It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

There Is No Man-Made Global Warming

page: 11
9
<< 8  9  10    12  13  14 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 21 2007 @ 09:36 PM
link   
muaddib usually answers his chief rival, that being you, I believe. I will withhold
my comments until they smoothly fit into the (longterm!) debate.




posted on Jun, 22 2007 @ 12:59 AM
link   

Originally posted by melatonin

No, it really doesn't constitute 95% of the greenhouse effect.

But I'm sure you'll keep spewing such misinformation. If you could find such a number for water vapour in the peer-reviewed scientific literature (apart from E&E), I'll give you a cookie.
..................


Me "spewing misinformation"?... Naa, i leave that to you...

But as always Regenmacher, i mean melatonin always tries to dismiss any evidence which refutes his lies...

Shall we read from another source what is the contribution of water vapor to the greenhouse effect?.... From Richard S. Lindzen, Alfred P. Sloan Professor of Meteorology Massachusetts Institute of Technology...


Despite popular opinion to the contrary, the quantitative expectation of substantial global warming (more than 1oC or so) arising in the next century because of man's production of minor greenhouse gases (CO2, CFC's, methane, etc.) is without substantive scientific foundation. It is worth noting that the major greenhouse substance is water in the form of water vapor and layer clouds — which accounts for over 98% of the current greenhouse effect. It is sometimes noted that many minor greenhouse gases are directly related to man's activities, whereas water vapor and layer clouds are internally established by the atmosphere. However, it is obvious that models that do not properly deal with the major greenhouse substances will be inadequate for evaluating the response to minor greenhouse gases. As concerns catastrophic predictions (5oC warming), it should be emphasized that we are not dealing with plausible consequences of a well established understanding, but rather with the consequences of identifiable model errors. Such consequences are, moreover, inconsistent with the history of the Earth's climate to date.

www-eaps.mit.edu...

Even graduate students, such as Bhuwan Prasad, a graduate student of the Faculty of Forestry from the University of Toronto says...


A critical piece of information that is often ignored is that water vapour is responsible for the vast majority of all greenhouse warming in the atmosphere. Water vapour constitutes 98 per cent of the greenhouse gases and if we know we cannot control it, how much effect can the other gases possibly have? Add to that the fact that the heat content of water in its gaseous state is far greater than the heat content of carbon dioxide in its gaseous state and we really have to wonder how much impact the non-water vapour gases can have. It is clear that the impact of the gases that can be controlled is minuscule — this alone should dispose of the global warming myth.

www.news.utoronto.ca...

Here is one of his websites.
www.atmosp.physics.utoronto.ca...

To be fair other scientists put the contribution of water vapor to the greenhouse warming in between 90% to 98%, but of course melatonin has to dismiss what respected scientists have to say and he sides with the likes of Mann et al, who as I have said several times already, tried to dupe the world by making the RWP, the MWP and the LIA dissapear...

But again, melatonin, or Regenmacher....will try once again to dismiss this and spew his propaganda from the "FakeClimate"...i mean what Mann, melatonin/Regenmacher et al call Rea *BS* Climate site....


[edit on 22-6-2007 by Muaddib]



posted on Jun, 22 2007 @ 01:13 AM
link   
That's not a peer-reviewed article.

No cookie, yet. I'm patient though.

Ramanathan & Croakley (1978) and Keihl & Trenberth (1997; the article I linked, which cites the other paper) both show CO2 being much more than 5%, and water vapour being much less than 95%.

[edit on 22-6-2007 by melatonin]



posted on Jun, 22 2007 @ 01:54 AM
link   
Keep your cookies Regenmacher, you need them more than I do...


Let's see, believe Regenmacher/melatonin and Mann et al, or believe scientists like MIT professor Lindzen et al?...

Humm, tough choice heh?...



[edit on 22-6-2007 by Muaddib]



posted on Jun, 22 2007 @ 01:57 AM
link   

Originally posted by Muaddib
Keep your cookies Regenmacher, you need them more than I do...


Nah, I'm watching what I eat currently.

Still no peer-review articles. Must be one out there somewhere with this oft quoted 95% figure, it gets around a bit...

