Global Warming

Outhouse

I Post A Lot But I Can't Edit This
Feb 13, 2007
2,643
568
Germantown, TN
Name
Jon Scobey
Boat
Titanic
Has nothing to do with long range fishing, just thought I would share a neat pic of global warming thanx to our home boy, Al Gore. Last weekend it got down to 4, it's now 61 with thunderstorms.
 

Attachments

  • image.jpg
    image.jpg
    109.2 KB · Views: 572
Upvote 0

$norkle

Member
May 6, 2008
692
1,331
Corvallis,OR
Name
Bruce
Boat
In my dreams!
Has nothing to do with long range fishing, just thought I would share a neat pic of global warming thanx to our home boy, Al Gore. Last weekend it got down to 4, it's now 61 with thunderstorms.

Jon:

Global warming is a misnomer. It's simply climate change, and over 30 years ago one of the primary predictions of the climate change models was that we would experience more rapid swings in weather conditions and with greater amplitude------you've just described it in spades!
 
Upvote 0

invictus

AVD
May 26, 2006
4,416
2,003
Orange County
Name
Jason
Boat
Tiara 2000 Cuddy
Jon:

Global warming is a misnomer. It's simply climate change, and over 30 years ago one of the primary predictions of the climate change models was that we would
experience more rapid swings in weather conditions and with greater amplitude------you've just described it in spades!

You will notice these two terms, "global warming" and "climate change" are being used interchangeably now by some, blurring the line to the point where most people now assume climate change refers to man made activity exclusive.

A little proponent word shift. A cute little trick.
 
Upvote 0

egarratt

Member
Aug 11, 2005
720
589
San Diego
Name
Eddie G
Boat
None
It is an accepted fact in the scientific community (not scientists employed by oil companies) that burning of fossil fuels has added crap into the air at an ever increasing rate. If you have travelled to Asia and SE Asia you would understand how much smog is actually still being generated (burning dirty coal). Using a winter temperatures in one part of the world to try and justify that these conditions are not real and increasing shows a sense of ignorance to the facts.

From wiki . .
Global warming refers to an unequivocal and continuing rise in the average temperature of Earth's climate system.[SUP][2][/SUP] Since 1971, 90% of the warming has occurred in the oceans.[SUP][3][/SUP] Despite the oceans' dominant role in energy storage, the term "global warming" is also used to refer to increases in average temperature of the air and sea at earth's surface.[SUP][4][/SUP][SUP][5][/SUP] Since the early 20th century, the global air and sea surface temperature has increased about 0.8 °C (1.4 °F), with about two-thirds of the increase occurring since 1980.[SUP][6][/SUP] Each of the last three decades has been successively warmer at the Earth’s surface than any preceding decade since 1850.[SUP][7][/SUP]
 
  • Like
Reactions: aussiefisho
Upvote 0

darrenforeal

Say no to bad info
Jun 24, 2012
891
73
Santa Ysabel
Name
Darren
Boat
36' Uniflite/Vagabond
^+1

Jon:

Global warming is a misnomer. It's simply climate change, and over 30 years ago one of the primary predictions of the climate change models was that we would experience more rapid swings in weather conditions and with greater amplitude------you've just described it in spades!

thank you. Someone not getting caught up in semantics. Hard to find that nowadays it seems :/
 
Upvote 0

wils

lazy-ass well known "member"
May 31, 2003
9,165
5,773
not a spoiled bitch from san diego
Name
bill
Boat
I hate boats
global warming, climate change, extreme weather swings, coral reefs un-naturally dieing off due to major acidity taking place aint gonna bother me here 5,000 - 10,000 miles away.
semantical games, both extremes of the political spectrum worshipping/fighting over al gore barnums' circus OF OVER 10 YEARS AGO.......

seems like a lot of folk are more intent on STILL attacking/de-bunking al gore instead of thinking about how their kids' lives are going to be impacted as mother nature shows who is really in charge around here.
 
  • Like
Reactions: aussiefisho
Upvote 0

Outhouse

I Post A Lot But I Can't Edit This
Feb 13, 2007
2,643
568
Germantown, TN
Name
Jon Scobey
Boat
Titanic
global warming, climate change, extreme weather swings, coral reefs un-naturally dieing off due to major acidity taking place aint gonna bother me here 5,000 - 10,000 miles away.
semantical games, both extremes of the political spectrum worshipping/fighting over al gore barnums' circus OF OVER 10 YEARS AGO.......

seems like a lot of folk are more intent on STILL attacking/de-bunking al gore instead of thinking about how their kids' lives are going to be impacted as mother nature shows who is really in charge around here.

i can joke about Al and Tipper because they are home boys. He's the worlds biggest hippocrit. I was simply sharing an interesting photo along with a small joke.
 
