Parihaka

My numbers are off, quite possibly, it is after all an imprecise science as illustrated by Sheks numbers (he's not my 'cohort' by the way, we're not your enemy at least I don't regard myself as such).
The 9 -25% of the greenhouse effect is IIRC are the calculations used for the IPCC models excluding water vapour?

Edit: and the total figure for all CO2?

__________________
In the realm of spirit, seek clarity; in the material world, seek utility.
Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz

svguy

All sciences have inherent imprecision in them; the study of climate is no better. As many have pointed out, there are a multitude of complex interactions going on in the study of this question, and I do not dispute that.

Sorry about the implication of "cohort" implying I am an enemy. I never knew that that term had that implication. Perhaps the term "comrade" (excluding the socialistic implication, of course) would be better?

But, after reading many of the posts in other links, and with all due respect, I would suspect that you and I do not necessarily share many of the same opinions on the science aspect of this topic. Politically perhaps we agree more, but not necessarily on the science of this topic.

I believe that that is the range used for the most of the models used in this field, not just those used for the IPCC models. Of course, many models assume larger delta CO2 over this over time; mainly due to forecasts of CO2 rise and/or inability of CO2 sinks to compensate for introduction of anthro CO2 into the system. The estimates used in these for these future CO2 contributions may have to be adjusted, since, of course, they are just estimates. The same goes for the CO2 sinks as well.

Hard to make predictions for systems that have variable inputs, right?

The 9-25-ish % is the "greenhouse %" for all atmospheric CO2. This may be subject to revision in light of changes to the CO2 levels, of course.

Julie

Dale, you will be glad to know that after much research, I no longer believe in global warming. For real, I'm not kidding.

Officer of Engineers

I am not a scientist but I am an engineer and what you've just told me is that you don't know squat all.

__________________
Chimo

7thsfsniper

Congrats! Welcome to the real world Julie! (uh I mean skeptics world)

__________________
The nation which forgets its defenders will itself be forgotten

svguy

Its simple, Officer. Most of the 3 atom (CO2, H2O, etc.), 4 atom (CH4), and non-diatomic poly-atom components to the atmosphere contribute certain radiative forcings to the atmosphere due to their abilities to absorb energy at certain wavelengths then re-emit them. The "9-25%-ish" are the estimates of the particular radiative forcings of C)2, based upon atmsopheric composition, other components of the atmosphere, etc. A great deal of the uncertaintly is based upon overlapping energy spectra of a component with the spectra of other "re-radiator" GHG components.

But the fact that C02 (among others, including water vapor) is a "radiator" has been known empirically for over a century (look up Arhennius's work, iirc).

Differing concentrations of components lead to differing "radiative profiles", since the occurence of a particular "unit" of radiated longwave energy striking one of these "re-radiators" is governed pretty much by the statistical properties associated with their concentration. Ergo, the specific "forcing", so to speak, of each component seems to be governed by the both the amount of that component and the amounts of components that share overlapping absorption spectra.

So:
"The 9-25-ish % is the "greenhouse %" for all atmospheric CO2"

should be read where the term "greenhouse %" really implies the radiative proportion of the total greenhouse effect of the atmosphere. I thought that this shorthand would be obvious in light of the "back and forth" between Parihka and myself. Since this may not have been obvious to you, I will try to make sure that all of my comments are fully spelt out in full so as not engender such a visceral response from you.

"This may be subject to revision in light of changes to the CO2 levels, of course."

I fully stand by this in light of the explanation above. I thought that the idea that when a radiator has a change in concentration, there would a change in the amount of re-radiated heat would be obvious. Again, apparently from your visceral reponse above, that this concept is not so obvious.

Personally, I have looked over the 4 or 5 posts that I have put up and fail to see how in any way I could have engendered such a response. Or, should I simply expect more ad-homs?

Have a nice day sir.

