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.
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.
..................
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.
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.
Originally posted by Muaddib
Keep your cookies Regenmacher, you need them more than I do...
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
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.
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.
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....
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
Originally posted by TheAvenger
Even the great all-knowing climate change geniuses at Real Climate acknowledge that water vapor is a major GHG
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.
You lads are way too serious in these debates.
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).
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.
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.
Originally posted by melatonin
My electrified abacus shows this to be (32/125)x100=25.6%
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%.
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]
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...
Your abacus is wrong, that's what happens when people bring out such matter from their behinds
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.
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.
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.