[Vision2020] Global Warming, methane, politics
Jim Meyer
m1e2y3e4 at moscow.com
Wed Aug 30 01:19:31 PDT 2006
All,
If you think CO2 is bad consider methane:
http://www.iarc.uaf.edu/highlights/methane/index.php
http://www.commondreams.org/views04/1215-24.htm
As to the argument that water vapor is such a greater cause of global
warming than CO2 thus making CO2 insignificant--well that seems an
obvious spurious argument. To illustrate, it helps to consider various
scenarios. Consider the scenario that water vapor content of the
atmosphere has remained largely unchanged over all time. If even close
to true, then it becomes possible to remove it as a major factor in any
--additional-- warming. The water vapor argument is really rather
silly. Except for heat diurnally absorbed and radiated, the earth would
be nearly at the temperature as space without water vapor. If water
vapor can account for the majority, almost entirety of the probably
several hundred degrees C difference between our temperature here in
Moscow and the temperature in space, then it stands to reason that the
fine changes of 5-10 degrees could easily be caused by CO2 or some other
gas such as methane. Show me a graph of ancient and historical water
vapor percent vs temperature and tell me if it follows in such a
consistent manner as CO2 vs temperature. Then we can talk about the
significance of water vapor.
Lastly, it really doesn't make any difference what causes global
warming/fast climate change. The point is that it is happening and
people will die. It may not be from warming; it might be from cold.
But--We can mitigate. We can reduce the deaths and misery, but only if
we work together as one world, which of course, we are. Intelligent
mitigation with worldwide cooperation, that is the answer to global
climate change.
Use your vote wisely. Choose intelligent leadership. Make sure the
majority of your leaders have backgrounds in hard science and law.
Greed, superstition, and contempt for the law is a recipe for disaster.
Which by the way, is where we are headed under the current leadership.
Jim Meyer
vision2020-request at moscow.com wrote:
> Send Vision2020 mailing list submissions to
> vision2020 at moscow.com
>
> To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
> http://mailman.fsr.com/mailman/listinfo/vision2020
> or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
> vision2020-request at moscow.com
>
> You can reach the person managing the list at
> vision2020-owner at moscow.com
>
> When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
> than "Re: Contents of Vision2020 digest..."
>
>
> Today's Topics:
>
> 1. CO2 & Global Warming: "Fixing" The Numbers (Ted Moffett)
>
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Message: 1
> Date: Tue, 29 Aug 2006 12:04:15 -0700
> From: "Ted Moffett" <starbliss at gmail.com>
> Subject: [Vision2020] CO2 & Global Warming: "Fixing" The Numbers
> To: "Paul Rumelhart" <godshatter at yahoo.com>, "vision2020 at moscow.com"
> <vision2020 at moscow.com>
> Message-ID:
> <d03f69e0608291204u13e905bcl5b909d6d5f39f20a at mail.gmail.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="windows-1252"
>
> Paul et. al.:
>
> I sent this "Off List" to Paul, but I thought it might be of interest
> generally, and of course we don't want any pseudo-science being swallowed
> without question, now do we? Besides, Paul asked on Vision2020 for comments
> about the data on human CO2 contributions to global warming he gave from
> clearlight.com...
> --------------
>
> That web site you quoted claims that CO2's contribution to global warming is
> only about 3.6 percent, with water vapor at 95%. This web site presents
> their arguments backed up by references to "experts," some of whom are PhDs.
>
> They also claim that the human contribution to atmospheric CO2 levels is
> 3.225%. This figure is very far off the generally accepted numbers, that
> pre-industrial CO2 levels were around 270 parts per million and are now
> around 370 parts per million (sources for these figures are given below),
> mostly due to human contributions, an increase of around 30% due to
> human impact, and at a level higher than at any other time in the
> past 650,000 years, according to a study of antarctic ice core's trapped air
> bubbles published in Science:
>
> http://www.clearlight.com/~mhieb/WVFossils/greenhouse_data.html
>
>
> Based on concentrations (ppb) adjusted for heat retention
> characteristics Percent
> of Total Percent of Total --adjusted for *water vapor* *Water vapor*
> ----- * 95.000%* Carbon Dioxide (CO2) 72.369% * 3.618%* Methane (CH4)
> 7.100% * 0.360%* Nitrous oxide (N2O) 19.000% *0.950%* CFC's (and other
> misc. gases) 1.432% * 0.072%* Total 100.000% *100.000%*
> --------
>
> The web site referenced above implies that the human sourced CO2 emissions
> argument for global warming often ignores the huge contribution of water
> vapor. Really? Read the data and arguments at these sites below:
>
>
> http://www.eia.doe.gov/oiaf/1605/gg97rpt/chap1.html
>
> http://www.enviroliteracy.org/article.php/428.html
>
> ---------
>
> Here is another human sourced global warming skeptic site, and here is their
> estimate of the impact of CO2 on global warming:
>
> http://brneurosci.org/co2.html
>
> Carbon dioxide, although present in much lower concentrations than water,
> absorbs more infrared radiation than water on a per-molecule basis and
> contributes about 84% of the total non-water greenhouse gas equivalents [3],
> or about 4.2-8.4% of the total greenhouse gas effect.