ABE: So, you're playing the authority card? Can't find one, not even one, scientific article that is source of this 95% figure, so you fall back on the authority of 'Iris Theory' Dick.

I could quote how significant a figure Ramanathan is in his field, but it's not important. Peer-reviewed articles were the order of the day.

[edit on 22-6-2007 by melatonin]



posted on Jun, 22 2007 @ 02:02 AM
link   
Let's see, believe the "cookie monster who misinforms constantly" , also known as regenmacher/melatonin, who he himself has tried to decieve the members of the forums as to who he is...or believe an MIT professor and other more respectable people/scientists who know what they are talking about and are not misleading and hiding who they are?....

Really tough choice to make....



[edit on 22-6-2007 by Muaddib]



posted on Jun, 22 2007 @ 02:08 AM
link   
Eh?

Who do you think I am? Don't think I've misled anyone as to who I am. Strange...

As I said, one of the scientific articles I have cited is from V. Ramanathan. He is a well-respected dude in his area of research.

www-ramanathan.ucsd.edu...

My authority = your authority.

My authority published his number in peer-reviewed articles; yours pulled it out his ass.



posted on Jun, 22 2007 @ 03:41 AM
link   
LOL.... melatonin/regenmacher is never going to change...

There is also Dr. Marcel Leroux, professor emeritus of climatology, University of Lyon, France who wrote a new book "Global Warming — Myth or Reality?" states that water vapor (and clouds) are responsible for up to 95% of the greenhouse effect.

www.springerlink.com...

ff.org...

Who else? oh yeah Dr. Robert H. Essenhigh also has stated in several occasions the same thing, that water vapor accounts for 95%-97% of the greenhouse effect.

Some might find this interesting.
researchnews.osu.edu...

Yes, apparently some are pulling some really dubious figures and claims from their behind.....



posted on Jun, 22 2007 @ 07:39 AM
link   
Do you notice something similar about them?

They all seem to have difficulty getting such numbers into the scientific literature. Maybe that's because they are BS.

They write their own books, they write newspaper articles and give media interviews, they give public lectures, they have websites. All might contain the unsourced 95% figure. But why isn't it easily found in the peer-reviewed literature?

I can easily find at least 2 references that provide an estimate, have methods for attaining their figure, and can be readily replicated using those methods, neither are close to 95% for water vapour. The NASA-GISS model is readily available, and will find similar estimates.

Anyway. No cookie, you failed.

[edit on 22-6-2007 by melatonin]



posted on Jun, 22 2007 @ 10:37 AM
link   
I suggest that you have a look at this peer-reviewed paper:

Freidenreich, S. M., and V. Ramaswamy, 1993: Solar radiation absorption by CO2, overlap with H2O, and a parameterization for general circulation models. Journal of Geophysical Research, 98(D4), 7255-7264

[edit on 6/22/2007 by TheAvenger]



posted on Jun, 22 2007 @ 11:10 AM
link   

Originally posted by TheAvenger
I suggest that you have a look at this peer-reviewed paper:

Freidenreich, S. M., and V. Ramaswamy, 1993: Solar radiation absorption by CO2, overlap with H2O, and a parameterization for general circulation models. Journal of Geophysical Research, 98(D4), 7255-7264


Anything in particular I should note?



posted on Jun, 22 2007 @ 02:33 PM
link   
Right, if the information and the scientists do not agree with melatonin and Mann et al, then they are wrong...



How Serious is the Global Warming Threat?
by Roy W. Spencer
Principal Research Scientist, Earth System Science Center,
University of Alabama in Huntsville
............
THE EARTH’S GREENHOUSE EFFECT
The term “greenhouse effect” really has two meanings. The Earth has a natural greenhouse effect that is mostly due to water vapor (about 90 percent of the effect), as well as carbon dioxide and methane. It has been pointed out many times that the Earth’s natural greenhouse effect (again, primarily due to water vapor) keeps the Earth habitably warm. Indeed, were it not for this warming effect, life as we know it might not exist on Earth, as the surface would be too cold.

www.lindenwood.edu...

I am sure that every educational link that i will give, or what scientists have to say, melatonin will find someway to dismiss it.


