No Evidence That Global Warming is manmade

Originally posted by melatonin

Yeah, maybe. But that is not evidence. The oceans are currently acting as a sink.

Evidence from past Warming cycles do show that in the overall CO2 levels do increase naturally. The increase differs in warming cycles, as there are several factors that can influence how much natural CO2 is released during the warm cycles. But it has been proven that natural factors can increase the atmospheric CO2 levels to 400-1,000 ppm just fine....

Originally posted by melatonin
You need to read articles closely. You can't just make stuff up.

The levels of CO2 in the upper Indian ocean fluctuate vertically (up and down) and horizontally (across; see the graphs). This fluctuation can be 10 to 100 times the increase of CO2 in the ocean due to anthropogenic activity.

And i didn't, the fluctuation of CO2 in the upper oceans can be 10 to 100 times that of the anthropogenic CO2 emissions. The upper oceans are the major factor which controls the levels of CO2 in the atmosphere.

Originally posted by melatonin
It says nothing about the increase in the atmosphere being due to natural sources. Nada. Zilch. Nothing.

There is no evidence whatsoever to your claim that 100% or 95% of CO2 being emitted into the atmosphere is anthropogenic... even green websites puts the number at 3% anthropogenic...not 95% 100% like you are trying to claim...

Originally posted by melatonin
ABE: Is this the Pat Michaels you think is a respected figure in academia?

Dr. John Holdren of Harvard University told the U.S. Senate Republican Policy Committee, "Michaels is another of the handful of U.S. climate-change contrarians... He has published little if anything of distinction in the professional literature, being noted rather for his shrill op-ed pieces and indiscriminate denunciations of virtually every finding of mainstream climate science."

I will play devils advocate even better than you have tried...

Is this the same Dr. John Holdren's whose main studies are based on Energy and Resources ?....

University of California, Berkeley
1996 - Present: Professor of Energy and Resources Emeritus
1991 - 1996: Class of 1935 Professor of Energy
1978 - 1996: Professor of Energy and Resources
1988 - 1996: Chair of Graduate Advisors, Energy and Resources Group
1983 - 1996 (on leave 1987 - 1988): Vice Chair, Energy and Resources Group
1982 - 1983, Fall 1990: Acting Chair, Energy and Resources Group
1975 - 1978: Associate Professor of Energy and Resources
1973 - 1975: Assistant Professor of Energy and Resources
California Institute of Technology
1972 - 1973: Senior Research Fellow, Division of Humanities & Social Sciences and Environmental Quality Laboratory
Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory
1970 - 1973 (on leave 1/72 - 6/73): Physicist, Theory Group, Magnetic Fusion Energy Division
Stanford University
1969 - 1970: Research Assistant, Institute for Plasma Research
Lockheed Missiles and Space Company, Sunnyvale, California
1966 - 1967: Consultant in Re-Entry Physics
Summer, 1966: Associate Engineer, Senior, Re Entry Aerodynamics
Summer, 1965: Associate Engineer, Performance Analysis

www.whrc.org...

So he is mainly a physicist/engineer with "some" interest in environmental studies....

Originally posted by melatonin

And I'm sure Briffa can present his own data in a suitable fashion:

Yep, such as...


[edit on 16-4-2007 by Muaddib]

Originally posted by Muaddib
Evidence from past Warming cycles do show that in the overall CO2 levels do increase naturally. The increase differs in warming cycles, as there are several factors that can influence how much natural CO2 is released during the warm cycles. But it has been proven that natural factors can increase the atmospheric CO2 levels to 400-1,000 ppm just fine....

Except that all evidence shows that this is not the case now. The oceans are currently acting as a sink.

And I know that CO2 can increase naturally, that is likely what happens at the end of a glacial period - orbital variations induce warming, eventually CO2 is released from oceans, which then causes further warming. However, this is not the case now, we are in an interglacial period and the CO2 is anthropogenic.

And i didn't, the fluctuation of CO2 in the upper oceans can be 10 to 100 times that of the anthropogenic CO2 emissions. The upper oceans are the major factor which controls the levels of CO2 in the atmosphere.

heh, yeah, if you say so.

Because the oceans naturally contain much more carbon than the atmosphere, a dramatic industry-generated increase in CO2 concentration—such as that observed in the atmosphere—is not seen in the oceans. The anticipated total CO2 (TCO2) increase in surface water is approximately 0.05% per year—only one-tenth of the increase observed in the atmosphere. Detecting a signal that small, given the complicated carbon chemistry in the ocean, requires extremely accurate measurements.

Global Variations in Oceanic CO2

The figures illustrate the horizontal and vertical changes in oceanic CO2 levels observed in the Indian Ocean. Fluctuations in these CO2 levels in the upper ocean can be 10 to 100 times more than the annual anthropogenic increase. Therefore researchers have to make hundreds of thousands of CO2 measurements to accurately distinguish the natural variability from the CO2 increase due to rising atmospheric concentrations.

www.agu.org...

I have already stated several times that the fluctuations of CO2 levels in the upper oceans can be 10 to 100 times that of anthropogenic sources.

www.abovetopsecret.com...