> ---------
> Note, though it is still much lower than the estimates of the scientists who
> insist CO2 has much more of an impact on global warming, this figure is at
> its high point estimates over twice the impact of the figure from
> clearlight.com.
> ---------
> Recall that CO2 atmospheric concentrations are estimated to have gone up due
> to human contributions to the atmosphere, according to the Earth Sciences
> Institute, and many other sources, by about 30-35 percent, maybe a bit less,
> at this point in time. But we are only starting to dump CO2 into the
> atmosphere. In the next 50-100 years, we could dump huge amounts of CO2
> into the atmosphere, increasing the human contribution to 50% or more of the
> total CO2 in the atmosphere. But even at this point in time, if CO2 amounts
> to at least 20% if the greenhouse effect, as many other experts estimate, as
> you can read below, the human impact is at least 6-7% added to the total
> greenhouse effect, if the percentage of CO2 impact on the greenhouse effect
> is close to 20%.
> --------
> Consider these quotes on CO2 contributions to global warming, presenting
> a variety of percentages for the impact of water vapor vs. CO2 contributions
> to global warming:
>
> http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/ice/greenhouse.html
>
>
> Each greenhouse gas has its own important role in trapping the sun's heat,
> the most significant of which is water vapor. On a clear day, water vapor
> can comprise 60 to 70 percent of the greenhouse effect. Next in line, carbon
> dioxide contributes an additional 25 percent. Some gases trap solar
> radiation from the sun better than others. For example, while man-made CFCs
> are one of the least plentiful gases, they actually have a greater relative
> impact than many others
> ----------------------
>
>
> Here is another source claiming water vapor is a much lower percentage of
> the greenhouse effect than clearlight.com:
>
> http://encarta.msn.com/encyclopedia_761578504_3/Greenhouse_Effect.html
>
> *Contributed By:*
> Michael Mastrandrea, B.S.
> Doctoral candidate, Department of Geological and Environmental Sciences,
> Stanford University; Department of Energy Global Change and Environment
> Program Fellow. Coauthor of *The Role of Tropical Forest Conservation in
> Climate Change Mitigation.*
> Stephen H. Schneider, B.S., M.S., Ph.D.
> Professor, Biological Sciences and Senior Fellow, Institute for
> International Studies, Stanford University. Editor, *Climatic Change*;
> author of *Global Warming: Are We Entering the Greenhouse Century?*
>
>
> A Water Vapor
>
> Water vapor is the most common greenhouse gas in the atmosphere, accounting
> for about 60 to 70 percent of the natural greenhouse effect. Humans do not
> have a significant direct impact on water vapor levels in the atmosphere.
> However, as human activities increase the concentration of other greenhouse
> gases in the atmosphere (producing warmer temperatures on Earth), the
> evaporation of oceans, lakes, and rivers, as well as water evaporation from
> plants, increase and raise the amount of water vapor in the atmosphere.
>
> -----------------
>
> And here is another site full of references to their sources that presents a
> far more complex view of the influence of "water vapor" vs. CO2 in global
> warming. This analysis strikes me as without an axe to grind in the global
> warming debate. It attempts to explore how complex the issue of how to
> measure the impact of water vapor and CO2 on global warming can be, and
> gives numbers based on different ways of measuring this impact from 36% to
> 88% (look at the info from both pages of the website), for CO2 between
> 9-26%:
>
> http://www.natexaminer.com/warming/gas.html
>
> *Greenhouse gases* (GHG) are gaseous components of the atmosphere that
> contribute to the greenhouse effect. The major natural greenhouse gases are
> water vapor, which causes about 36-70% of the greenhouse effect on Earth
> (not including clouds); carbon dioxide, which causes between 9-26%; and
> ozone, which causes between 3-7% (note that it is not really possible to
> assert that such-and-such a gas causes a certain percentage of the
> greenhouse effect, because the influences of the various gases are not
> additive. The higher ends of the ranges quoted are for the gas alone; the
> lower end, for the gas counting overlaps). [1] [2].
>
> ------
>
> And from the same web site at a different page:
>
> http://www.natexaminer.com/warming/greenhouse.html
> Effects of various gases
>
> It is hard to disentangle the percentage contributions to the greenhouse
> effect by different gases, because their respective infrared spectrums
> overlap. However, one can calculate the percentage of trapped radiation
> remaining, and discover:
> Species
> removed % trapped radiation
> remaining All 0 H2O, CO2, O3 50 H2O 64 Clouds 86 CO2 88 O3 97 None 100
>
> (Source: Ramanathan and Coakley, Rev. Geophys and Space Phys., 16 465
> (1978)); see also [3].
> Water vapor effects
>
> Water vapor is the major contributor to Earth's greenhouse effect. Its
> effects vary due to localized concentrations, mixture with other gases,
> frequencies of light, different behavior in different levels of the
> atmosphere, and whether positive or negative feedback takes place. High
> humidity also affects cloud formation, which has major effects upon
> temperature but is distinct from water vapor gas.