The Greenhouse Effect
"A little greenhouse effect is a good thing" (Carl Sagan). Without a natural greenhouse effect, earth would be frozen.
90% of the earth's natural greenhouse effect is due to water vapor.
Ever notice how hot nights are sticky? It's no accident - it's hot because it's sticky. High humidity results in a water-vapor greenhouse effect.
In summer, both New Orleans and Phoenix might hit 100 F, but by midnight Phoenix could be down to 60, whereas New Orleans might still be 90. The difference is due to humidity and a water-vapor greenhouse effect.

www.uwgb.edu...

Again, melatonin gives a link and talks about Ramanathan's work, but is Ramanathan in that same study separating the heat trapping efficiency of the different layers of the Earth's atmosphere?....

It is known by every scientist in every circle, which has in some way or another studied Climate Change, that most of the warming of the Earth's surface is caused by the warming in the troposphere, which 95% is being contributed by water vapor (including clouds), some scientists say it is more, others say it is less....CO2 and other greenhouse gases contribute but about 5% of the troposphere warming....



[edit on 22-6-2007 by Muaddib]



posted on Jun, 22 2007 @ 03:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by Muaddib
It is known by every scientist in every circle, which has in some way or another studied Climate Change, that most of the warming of the Earth's surface is caused by the warming in the troposphere, which 95% is being contributed by water vapor (including clouds), some scientists say it is more, others say it is less....CO2 and other greenhouse gases contribute but about 5% of the troposphere warming....


So why can't you find this in the literature? Why is it always crappy websites and other related stuff, no proper scientific sources for this number (i.e. peer-reviewed research).


Of this 125 W m-2 clear sky greenhouse effect, we can ask, what is the relative contribution of each atmospheric absorber? A detailed answer to this question is complicated by the overlap among individual gaseous absorption features.



The second most important greenhouse gas is CO2, which contributes 32 W m-2 in agreement with Charnock and Shine (1993) but differing from Kandel’s (1993) estimate of 50 W m-2

Keihl & Trenberth, 1997

My electrified abacus shows this to be (32/125)x100=25.6%

The figures are assessed by comparison to the total greenhouse effect. So, the calculations show the estimated contribution to the GE. Which is the important number. So far, you have provided nothing reliable to support this 95% number. Just more articles quoting it as if it has legitimacy.

A scientific source for the number would be nice. I've provided two that suggest water vapour's contribution is nowhere near 95%. Even when taking account of clouds, it still doesn't reach this number. CO2 is still more than 5%.

[edit on 22-6-2007 by melatonin]



posted on Jun, 22 2007 @ 10:56 PM
link   
Even the great all-knowing climate change geniuses at Real Climate acknowledge that water vapor is a major GHG, and even with all of their his holiness Al Gore, great creator of the internet and savior of the planet from life-giving CO2, indoctrinated and inspired expertise cannot nail it down closer than 66% to 85%. Also, one must not confuse the relative percentage of a GHG with it's GWP, which is likely the source of this hydrogen hydroxide debate. (which seems to be going nowhere) I cited a peer-reviewed source that closely confirms the water vapor claim also. So what? Looking at carbon dioxide is much more entertaining than re-inventing the universal solvent, hydrogen bonding, Van Der Waals forces etc. that no one ever considers in climate change research. 16/106 is all you really need to know anyway.

You lads are way too serious in these debates. Try to have some fun! Aren't you here for good conversation and entertainment? Try to develop some other interests on A.T.S. besides climate issues also if you haven't. There are absolutely zany debates on many subjects at A.T.S. that are just pure comedy in their substance. I have many, many interests besides this stuff. I learned many years ago about all work and no play. If you make this all work, there will be no entertainment value. Small wonder I laugh about all the punts between sides on A.G.W. Have a large drink of the spirits, (the demon rum perhaps?) and enjoy! Richard Lindzen and Al Gore are probably sharing a few cold ones right now, and laughing at all of us.




[edit on 6/22/2007 by TheAvenger]



posted on Jun, 23 2007 @ 06:54 AM
link   

Originally posted by TheAvenger
Even the great all-knowing climate change geniuses at Real Climate acknowledge that water vapor is a major GHG


No-one can really deny such a claim. It is the major GHG, whether it is the most important in the current context is more questionable. Water vapour is essentially a passenger (reactive rather than proactive), otherwise we could just condense/extract a lot of WV and reduce the effect of increasing human-sourced GHGs.