Ambiguous. Depends what you mean by anthropogenic sources - 0.5

CO2 fluctuations in the upper oceans can be 10 to 100 times greater than that of all anthropogenic CO2 release...

From the same post as above. Now you are clearly wrong - 0

And the upper oceans can have fluctuations in the uptake and sink of CO2 of 10 to 100 times that of all anthropogenic CO2 released in a year....

www.abovetopsecret.com...

Wrong again - 0

And i didn't, the fluctuation of CO2 in the upper oceans can be 10 to 100 times that of the anthropogenic CO2 emissions.

www.abovetopsecret.com...

Wrong again - 0

You score was 0.5/4 = 12.5%. F2. You fail.

Actual answer: The amount taken up by the oceans due to anthropogenic atmospheric increases is 10-100 times smaller than natural fluctuations within the upper Indian ocean. Therefore careful analysis is required to separate the anthropogenic increase from natural variablity in the ocean.


Show me the evidence that shows the current rise in atmospheric CO2 is predominately due to some natural source, oceans or terrestrial. And I don't mean your misinterpretation of a scientific article.

There is no evidence whatsoever to your claim that 100% or 95% of CO2 being emitted into the atmosphere is anthropogenic... even green websites puts the number at 3% anthropogenic...not 95% 100% like you are trying to claim...

Almost all the current increase in atmospheric CO2 is anthropogenic. I have presented the evidence to show this to be the case.

6.2 Gtc per year human emissions released into the atmosphere.

2.8 GtC per year accumulating in the atmosphere.

3.4 GtC per year removed by oceans and land sinks.

Sorry, no room for your phantom natural source, the oceans and land seem to be taking up more than they are releasing at the moment. That is what the evidence shows. You should have taken my offer of 95% when you had the chance...

Muaddib, why does the Briffa reconstruction you've posted stop in 1975? And you do know that his 2001 reconstruction is the most up-to-date version of this proxy data? It's in the Briffa & Osborne (2002) graph I posted earlier.

[edit on 16-4-2007 by melatonin]

Originally posted by melatonin

Except that all evidence shows that this is not the case now. The oceans are currently acting as a sink.

During "El Niño events" yes, that is in part true. Oceans don't act as sinks, but rather retain more CO2 during El Niño events.

You still keep trying to avoid the fact that water vapor retains more heat than CO2, and it a 5% increase in H2Ov causes more warming than a doubling of CO2 ever will".... CO2 levels have not doubled, although water vapor levels have been increasing since the current warming since at least 260-360 years ago.

Originally posted by melatonin
Actual answer: The amount taken up by the oceans due to anthropogenic atmospheric increases is 10-100 times smaller than natural fluctuations within the upper Indian ocean. Therefore careful analysis is required to separate the anthropogenic increase from natural variablity in the ocean.

Wow, and i am the one making things up huh?...

Let me excerpt agian what it says on that article.

Fluctuations in these CO2 levels in the upper ocean can be 10 to 100 times more than the annual anthropogenic increase.

www.agu.org...

Originally posted by melatonin
Show me the evidence that shows the current rise in atmospheric CO2 is predominately due to some natural source, oceans or terrestrial. And I don't mean your misinterpretation of a scientific article.

Show me evidence that anthropogenic CO2 is 95% - 100% of the total CO2 increase we have seen in the last 150-200 years like you have been claiming...

Originally posted by melatonin

Sorry, no room for your phantom natural source, the oceans and land seem to be taking up more than they are releasing at the moment. That is what the evidence shows. You should have taken my offer of 95% when you had the chance...

What the heck is this some sort of "business deal"?...

Wow.....

Originally posted by melatonin
Muaddib, why does the Briffa reconstruction you've posted stop in 1975? And you do know that his 2001 reconstruction is the most up-to-date version of this proxy data? It's in the Briffa & Osborne (2002) graph I posted earlier.

Because as I have said several times already that is one of the graphs given by the "10 extrapolated graphs" you have been provided...

BTW, again why do you avoid the fact that the "sudden increased seen in the graphs you provided are actual measurements in cities which are heat sinks and are much warmer than the surrounding areas?...

Again trying to mislead members?...

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Fixed bolding

[edit on 17/4/07 by masqua]

Originally posted by Muaddib
Wow, and i am the one making things up huh?...

Let me excerpt agian what it says on that article.

Fluctuations in these CO2 levels in the upper ocean can be 10 to 100 times more than the annual anthropogenic increase.

www.agu.org...

That's what is generally called 'quote-mining'. Taking a quote out of context and presenting it as implying something rather different than the author intended.

Even if we take your bastardised interpretation as correct, it still says nothing about the increase in atmopheric CO2 being predominately natural. Not a thing. Nada. Zilch. Nothing.

What the heck is this some sort of "business deal"?...

Not really, it was a reference to my earlier attempt to come to an agreed upon figure. The evidence shows that almost all of the current CO2 increase is anthropogenic.

So, the figures I calculated earlier are acceptable as a rough indication of the human effect on the greenhouse effect, minimum 3%-6%.