Upvote 0

Corndog

Landlocked
Sep 22, 2009
4,854
1,611
Northern Colorado
Name
Jason Jones ( Lone Shark)
Boat
Century 1801, Hobie PA14 & SoA
Whatever it takes to bring the cows within half day range of Dana Point! The 14 mile bank would surely be renamed :D
 
Upvote 0

stairman

......
May 16, 2009
5,323
3,503
ramona /ca/usa
Name
doug
Boat
yak and lowe duck hunting skiff but they identify as sportfishing crusiers
There has only been one constant over the last 800k years and it's four major and two minor glaciations and their interglacials....a changing climate,99% of which happened before man became a factor.
 
Upvote 0

ConSeaMate

Legend in my own mind
Sep 6, 2005
2,686
286
65
Escondido
Name
Buster Brown
Boat
28' Silverton "ConSeaMate"
[h=1]How much has the global temperature risen in the last 100 years?[/h] Global average temperature since 1880. This graph from NOAA shows the annual trend in average global air temperature in degrees Celsius, through December 2012. For each year, the range of uncertainty is indicated by the gray vertical bars. The blue line tracks the changes in the trend over time. Click here or on the image to enlarge. (Image courtesy NOAA's National Climatic Data Center.)


Averaged over all land and ocean surfaces, temperatures warmed roughly 1.53°F (0.85ºC) from 1880 to 2012, according to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (see page 3 of the IPCC's Climate Change 2013: The Physical Science Basis, Summary for Policymakers - PDF). Because oceans tend to warm and cool more slowly than land areas, continents have warmed the most. In the Northern Hemisphere, where most of Earth's land mass is located, the three decades from 1983 to 2012 were likely the warmest 30-year period of the last 1400 years, according to the IPCC.
The graph above clearly shows the variability of global temperature over various time intervals (such as year to year or between decades) as well as the long-term increase since 1880. The full Working Group 1 report, to be finalized in early 2014, is addressing in detail the slowdown observed in the rate of warming since the late 1990s. (For more, see the FAQ entry: "Hasn't Earth been cooling since 1998?")
There are slight differences in global records between groups at NCDC, NASA, and the University of East Anglia. Each group calculates global temperature year by year, using slightly different techniques. However, analyses from all three groups point to the decade between 2000 and 2009 as the hottest since modern records began more than a century ago. Temperatures in the 2010s have been running slightly warmer still.
U.S. average temperature since 1895. The blue line is the 12-month average for each year. The green line is a calculation of the trend during each decade. The red line shows the trend over the last century of records. The gray line is flat because it is a simple average for the entire period. Click here or on the image to enlarge. (Image courtesy NOAA's National Climatic Data Center.)


[h=2]What about the United States?[/h] The year 2012 was the warmest on record for the contiguous United States, according to the National Climatic Data Center (NCDC). As shown in the graph at right, 2012 was substantially warmer—a full degree Fahrenheit (0.6°C)—than any other year since national records began in 1895. The U.S. warming rate of about 1.3°F (0.72°C) per century (red line in the graph at bottom right) is roughly comparable to the global rate of warming (see above).
Although the U.S. racked up several cooler years from 2008 to 2010, the decade as a whole (2000–2009) was the nation's warmest on record, with an average temperature of 54.0°F. In contrast, the 1990s averaged 53.6°F, and the 1930s averaged 53.4°F.




[h=3]FAQs:[/h]








[h=2]Understanding Climate Change[/h]

[h=2]What Can We Do?[/h]


[h=2]For Journalists[/h]
 
Upvote 0

BiggestT

I Post A Lot But I Can't Edit This
Sep 8, 2004
12,133
8,155
Fullerton
Name
SM
Boat
Salsipuedes & Czech Mate
http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/greenhouse_data.html

"Putting it all together:
total human greenhouse gas contributions
add up to about 0.28% of the greenhouse effect."

"5. To finish with the math, by calculating the product of the adjusted CO2 contribution to greenhouse gases (3.618%) and % of CO2 concentration from anthropogenic (man-made) sources (3.225%), we see that only (0.03618 X 0.03225) or 0.117% of the greenhouse effect is due to atmospheric CO2 from human activity. The other greenhouse gases are similarly calculated and are summarized below."

Sorry, but that tail is not wagging this climate change dog.

