hadley Cells) where warm moist air rises at the equator and (relatively) cold, dry air descends around 30 degrees (N&S) latitude are the reason most of the worlds great deserts including the Sahara are located where they are. There's even some evidence that the Hadley Cells are expanding a bit due to global warming which could bring the dry air a bit further north and south than it is now which is bad news for Southern Europe and the American Southwest.
I have my doubts about the accuracy of charting of Antarctica from the mid-millennium (1500s?) but if you could point to some reference about it I'll take a look. Also you're talking a period of transition from the Medieval Warm Period to the Little Ice Age so I'm not surprised if ice shelves increased somewhat.
Kind of a non sequitur there. The 3 miles of ice started accumulating around 34 million years ago, long before human civilization existed.
Why would you think the scientists involved are such dumb asses that they wouldn't be well aware of that fact and that they wouldn't take steps to compensate when local volcanic activity contaminated the sample? Also, this isn't the only place in the world that atmospheric CO2 is measured, just the first place with a long continuous record. The other places CO2 is measured back up the Mauna Loa observations.
Yes, that will work, over the next million years or so. Consider how long it took to lay down those beds of coal and oil and gas in the first place compared to how fast we're burning them.
Yes but when did they change it from climate change to global warming? Here's a paper published in 1970 titled Carbon Dioxide and its Role in Climate Change ]PDF] by George Benton. It's always been climate change but global warming is also descriptive of what's happening.
Then I would say his actions after he quit may provide a good clue why he was passed over for promotions.
Most of what Solyndra was about was an issue the Republicans could browbeat Obama about in last year's Presidential race. The program that loaned the money to Solyndra was budgeted for an 11% failure rate and last I heard it was still under 5% failures even with Solyndra.
I'm not afraid of your ideas, I just don't want to waste my time on them.
Natural gas is still a fossil fuel. It's merely more efficient at producing energy/ton of CO2 released than other fossil fuels. In the long run it will be necessary to reduce our net CO2 emissions to zero which means natural gas is only a bridge on the way to zero emissions, not a solution in itself.
Right, and no nuclear reactors will be built, especially in the United States, without massive government subsidies of one sort or another. Why should we subsidize nuclear and not other energy technologies?
Energy is energy no matter what the source. If the price of fossil fuels truly encompassed the cost it's use imposes on us it would probably be priced somewhere around twice the price it currently is. That would certainly make renewable energy more competitive.
Either you are painting with a rather broad brush there or someone forgot to send me the memo. By most lights I would be considered to be a flaming liberal in the US (more middle of the road in Europe) yet I have severe disagreement with some of the things the Obama administration has done. However I also think Romney or McCain would have been even worse in many respects and there elections would have given power the the TEA Party faction that scares the hell out of me. It's sad the political situation in the US has devolved to this but it is what it is. I voted 3rd party last election but probably would have voted for Obama if the outcome had been in doubt in my state.