BTW, again why do you avoid the fact that the "sudden increased seen in the graphs you provided are actual measurements in cities which are heat sinks and are much warmer than the surrounding areas?...

Again trying to mislead members?...

Just waiting for the right time, I wanted to make sure your inability to discuss the CO2 data was as clear as possible. I'm bored of the other stuff now, you have nothing.

So, I'll do the same for urban heat islands.

Are urban heat islands having any significant effect on climate and observations?

Abstract View
Volume 16, Issue 18 (September 2003)

Journal of Climate

Article: pp. 2941–2959 | Full Text | PDF (6.15M)

Assessment of Urban Versus Rural In Situ Surface Temperatures in the Contiguous United States: No Difference Found
Thomas C. Peterson

National Climatic Data Center, Asheville, North Carolina

Thomas C. Peterson

ABSTRACT
All analyses of the impact of urban heat islands (UHIs) on in situ temperature observations suffer from inhomogeneities or biases in the data. These inhomogeneities make urban heat island analyses difficult and can lead to erroneous conclusions. To remove the biases caused by differences in elevation, latitude, time of observation, instrumentation, and nonstandard siting, a variety of adjustments were applied to the data. The resultant data were the most thoroughly homogenized and the homogeneity adjustments were the most rigorously evaluated and thoroughly documented of any large-scale UHI analysis to date. Using satellite night-lights–derived urban/rural metadata, urban and rural temperatures from 289 stations in 40 clusters were compared using data from 1989 to 1991. Contrary to generally accepted wisdom, no statistically significant impact of urbanization could be found in annual temperatures. It is postulated that this is due to micro- and local-scale impacts dominating over the mesoscale urban heat island. Industrial sections of towns may well be significantly warmer than rural sites, but urban meteorological observations are more likely to be made within park cool islands than industrial regions.

Manuscript received May 26, 2002, in final form February 23, 2003

Brief Communications
Nature 432, 290 (18 November 2004) | doi:10.1038/432290a; Published online 17 November 2004

Climate: Large-scale warming is not urban
David E. Parker

Controversy has persisted1, 2 over the influence of urban warming on reported large-scale surface-air temperature trends. Urban heat islands occur mainly at night and are reduced in windy conditions3. Here we show that, globally, temperatures over land have risen as much on windy nights as on calm nights, indicating that the observed overall warming is not a consequence of urban development.

Global rural temperature trends
T Peterson, K Gallo, J Lawrimore, T Owen, A Huang, D McKittrick
National Climatic Data Center 151 Patton Avenue, Room 120 Asheville, NC 28801 USA
Abstract:

Using rural/urban land surface classifications derived from maps and satellite observed nighttime surface lights, global mean land surface air temperature time series were created using data from all weather observing stations in a global temperature data base and from rural stations only. The global rural temperature time series and trends are very similar to those derived from the full data set. Therefore, the well-known global temperature time series from in situ stations is not significantly impacted by urban warming.


AGU Index Terms: 1600 Global change (new category; 1610 Atmosphere ,; 3309 Climatology
Keywords/Free Terms: Global, Rural, Urban, Temperature, Trends

Geophysical Res. Ltrs. 1998GL900322
Vol. 26 , No. 3 , p. 329

Oh well, another one bites the dust...

[edit on 17-4-2007 by melatonin]

Originally posted by Muaddib
Because as I have said several times already that is one of the graphs given by the "10 extrapolated graphs" you have been provided...

No, it isn't. Briffa et al. (1998) is not in the wikipedia figure. Jones et al (1998) is, but the figure you are presenting is not Jones' reconstruction.

Don't you tire of being wrong time and again?

Originally posted by melatonin

Not really, it was a reference to my earlier attempt to come to an agreed upon figure. The evidence shows that almost all of the current CO2 increase is anthropogenic.

So, the figures I calculated earlier are acceptable as a rough indication of the human effect on the greenhouse effect, minimum 3%-6%.

Melatonin the only thing you have proven is your own inability to accept your mistakes, which you try to mirror on others...

Let's see again some of the facts which you keep trying to ignore claiming you "prefer to keep listening to Mann and associates's figures and graphs...

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

www.eia.doe.gov...

All the warming and weather events occur in the troposphere, where water vapor contributes to 95% of the total heating rate meanwhile CO2 is 5%, and less if we actually take into account the experiments I link to below once more.

But of course, you have to give more of Mann's graphs and the extrapolated graphs which I don't know how many times do I have to present some of those graphs separate to prove they show something different to what Mann and associates claim...

ONce m ore, the experiments which show that water vapor levels cause more warming than a doubling of CO2 levels ever will which you also keep trying to ignore and which just gave me a laugh after your little business attempt at getting me to agree to your twisting of some figures to make a false conclusion...