Global Warming:
A closer look at the numbers

|| Global Warming || Table of Contents ||



Water Vapor Rules
the Greenhouse System



Just how much of the "Greenhouse Effect" is caused by human activity?

It is about 0.28%, if water vapor is taken into account-- about 5.53%, if not.

This point is so crucial to the debate over global warming that how water vapor is or isn't factored into an analysis of Earth's greenhouse gases makes the difference between describing a significant human contribution to the greenhouse effect, or a negligible one.

Water vapor constitutes Earth's most significant greenhouse gas, accounting for about 95% of Earth's greenhouse effect (5). Interestingly, many "facts and figures' regarding global warming completely ignore the powerful effects of water vapor in the greenhouse system, carelessly (perhaps, deliberately) overstating human impacts as much as 20-fold.

Water vapor is 99.999% of natural origin. Other atmospheric greenhouse gases, carbon dioxide (CO2), methane (CH4), nitrous oxide (N2O), and miscellaneous other gases (CFC's, etc.), are also mostly of natural origin (except for the latter, which is mostly anthropogenic).

Human activites contribute slightly to greenhouse gas concentrations through farming, manufacturing, power generation, and transportation. However, these emissions are so dwarfed in comparison to emissions from natural sources we can do nothing about, that even the most costly efforts to limit human emissions would have a very small-- perhaps undetectable-- effect on global climate.



For those interested in more details a series of data sets and charts have been assembled below in a 5-step statistical synopsis.

Note that the first two steps ignore water vapor.

1. Greenhouse gas concentrations

2. Converting concentrations to contribution

3. Factoring in water vapor

4. Distinguishing natural vs man-made greenhouse gases

5. Putting it all together



Note: Calculations are expressed to 3 significant digits to reduce rounding errors, not necessarily to indicate statistical precision of the data. All charts were plotted using Lotus 1-2-3.

Caveat: This analysis is intended to provide a simplified comparison of the various man-made and natural greenhouse gases on an equal basis with each other. It does not take into account all of the complicated interactions between atmosphere, ocean, and terrestrial systems, a feat which can only be accomplished by better computer models than are currently in use.

Greenhouse Gas Concentrations:
Natural vs man-made (anthropogenic)



1. The following table was constructed from data published by the U.S. Department of Energy (1) summarizing concentrations of the various atmospheric greenhouse gases, and supplemented with information from other sources (2-7). Because some of the concentrations are very small the numbers are stated in parts per billion. DOE chose to NOT show water vapor as a greenhouse gas!



TABLE 1.
The Important Greenhouse Gases (except water vapor)
U.S. Department of Energy, (October, 2000) (1)
(all concentrations expressed in parts per billion) Pre-industrial baseline Natural additions Man-made additions Total (ppb) Concentration Percent of Total
Carbon Dioxide (CO2) 288,000 68,520 11,880 (2) 368,400 99.438%
Methane (CH4) 848 577 320 1,745 0.471%
Nitrous Oxide (N2O) 285 12 15 312 0.084%
Misc. gases ( CFC's, etc.) 25 0 2 27 0.007%
Total 289,158 69,109 12,217 370,484 100.00%


The chart at left summarizes the % of greenhouse gas concentrations in Earth's atmosphere from Table 1. This is not a very meaningful view though because 1) the data has not been corrected for the actual Global Warming Potential (GWP) of each gas, and 2) water vapor is ignored.

But these are the numbers one would use if the goal is to exaggerate human greenhouse contributions:

Man-made and natural carbon dioxide (CO2) comprises 99.44% of all greenhouse gas concentrations (368,400 / 370,484 )--(ignoring water vapor).

Also, from Table 1 (but not shown on graph):

Anthropogenic (man-made) CO2 additions comprise (11,880 / 370,484) or 3.207% of all greenhouse gas concentrations, (ignoring water vapor).

Total combined anthropogenic greenhouse gases comprise (12,217 / 370,484) or 3.298% of all greenhouse gas concentrations, (ignoring water vapor).

The various greenhouse gases are not equal in their heat-retention properties though, so to remain statistically relevant % concentrations must be changed to % contribution relative to CO2. This is done in Table 2, below, through the use of GWP multipliers for each gas, derived by various researchers.