I cited a peer-reviewed source that closely confirms the water vapor claim also. So what?....

... 16/106 is all you really need to know anyway.


The paper you cited focuses on solar radiation. That is, the absorption of incoming radiation and doesn't really tell us much about the GE effect due to the radiative differences (they assess absorption at shorter wavelengths than is important for outgoing longwave).

I guess I should ask what the 16/106 reference is related to?

Even taking the article for what it is, it has issues, as ozone is the major warming component in the stratosphere.


You lads are way too serious in these debates.


I certainly try not to be tooooo serious.

[edit on 23-6-2007 by melatonin]



posted on Jun, 23 2007 @ 09:24 AM
link   

Originally posted by melatonin

So why can't you find this in the literature? Why is it always crappy websites and other related stuff, no proper scientific sources for this number (i.e. peer-reviewed research).


Lol...i have provided about half a dozen, you just don't want to accept it and claim those are not reliable sites...

Well sorry to tell you, that's what those professors are teaching in Universities, that's what the research papers they have written shows, and that's what it says on the U.S. environmental website..... it is only you, and Mann et al who don't want to accept those facts...

And you want to bring up information from 1997?...

Here is what NASA has to say in 1997 about some of what we are discussing....


Unlike the surface-based temperatures, global temperature measurements of the Earth's lower atmosphere obtained from satellites reveal no definitive warming trend over the past two decades. The slight trend that is in the data actually appears to be downward. The largest fluctuations in the satellite temperature data are not from any man-made activity, but from natural phenomena such as large volcanic eruptions from Mt. Pinatubo, and from El Niño. So the programs which model global warming in a computer say the temperature of the Earth's lower atmosphere should be going up markedly, but actual measurements of the temperature of the lower atmosphere reveal no such pronounced activity.


Again the computer models were wrong and observational data was showing the contrary to what the GCMs were saying....


So What is Going On?

The atmosphere is extremely complex in its behavior. Because of this, finding the correct explanation for the behavior we observe is complex as well. Virtually all scientists will agree that a doubling of the amount of carbon dioxide in the Earth's atmosphere should have some effect on the temperature of the Earth. But it is much less certain how or if we will recognize the effects of this increase. There are several reasons:

First, the influence of a man-made doubling of the amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is small compared to the Earth's natural cooling rate, on the order of only a percent.

Second, there is a much more important greenhouse gas than carbon dioxide, namely water vapor. Water vapor over the Earth is extremely variable, both in space and in time.

Third, the ways in which clouds and water vapor feed back and ultimately influence the temperature of the Earth are, at best, poorly understood.

Fourth, while the whole Earth is indeed in a state that scientists describe as "radiative equilibrium," where the incoming sunlight equals the outgoing infrared radiation to provide a roughly constant overall temperature, the surface is far from this radiative balance condition. Evaporation and convection processes in the atmosphere transport heat from the surface to the upper troposphere, where it can be much more efficiently radiated into space since it is above most of the greenhouse-trapping water vapor. So in short, it is this convective overturning of the atmosphere - poorly represented in computer models of global warming - that primarily determines the temperature distribution of the surface and upper troposphere, not radiation balance.

science.nasa.gov...







Originally posted by melatonin
My electrified abacus shows this to be (32/125)x100=25.6%


Your abacus is wrong, that's what happens when people bring out such matter from their behinds.


Originally posted by melatonin
A scientific source for the number would be nice. I've provided two that suggest water vapour's contribution is nowhere near 95%. Even when taking account of clouds, it still doesn't reach this number. CO2 is still more than 5%.


And as i have said, i have provided at least half a dozen which refute your clims...


Given the present composition of the atmosphere, the contribution to the total heating rate in the troposphere is around 5 percent from carbon dioxide and around 95 percent from water vapor.[/size=5]

www.eia.doe.gov...

You can claim all you want, but that site alone has more credibility than you Mann et al together.



posted on Jun, 23 2007 @ 10:34 AM
link   

Originally posted by Muaddib
Lol...i have provided about half a dozen, you just don't want to accept it and claim those are not reliable sites...