There are two tables that Norm Woods prepared that are insightful in terms of the effect of different atmospheric concentrations of CO2 and water vapor. For the tropical sounding, the downwelling longwave flux at the surface when the CO2 concentration changes from 360ppm to 560ppm is 0.09 Watts per meter squared, as contrasted with a change of 0.41 Watts per meter squared when the concentration changes to 360ppm from 0 ppm. The reason for this relative insensitivity to added CO2 in the tropics is due to the high concentrations of water vapor which results in additional long wave flux changes due to CO2 being very muted.
...................
For water vapor, with the tropical sounding, the change of the concentration from zero to its current value, results in a 303.84 Watts per meter squared change in the downwelling longwave flux at the surface. Adding 5% more water vapor, results in a 3.88 Watts per meter squared increase in the downwelling longwave flux. In contrast, due to the much lower atmospheric concentrations of water vapor in the subarctic winter sounding, the change from a zero concentration to its current value results in an increase of 116.46 Watts per meter squared, while adding 5% to the current value results in a 0.70 Watts per meter squared increase.

climatesci.colorado.edu...

[edit on 18-4-2007 by Muaddib]

Originally posted by melatonin

No, it isn't. Briffa et al. (1998) is not in the wikipedia figure. Jones et al (1998) is, but the figure you are presenting is not Jones' reconstruction.

Briffa is one of the scientists who contributed to that graph for that year...

P.D. Jones, K.R. Briffa, T.P. Barnett, and S.F.B. Tett (1998).

en.wikipedia.org...:2000_Year_Temperature_Comparison.png

Originally posted by melatonin
Don't you tire of being wrong time and again?

Me?....
I am not the one who claimed Dr. Akasofu does not know much about CLimate change, a Phd in geophysics who has been in charge of a Climate Change research center for the past 9 years, and who has studied and written books about the Solar-terrestrial physics...

I am not the one who keeps ignoring experiments and research which shows CO2 do not cause as much warming as the "real evil GHG"...water vapor... among some of your other claims...

Stop trying to mirror on me your own failures melatonin...

BTW, if we use an estimate from the "let's blame mankind crowd", natural sources emit 770 billion metric tons of CO2 compared to 23.1 billion metric tons emitted by anthropogenic sources, and that's just one of the estimated "guesses".

"Greenhouse Gases in the United States 2002", supra note 20.


Other guesses puts the anthropogenic CO2 emission at 0.28% of the total emitted by natural sources according to the Kansas Geological Survey, and other "guesses" puts anthropogenic CO2 even lower.... but melatonin had to come up with his own figures and claim 95% or 100% CO2 is anthropogenic....



[edit on 18-4-2007 by Muaddib]

Originally posted by Muaddib
Briffa is one of the scientists who contributed to that graph for that year...

P.D. Jones, K.R. Briffa, T.P. Barnett, and S.F.B. Tett (1998).

en.wikipedia.org...:2000_Year_Temperature_Comparison.png

But that is not Briffa et al. (1998) - which is where the graph is from, this is not in the wiki graph. The reference from wiki is Jones et al. (1998).

Two different reconstructions.

OK, change of subject. I guess urban heat islands are out now...

Originally posted by Muaddib
ONce m ore, the experiments which show that water vapor levels cause more warming than a doubling of CO2 levels ever will which you also keep trying to ignore and which just gave me a laugh after your little business attempt at getting me to agree to your twisting of some figures to make a false conclusion...

The results suggest that the radiative changes induced by perturbations to carbon dioxide and water vapor are substantially different. For water vapor, modest increases beyond the base profile mixing ratios have minimal impact on longwave heating rates, but cause significant increases in downwelling longwave fluxes to the surface. For carbon dioxide, increasing the concentration beyond the base profile of 280 ppmv contributes to enhanced heating in the lower troposphere and to significantly enhanced cooling in the stratosphere, but causes minimal increases in downwelling longwave flux, particularly for the tropical and subarctic summer profiles. For the subarctic winter profile, this doubling of carbon dioxide produces an increase in downwelling longwave flux similar in magnitude to that for a ten percent increase in water vapor mixing ratio.

climatesci.colorado.edu...

Maybe you can explain what Roger Pielke Sr is talking about here. Tell me the difference between 'downwelling radiative flux' and 'longwave heating rates'.

Also, it is clear that he accepts that CO2 does cause stratospheric cooling - an observation and validation of GHG warming.

And can you tell me why he makes statements such as this?..

On "the conclusion was made that the 'balance of evidence' supported the notion of ongoing human-caused climate change.", the evidence of a human fingerprint on the global and regional climate is incontrovertible as clearly illustrated in the National Research Council report and in our research papers (e.g. see blue.atmos.colostate.edu...).

www.realclimate.org...-4426

Roger Pielke Sr. suggests we should focus on more local effects rather than global changes. He also thinks that some human effects (land use etc) are not given the attention they deserve. Maybe.

What he doesn't deny, is that human activity is having a significant effect on climate - local and global. And the same is true for CO2 itself:

In the weblog of April 27 entitled “What Fraction of Global Warming is Due to the Radiative Forcing of Increased Atmospheric Concentrations of CO2?” it was shown that, with respect to the human climate forcings, the globally averaged positive (warming) radiative forcing contribution due to CO2 is about 28%. This value is a conservative estimate, and could be lower.

climatesci.colorado.edu...