Helium

Hello all

I still do not understand why it is necessary to find evidence of anthropogenic carbon (ie increased levels of carbon that are not naturally occuring) in the atmosphere in order to convince you of global warming.

I would try and find a scientific paper to support evidence that carbon in the atmosphere has increased over the past 100yrs AND that the increase is caused by Humans but that would be a B**** to find and I am too lazy

But enough evidence for me is this and I thought it would be for you guys;

Burning fossil fuels releases gases- predominantly carbon
The carbon ends up in the atmosphere
Over the past 200 yrs tree density has decreased and carbon emissions have increased (there are less trees on the planet than there was 200yrs ago) so some carbon will be absorbed but by mathimatics the majority is going to go to the atmosphere
The light absorbtion starts and heat is generated, then the melting occurs then so on.

All the above is scientifically proven.

The only holes in the argument could be the tree to carbon density ratio - ie maybe trees absorb a significant amount of carbon and the amounts of carbon we release these days, the majority is absorbed by trees. Maybe we will discover a tree species that absorbs a huge amount of carbon per tree and it will assist in lowering carbon going to the atmosphere. I would look up how much carbon is absorbed into trees according to size, species, height etc but again I am too lazy so if anyone knows.

Therefore it would be beneficial to know the Anthropogenic amounts of carbon in the atmosphere, say if thatey were significantly lower than the known amounts we released then we could say that the carbon released is not getting to the atmpsphere, its going somewhere else/ getting absorbed by trees.

I am really curious for those non believers to point out in my opinion of how global warming occurs (shown above) where there are flaws in the argument, where I may be wrong and in general why it doesn't convince you so.

Maybe you can turn me into a non-believer

Shek

Helium,

This is a policy issue. If it is the problem that some people claim, then if we don't know the causation mechanisms with some pretty good accuracy, then we cannot make good decisions about how to tackle the "problem".

For example, if anthro produced CO2 simply correlates to temperature, then our best response is not to spend lots of money on CO2 reduction, but instead, to begin moving NYC inland, etc. It is to figure out when Alaska will become the bread basket of the US, etc.

It is not enough to simply say that planet Earth is warming, which most of us agree with. You have to segregate out what is part of any long-term climate "cycle" and what is potentially AGW. AGW is where you'll get your resistance, as it goes back to the policy issue above. Even if you can demonstrate AGW exists, if you don't have the knowledge about its exact causal mechanisms, then you end up in a situation where your golfing blindfolded.

__________________
"So little pains do the vulgar take in the investigation of truth, accepting readily the first story that comes to hand." Thucydides 1.20.3

Trovinras

What wonders me if how this topic can be called fiction of fact when it's obvious that the world is getting warmed, the reason to the increased heat depending on the point of view can be called fact or fiction.

Shek

I agree that AGW and GW are terms that are often conflated - I think most folks refer to AGW when they state GW.

svguy

Also, there could be several components that are affected by "anthro" causes (both in + heat retention direction and in a - direction) -- CO2 levels; changes in surface albedo and absorption characteristics due to land use; potential changes in atmospheric albedo due to upper level contrails, just to name the more talked about aspects.

I would agree that most people refer to AGW when they say GW; further, I would say that most are simply referring to the effects of increased CO2 when they make that statement as well.

dalem

Woohoo! We helped Pari and now you!

Come to the light, people!



-dale

dalem

It would be more relevant to your argument if you could demonstrate a proof that increasing atmospheric Carbon leads to higher global temperatures, and at what rates, accounting for outgassing, oceanic absorption, cloud cover, cosmic rays, UV, solar variation, wind patterns, orbital mechanics, and other sundry variables.

But if you could do that, to quote Richelieau in "The Four Musketeers", "...you would be a remarkable man. People would remark on it."



-dale

dalem

Over what time period? And with respect to what baseline? The last 7 years has been a cooling period, for instance.

-dale

Parihaka

I'm curious Julie, any particular tipping point?