And as i have said, i have provided at least half a dozen which refute your clims...


You haven't produced one single scientific source for that number.

What you have is people parroting a number that has no scientific source or basis. As I said, if this number was appropriate it would be easily sourced in the scientific literature.

But, no, what you have is websites repeating a number with no idea where it comes from or how it was calculated. That's what we call unsupported opinion - a simple assertion - not science.

Oh, and the DOE website is wrong or you are misinterpreting it, they also cite the F&E (1993) study. That study is solely assessing solar radiation, that's the incoming stuff. Pretty obvious from the title alone:

"Solar Radiation Absorption by Carbon Dioxide, Overlap with Water, and a Parameterization for General Circulation Models"

Only people who have little understanding of what the GE actually is would cite that. The GE effect is the outgoing longwave radiation. Their study assess the incoming shorter wave radiation. Plus, they completely leave out ozone, which is the predominate heating component of the stratosphere (again, incoming solar radiation). So this...

"In the stratosphere, the contribution is about 80 percent from carbon dioxide and about 20 percent from water vapor"

...is totally wrong.


Your abacus is wrong, that's what happens when people bring out such matter from their behinds


No, 32/125x100=25.6%.

[edit on 23-6-2007 by melatonin]



posted on Jun, 23 2007 @ 11:25 AM
link   

Originally posted by melatonin
.................
Only people who have little understanding of what the GE actually is would cite that. The GE effect is the outgoing longwave radiation. Their study assess the incoming shorter wave radiation. Plus, they completely leave out ozone, which is the predominate heating component of the stratosphere (again, incoming solar radiation). So this...

"In the stratosphere, the contribution is about 80 percent from carbon dioxide and about 20 percent from water vapor"

...is totally wrong.



I only see one person here making assumptions and claiming he knows what he is talking about...

First of all, where the hell does longwave radiation comes from?... I guess this radiation comes from the behind of Mann et al heh? and the Sun has nothing to do with it?.....


Outgoing Longwave Radiation (OLR) is the energy leaving the earth as infrared radiation at low energy. Earth's radiation balance is very closely achieved since the OLR very nearly equals the Shortwave Absorbed Radiation received at high energy from the sun.

en.wikipedia.org...

Humm, i wonder why the OLR "very nearly equals the SAR"?.......

Some people really need to go back to college, or even high school...


Shortwave radiation from the Sun enters the surface-atmosphere system of the Earth and is ultimately returned to space as longwave radiation (because the Earth is cooler than the Sun). A basic necessity of this energy interchange is that incoming solar insolation and outgoing radiation be equal in quantity. One way of modeling this balance in energy exchange is described graphically with the use of the following two cascade diagrams.

www.physicalgeography.net...

and you want to talk about "people who don't really understand this"?....


Sorry melatonin/Regenmacher....but real scientists disagree with your claim, and Mann et al...

In the stratosphere ozone and water vapor have about the same radiactive forcing, but again water vapor is present in greater quantities than ozone, hence ozone is not nearly as important as water vapor as a GHG. Not to mention that the amount of water vapor in the stratosphere affect ozone, the higher levels of water vapor in the stratosphere lowers the levels of ozone, and at the same time higher levels of GHGs in the atmosphere cools it, which should slow down the destruction of ozone.

[edit on 23-6-2007 by Muaddib]



posted on Jun, 23 2007 @ 12:13 PM
link   
Errm, yeah, thanks for stating the obvious and completely missing the point.

The F&E (1993) study is solely focusing on solar radiation. That's the incoming stuff and so is unrelated to the greenhouse effect, which is the 'trapping'/absorbing of outgoing longwave radiation.

So, we still have no scientific source for the 95% water vapour contribution to the greenhouse effect.



posted on Jun, 23 2007 @ 12:34 PM
link   
eeer...right, i forgot,.... melatonin/regenmacher always makes such claims when the evidence does not support his claims...

only if you excerpt from Mann et al does melatonin/regenmacher claims "that is real science"....



new topics

top topics



 
9
<< 8  9  10    12  13  14 >>

log in

join