He calculates CO2 to be contributing about 26-28% to radiative forcing, maybe a bit lower, IPCC suggests up to 40%-50% IIRC. But, of course, he takes Scaffeta & West (2006) as a fine piece of work to get these numbers and changes CO2 forcings for some unknown reason (from 1.4 wm-2 to 1.1 wm-2). So what does those numbers you have quoted actually mean for the big picture? They barely affect Pielke Sr. analysis, CO2 is still an important forcing, but a tad less important to him - seems he's part of your dreaded 'lets blame mankind crowd', heh.

As I have clearly said before, this is where the debate is now - how much of an effect are we having. The scientific debate on whether we are having an effect is finished.

www.realclimate.org...-19672

RealClimate - the place where real climate scientists with a degree of credibility and integrity can discuss scientific issues

Other guesses puts the anthropogenic CO2 emission at 0.28% of the total emitted by natural sources according to the Kansas Geological Survey, and other "guesses" puts anthropogenic CO2 even lower.... but melatonin had to come up with his own figures and claim 95% or 100% CO2 is anthropogenic....

Their figures are totally misleading. As the data clearly shows, what the oceans and land biosphere emit, they also absorb. They are overall sinks not sources. The increase is anthropogenic. You have produced nothing to question this data. Nada. Zilch. Nothing.

[edit on 18-4-2007 by melatonin]

Originally posted by melatonin
..............
And can you tell me why he makes statements such as this?..

Can you tell me why he makes comments as this?...

This new material discusses the relative role of CO2 and water vapor with respect to their radiative forcings, and provides a quantitative documentation of the dominance of water vapor as a greenhouse gas.

Originally posted by melatonin
RealClimate - the place where real climate scientists with a degree of credibility and integrity can discuss scientific issues

BS and you should know that by now... Real Climate is where Mann and associates are once again trying to dupe the world, this time by extrapolating some of Mann's graphs with others and claiming... "see, Mann was right"....

Originally posted by melatonin

But that is not Briffa et al. (1998) - which is where the graph is from, this is not in the wiki graph. The reference from wiki is Jones et al. (1998).

Two different reconstructions.

It was all three of them. Briffa's data and graph for 1998 does not show what they claim it does. Briffa's name was just added like so many others which provided more than one graph including Mann just to make it look like "several different graphs all prove the same thing, when they don't.

Originally posted by Muaddib
Can you tell me why he makes comments as this?...

This new material discusses the relative role of CO2 and water vapor with respect to their radiative forcings, and provides a quantitative documentation of the dominance of water vapor as a greenhouse gas.

Because due to WVs massive abundance it can be considered to be true? Ramanathan & Coakley figures show WV at 36% and CO2 at 12%. However, if we want to know what is driving current warming, H20 is out the picture - it is a feedback responding to other forcings.

It was all three of them. Briffa's data and graph for 1998 does not show what they claim it does. Briffa's name was just added like so many others which provided more than one graph including Mann just to make it look like "several different graphs all prove the same thing, when they don't.

'Incompetent amateur physicist tells internationally renowned paleoclimatologists what their research really says'

heh.

[edit on 19-4-2007 by melatonin]

---edited for double posts--- What in the world is happening, I post once and get two posts.

[edit on 20-4-2007 by Muaddib]

Originally posted by melatonin

Because due to WVs massive abundance it can be considered to be true? Ramanathan & Coakley figures show WV at 36% and CO2 at 12%. However, if we want to know what is driving current warming, H20 is out the picture - it is a feedback responding to other forcings.

High transmition, means low absorption. In the above graph once again we can see that water vapor retains more bands of radiation than CO2....

Now...let me post once again V. Ramanathan and J.A. Coakley's graph of GHGs heat trapping efficiency....



Now, if that graph was showing "the total" heat trapping efficiency of all GHGs the added sum of the percentages would be 100%. It is because of GHGs that the Earth is warm, and those gases are the ones that trap 100% the heat that maintains the Earth at a temperature that can sustain life as it exists today...

Adding the percentages of the heat trapping efficiency of GHGs in that graphs gives 65%. What happened to the other 35%?

Now, let's actually excerpt what V. Ramanathan and Anand Inamdar have to say about the radiactive forcing of GHGs.

I will be posting parts of the whole article which are of main interest.

The radiative forcing due to clouds and water vapor
V. Ramanathan and Anand Inamdar
Center for Atmospheric Sciences, Scripps Institution of Oceanography, University of California, San Diego, CA


Typically, the absorption and emission of radiation occurs in
discrete bands with thousands of rotational lines within each band. Even with modern day supercomputers it is impossible to estimate the radiative transfer due to all of these lines and bands through the atmosphere for the entire planet. Thus a three-dimensional characterization of the radiative heating rates from equator to pole using the line-by-line approach is impractical. What is normally done is to use so-called band models that approximate the effects of the thousands of lines with an equivalent line.
............................

However, it was S. Arrhenius (1896) who laid the formal foundation linking
atmospheric gases to climate change. His main goal was to estimate the surfacetemperature increase due to an increase in CO2. To this end, he developed a detailed and quantitative model for the radiation budget of the atmosphere and surface.