>
> The IPCC TAR (2001; section 2.5.3) reports that, despite non-uniform effects
> and difficulties in assessing the quality of the data, water vapor has
> generally increased over the 20th Century.
>
> Estimates of the percentage of Earth's greenhouse effect due to water vapor:
>
> - 36% (table above)
> - 60?70% Nova. *Greenhouse?Green Planet* [4]
>
> Including clouds, the table above would suggest 50%. For the cloudless case,
> IPCC 1990, p 47?48 estimate water vapor at 60?70% whereas Baliunas & Soon
> estimate 88% [5] considering only H2O and CO2. Water vapor in the
> troposphere, unlike the better-known greenhouse gases such as CO2, is
> essentially passive in terms of climate: the residence time for water vapor
> in the atmosphere is short (about a week) so perturbations to water vapor
> rapidly re-equilibriate. In contrast, the lifetimes of CO2, methane, etc,
> are long (hundreds of years) and hence perturbations remain. Thus, in
> response to a temperature perturbation caused by enhanced CO2, water vapor
> would increase, resulting in a (limited) positive feedback and higher
> temperatures. In response to a perturbation from enhanced water vapor, the
> atmosphere would re-equilibriate due to clouds causing reflective cooling
> and water-removing rain. The contrails of high-flying aircraft sometimes
> form high clouds which seem to slightly alter the local weather.
>
> -----------------------------------
>
> Now we have radically different numbers given for a fundamental issue in the
> whole global warming debate, water vapor contributions vs. CO2, numbers
> backed up by credentialed sources. Who is right?
>
> Consider one factor mentioned several times in the discussions and arguments
> and "data" presented above: human sourced CO2 can warm the atmosphere,
> causing a feedback loop to increase water vapor. Thus the effects of water
> vapor can become part of the human caused global warming problem.
>
> I think the answer to the question lies in part in the well documented
> empirical data about the melting of ice packs (the Arctic is undergoing
> dramatic melting as is Greenland) and glaciers around the world, the changes
> in the migration and maturation patterns of life forms, many of which are
> responding to warmer and earlier Springs by altering their behavior in very
> profound ways, and the clustering of warm years in recent times, with 5 of
> the warmest years on record since 1890 all from 1998-2005, which I know by
> itself could just be a random "clustering:"
>
> Info on warmest years since 1890:
>
> http://www.nasa.gov/vision/earth/environment/2005_warmest.html
>
> --------
>
> A published peer reviewed study, results of which I posted to
> Vision2020, was done recently showing that earlier Springs at high
> elevations in the forests of the Western US are the primary cause of
> increased forest fire intensity and duration due to increased and earlier
> drying of tinder due to global warming melting winter snow packs earlier in
> the season. The authors of the study said they were not even looking at
> global warming, but the data led them to this variable.
>
> Of course it can be argued that these significant changes are just a natural
> cycle of some sort. But these changes are sudden (in the grand time scale
> of the planet) and dramatic, and must be caused by some variable or
> variables. We can examine the dominate climate change variables. We can
> measure output from the sun, the content of water vapor in the atmosphere,
> the greenhouse gases, the contribution of albedo, the effects of cloud
> cover. We know of the variations in the Earth's orbit, precession of the
> equinoxes, and of the influence of volcanoes and aerosols. We can estimate
> influences of farming and animal food impacts, along with deforestation. We
> understand how plants and the ocean absorb CO2, how natural methane releases
> occur, and the potential impacts of methane hydrates, etc. etc.
>
> While climate change is far from a perfect science, the evidence points
> quite clearly that the main variable that is causing these sudden and very
> significant changes to the Earth's climate is mostly human contributions of
> CO2 to the atmosphere, though some argue farming and deforestation should be
> considered more in the human impact on climate change.
>
> If we continue this pattern, increasing atmospheric CO2 by hundreds of parts
> per million, to levels 100% or more above pre-industrial levels, we may
> induce severe climate change. This is not worth the risk to experiment
> with, in my opinion.
>
> Of course there are numerous other reasons to conserve fossil fuels, the
> most important being, they are finite, besides being controlled by "enemy"
> states, and economic and other disruptions of great magnitude are possible
> if we do not conserve and prepare for the end of the age of fossil fuels,
> coming in just a couple of hundred years, given an optimistic outlook on
> accessible resources. The later reason alone is sufficient reason to enact
> radical conversation of fossil fuels, forgetting global warming.
>
> Ted Moffett
> -------------- next part --------------
> An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
> URL: http://mailman.fsr.com/pipermail/vision2020/attachments/20060829/9085c4fb/attachment.htm
>
> ------------------------------
>
> =======================================================
> List services made available by First Step Internet,
> serving the communities of the Palouse since 1994.
> http://www.fsr.net
> mailto:Vision2020 at moscow.com
> =======================================================
>
> End of Vision2020 Digest, Vol 2, Issue 396
> ******************************************
>
> .
>
>
More information about the Vision2020
mailing list