Chamberlin (1899) also should get a major credit for this development. Arrhenius recognized the importance of water vapor in determining the sensitivity of climate to external forcing such as increase in CO2 and solar insolation. A simple explanation for the water-vapor feedback among the early studies of climate sensitivity was the fact that the relative humidity of the atmosphere is invariant to climate change.

As Earth warmed, the saturation vapor pressure (es) would increase exponentially with temperature according to the Clausius–Clapeyron relation, and the elevated (es) would (if relative humidity remains the same) enhance the water-vapor concentration, further amplifying the greenhouse effect. Although it is well known that atmospheric circulation plays a big role, a satisfactory answer as to why the relative humidity in the atmosphere is conserved is still elusive. M¨oller (1963) used the assumption of constant relative humidity and obtained a surprisingly large sensitivity for the surface temperature.
............................
John Tyndall measured the heat absorption by gases (CO2 and H2O) through carefully designed experiments in the laboratory. Based on the results of these experiments, he concluded in his Bakerian lecture (Tyndall, 1861, p. 273–285), that the chief influence on terrestrial rays is exercised by the aqueous vapor, every variation of which must produce a climate change. His laboratory measurements were extended and supplemented by direct observations of atmospheric transmission by others during the following 30 years; the most important and reliable of such atmospheric data were taken by Samuel P. Langley

www-ramanathan.ucsd.edu...

Originally posted by melatonin
'Incompetent amateur physicist tells internationally renowned paleoclimatologists what their research really says'

heh.

Internationally renowned paloclimatologists wantabes who since 1998 tried to claim "the Medieval Warming and the Little Ice age didn't exist" now want to claim once again Mann's graphs and data is good...even when most respected scientists know Mann's data and graphs are rigged... and i say rigged because even after Mann's data has been discredited, there are still some people who claim his data is good ....

It is obvious who the incompetent amateur is...

[edit on 20-4-2007 by Muaddib]

Originally posted by Muaddib
Adding the percentages of the heat trapping efficiency of GHGs in that graphs gives 65%. What happened to the other 35%?

It will be taken up by other minor GHGs and overlap of absorption between all GHGs, as shown by most models?

The radiative forcing due to clouds and water vapor
V. Ramanathan and Anand Inamdar
Center for Atmospheric Sciences, Scripps Institution of Oceanography, University of California, San Diego, CA


Chamberlin (1899) also should get a major credit for this development. Arrhenius recognized the importance of water vapor in determining the sensitivity of climate to external forcing such as increase in CO2 and solar insolation. A simple explanation for the water-vapor feedback among the early studies of climate sensitivity was the fact that the relative humidity of the atmosphere is invariant to climate change.

As Earth warmed, the saturation vapor pressure (es) would increase exponentially with temperature according to the Clausius–Clapeyron relation, and the elevated (es) would (if relative humidity remains the same) enhance the water-vapor concentration, further amplifying the greenhouse effect. Although it is well known that atmospheric circulation plays a big role, a satisfactory answer as to why the relative humidity in the atmosphere is conserved is still elusive. M¨oller (1963) used the assumption of constant relative humidity and obtained a surprisingly large sensitivity for the surface temperature.
............................
John Tyndall measured the heat absorption by gases (CO2 and H2O) through carefully designed experiments in the laboratory. Based on the results of these experiments, he concluded in his Bakerian lecture (Tyndall, 1861, p. 273–285), that the chief influence on terrestrial rays is exercised by the aqueous vapor, every variation of which must produce a climate change. His laboratory measurements were extended and supplemented by direct observations of atmospheric transmission by others during the following 30 years; the most important and reliable of such atmospheric data were taken by Samuel P. Langley

And? H20 is an amplifying mechanism that reacts to other forcings. OK. We best stop emitting so much CO2 and other long-lasting GHGs then.

What does Figure 5.1 in the Ramanathan article show?

Maybe that explains why they also note this:

The global average Ga is 131 W m−2 or the normalized ga is 0.33, i.e., the atmosphere reduces the energy escaping to space by 131 W m−2 (or by a factor of 1/3). The ocean regions have a slightly larger greenhouse effect (0.35 for ocean vs. 0.33 for land) compared with the land (Figure 5.7b). In order to get another perspective on the results shown in Figure 5.7, we note that a doubling of CO2 (holding the surface and atmospheric temperature fixed) will enhance Ga by about 4Wm−2. We should note that the ga shown in Figure 5.7 includes the greenhouse effect of water vapor and all other greenhouse gases including CO2, O3, and several trace gases.

Doubling CO2 will add around 4Wm-2. Similar to other data, if we add feedbacks such as water vapour, this is around 3'C increase.

[edit on 20-4-2007 by melatonin]

Originally posted by melatonin

It will be taken up by other minor GHGs and overlap of absorption between all GHGs, as shown by most models?

A 35% heat trapping efficiency by other GHGs is not minor. It is more trapping efficiency than CO2 at 12%.

Even Ramanathan states that it is impossible to estimate the overall radiative transfer for the entire planet, which is the oposite to what you tried to claim his graph represents.

Originally posted by melatonin
Doubling CO2 will add around 4Wm-2. Similar to other data, if we add feedbacks such as water vapour, this is around 3'C increase.

Except for the fact that in past "Global" Climate Changes there have been warmer time periods and CO2 had not increased as much as today, and since the current warming began 260 years before CO2 levels began increasing it is only obvious CO2 did not cause the current warming, and as the geological record has shown temperatures can be warmer with lower CO2 levels than exist today in the atmosphere.

Even experiments show that you will need at least a doubling of CO2 to get a noticeable warming.

[edit on 20-4-2007 by Muaddib]

Originally posted by Muaddib
A 35% heat trapping efficiency by other GHGs is not minor. It is more trapping efficiency than CO2 at 12%.

A lot of the 35% is due to overlapping absorption. Gavin Schmidt's figures from NASA-GISS make this clearer.

66-85% for water vapour and clouds.
15-34% for the other GHGs; including 9-26% for CO2.

Thus in Ramanathan's study, the data shows 36% for water vapour, 12% for CO2. If we remove them both, the reduction would be greater than 48%, as the absorption overlaps.

Even Ramanathan states that it is impossible to estimate the overall radiative transfer for the entire planet, which is the oposite to what you tried to claim his graph represents.

Oh, OK. Give it a rest then. Why even bother using the data if you think it's impossible to use?

Except for the fact that in past "Global" Climate Changes there have been warmer time periods and CO2 had not increased as much as today, and since the current warming began 260 years before CO2 levels began increasing it is only obvious CO2 did not cause the current warming, and as the geological record has shown temperatures can be warmer with lower CO2 levels than exist today in the atmosphere.

Logical fallacy. No-one seriously proposes that warming 260 years ago is causing the CO2 increase now, show me on the Briffa graph were this warming is? We know where the CO2 increase is coming from. Here's the basic maths again:

6.2 GtC per year emitted into the atmosphere by humans

2.8 GtC per year accumulating in the atmosphere

3.4 GtC per year removed by the ocean and terriestrial sinks.

If the CO2 was a feedback due to warming the oceans and terrestrial biosphere would be a source, they are not, they are currently acting as a sink.

Even experiments show that you will need at least a doubling of CO2 to get a noticeable warming.

What is noticeable? Doubling CO2 alone would give around 1'C, add all the feedbacks and we get 3'C. This is where your 'dominating' H20 comes into play, it's an important feedback and Ramanathan makes this very clear.

[edit on 20-4-2007 by melatonin]

Originally posted by melatonin

Thus in Ramanathan's study, the data shows 36% for water vapour, 12% for CO2. If we remove them both, the reduction would be greater than 48%, as the absorption overlaps.

Ramanathan's graph tells us that the same amount of CO2 and water vapor, water vapor absorbs more than twice the heat than CO2, and he further states that it is impossible to estimate the overall radiative transfer which in turn tells us that his graph is not representing the total global heat trapping efficiency of the GHGs, it just shows the same amounts of each GHG absorbs different bands of radiation from the sun, and water vapor is the most important one, and even clouds absorb more heat than CO2.

Originally posted by melatonin
Oh, OK. Give it a rest then. Why even bother using the data if you think it's impossible to use?

No you should give it a rest, it is obvious once again you do not understand what Ramanathan's graph is showing...

Originally posted by melatonin
Logical fallacy. No-one seriously proposes that warming 260 years ago is causing the CO2 increase now, show me on the Briffa graph were this warming is?

That's kind of hard to do since when we separate each one of those graphs which now have been extrapolated trying to give credence to Mann, who has lost all credibility by trying to erase the MWP and the LIA, you see the separate graphs show totally different results...

Again, using "more credible research" such as that performed by several other scientists all who say the MWP and the RWM were warmer than today, and CO2 levels did not increase much during those periods but in past Climate Changes the increase of CO2 has been much larger when temperatures were similar to the present as what happened during the middle of the Ordovician period.

Borehole temperatures show that on overall temperatures were increasing since at least 1600, let's forget for a second that the absorbtion of heat through the Earth takes a long time and let's just use the date 1600 as the date when the warming started for most of the world, although the warming started earlier in other parts of the world. Anyways, since about 1600 temperatures began to increasingly rise and about 260 years later in 1860 CO2 levels "began to increase" at the same rate that temperatures had been increasing 260 years earlier.

Let's also remind some that the geological record has shown that CO2 levels lags temperature increases, which for some reason some people around here tend to forget once in a while.

The logical fallacy is to claim that CO2 levels caused the current temperature increase.

Originally posted by melatonin
We know where the CO2 increase is coming from. Here's the basic maths again:

6.2 GtC per year emitted into the atmosphere by humans

2.8 GtC per year accumulating in the atmosphere

3.4 GtC per year removed by the ocean and terriestrial sinks.

And once again you leave out some important data and make up your own conclusions...

See link below as an anwser to your claims.

Originally posted by melatonin
If the CO2 was a feedback due to warming the oceans and terrestrial biosphere would be a source, they are not, they are currently acting as a sink.

WRONG again...

Release of Carbon Dioxide From the Equatorial Pacific Ocean Intensified During the 1990s
.........
“The results of our study show that the intensity of CO2 release from the western equatorial Pacific has increased during the past decade. By 2001, this reduced the global ocean uptake – about 2 billion tons of carbon a year – by about 2.5 percent,” said Takahashi who directed the study that provides a clearer picture of the importance of PDO events on the Earth’s carbon cycle. “This is on top of the CO2 emission and absorption fluctuations seen between El Niño and La Niña years, which occur on shorter timescales.”

www.earthinstitute.columbia.edu...

Originally posted by melatonin
What is noticeable? Doubling CO2 alone would give around 1'C, add all the feedbacks and we get 3'C. This is where your 'dominating' H20 comes into play, it's an important feedback and Ramanathan makes this very clear.

According to whom does a doubling of CO2 would increase temperatures 1C?...

If CO2 levels were to double and if all other GHGs were absent the heat trapping efficiency of CO2 would increase 1.5% not in degrees. But since we know that other GHGs exist in the atmosphere, the heat trapping efficiency of CO2 decreases to about 0.5%

[edit on 28-4-2007 by Muaddib]

Originally posted by Muaddib
Ramanathan's graph tells us that the same amount of CO2 and water vapor, water vapor absorbs more than twice the heat than CO2...

No, it does not. It is based on a 1D model of the atmosphere. It uses the same method as Gavin Schmidt does with the NASA-GISS and produces figures that correspond to this model (i.e. within range).

No you should give it a rest, it is obvious once again you do not understand what Ramanathan's graph is showing...

Heh, yeah, if you say so.

That's kind of hard to do since when we separate each one of those graphs which now have been extrapolated trying to give credence to Mann, who has lost all credibility by trying to erase the MWP and the LIA, you see the separate graphs show totally different results...

Again, using "more credible research" such as that performed by several other scientists all who say the MWP and the RWM were warmer than today

Mann has a bit more credence than yourself. You even make it out that it was solely Mann who has shown the MWP is not global phenomenon, this suggestion was around well before MHB 1998.

Was there a ‘medieval warm period’, and if so, where and when?

Of course the reconstructions show slightly different results, they use different proxies, sometimes different statistical methods. But, overall, they show that 20th century warming is very likely greater than anything for 1000 years, and probably 2000 years. That's why there is no need to depend on one particular proxy reconstruction, we can view them all and make a general conclusion, a conclusion that is not consistent with your suggestions.

As for the data you have, as usual you produce restricted localised data from a few locations and attempt to extrapolate to global trends. It seems to be the norm for you. Try looking at the big picture rather than cherry-picking. However, it might not conform to your preconceptions, so I understand why you refuse to do so.

Borehole temperatures show that on overall temperatures were increasing since at least 1600, let's forget for a second that the absorbtion of heat through the Earth takes a long time and let's just use the date 1600 as the date when the warming started for most of the world, although the warming started earlier in other parts of the world. Anyways, since about 1600 temperatures began to increasingly rise and about 260 years later in 1860 CO2 levels "began to increase" at the same rate that temperatures had been increasing 260 years earlier.

You still don't see how this conflicts with the evidence, you can propose what you like, but evidence will win the day every time. Where is the CO2 increase after the MWP? We are in a period when CO2 is at greater levels than for 650,000 years, you suggest that a little warming in the 1600s produced this, heh.

Let's also remind some that the geological record has shown that CO2 levels lags temperature increases, which for some reason some people around here tend to forget once in a while.

Not at all. Not forgotten. I've gone through this numerous times. You just like to think it means something profound to the current debate, when it doesn't. It's just that some people can't get past simplistic illogical insights into physical processes. No-one claims that CO2 was the intitiator of glacial processes, just a very important amplifier of another intitiator.

WRONG again...

Release of Carbon Dioxide From the Equatorial Pacific Ocean Intensified During the 1990s

Again, you produce one localised example (western equatorial pacific) and attempt to extrapolate to global trends. Even if you read the article it still says the oceans are a sink, it just says that it reduced uptake of atmospheric CO2 by 2.5% (that is 2.5% of the 2 billion GtC which is human sourced), says nothing about the oceans being an overall source. All this shows is that you really can't read a scientific article.

If you read any of the recent articles on how the sinks will act in the future, they generally show that the oceans will be less effective as an absorber of our CO2 eventually, that is, more of the CO2 we are emitting will accumulate. This will not be a good thing. With enough warming, they may eventually become an overall source.

According to whom does a doubling of CO2 would increase temperatures 1C?...

According to anyone who can do the calculations correctly and not quote-mine, completely misunderstand, cherry-pick, and/or misrepresent the evidence. A doubling of CO2 would give a forcing of around 4Wm-2, this produces about 1'C increase alone, even Lindzen accepts this. Feedbacks enhance this, such as the resultant increase in water vapour, producing the figures the IPCC use.

[edit on 28-4-2007 by melatonin]