Converting greenhouse gas concentrations
to greenhouse effect contribution
(using global warming potential )



2. Using appropriate corrections for the Global Warming Potential of the respective gases provides the following more meaningful comparison of greenhouse gases, based on the conversion:

( concentration ) X ( the appropriate GWP multiplier (3) (4) of each gas relative to CO2 ) = greenhouse contribution.:


TABLE 2.
Atmospheric Greenhouse Gases (except water vapor)
adjusted for heat retention characteristics, relative to CO2
This table adjusts values in Table 1 to compare greenhouse gases equally with respect to CO2. ( #'s are unit-less) Multiplier (GWP) Pre-industrial baseline(new) Natural additions (new) Man-made additions (new) Tot. Relative Contribution Percent of Total (new)
Carbon Dioxide (CO2) 1 288,000 68,520 11,880 368,400 72.369%
Methane (CH4) 21 (3) 17,808 12,117 6,720 36,645 7.199%
Nitrous Oxide (N2O) 310 (3) 88,350 3,599 4,771 96,720 19.000%
CFC's (and other misc. gases) see data (4) 2,500 0 4,791 7,291 1.432%
Total 396,658 84,236 28,162 509,056 100.000%

NOTE: GWP (Global Warming Potential) is used to contrast different greenhouse gases relative to CO2.


Compared to the concentration statistics in Table 1, the GWP comparison in Table 2 illustrates, among other things:

Total carbon dioxide (CO2) contributions are reduced to 72.37% of all greenhouse gases (368,400 / 509,056)-- (ignoring water vapor).

Also, from Table 2 (but not shown on graph):

Anthropogenic (man-made) CO2 contributions drop to (11,880 / 509,056) or 2.33% of total of all greenhouse gases, (ignoring water vapor).

Total combined anthropogenic greenhouse gases becomes (28,162 / 509,056) or 5.53% of all greenhouse gas contributions, (ignoring water vapor).

Relative to carbon dioxide the other greenhouse gases together comprise about 27.63% of the greenhouse effect (ignoring water vapor) but only about 0.56% of total greenhouse gas concentrations. Put another way, as a group methane, nitrous oxide (N2O), and CFC's and other miscellaneous gases are about 50 times more potent than CO2 as greenhouse gases.

To properly represent the total relative impacts of Earth's greenhouse gases Table 3 (below) factors in the effect of water vapor on the system.


Water vapor overwhelms
all other natural and man-made
greenhouse contributions.



3. Table 3, shows what happens when the effect of water vapor is factored in, and together with all other greenhouse gases expressed as a relative % of the total greenhouse effect.


TABLE 3.
Role of Atmospheric Greenhouse Gases
(man-made and natural) as a % of Relative
Contribution to the "Greenhouse Effect"
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%



As illustrated in this chart of the data in Table 3, the combined greenhouse contributions of CO2, methane, N2O and misc. gases are small compared to water vapor!

Total atmospheric carbon dioxide (CO2) -- both man-made and natural-- is only about 3.62% of the overall greenhouse effect-- a big difference from the 72.37% figure in Table 2, which ignored water!

Water vapor, the most significant greenhouse gas, comes from natural sources and is responsible for roughly 95% of the greenhouse effect (5). Among climatologists this is common knowledge but among special interests, certain governmental groups, and news reporters this fact is under-emphasized or just ignored altogether.

Conceding that it might be "a little misleading" to leave water vapor out, they nonetheless defend the practice by stating that it is "customary" to do so!




Comparing natural vs man-made concentrations
of greenhouse gases



4. Of course, even among the remaining 5% of non-water vapor greenhouse gases, humans contribute only a very small part (and human contributions to water vapor are negligible).

Constructed from data in Table 1, the charts (below) illustrate graphically how much of each greenhouse gas is natural vs how much is man-made. These allocations are used for the next and final step in this analysis-- total man-made contributions to the greenhouse effect. Units are expressed to 3 significant digits in order to reduce rounding errors for those who wish to walk through the calculations, not to imply numerical precision as there is some variation among various researchers.



Putting it all together:
total human greenhouse gas contributions
add up to about 0.28% of the greenhouse effect.



5. To finish with the math, by calculating the product of the adjusted CO2 contribution to greenhouse gases (3.618%) and % of CO2 concentration from anthropogenic (man-made) sources (3.225%), we see that only (0.03618 X 0.03225) or 0.117% of the greenhouse effect is due to atmospheric CO2 from human activity. The other greenhouse gases are similarly calculated and are summarized below.

TABLE 4a.
Anthropogenic (man-made) Contribution to the "Greenhouse
Effect," expressed as % of Total (water vapor INCLUDED)
Based on concentrations (ppb) adjusted for heat retention characteristics % of Greenhouse Effect
% Natural
% Man-made
Water vapor 95.000%
94.999%

0.001%
Carbon Dioxide (CO2) 3.618%
3.502%

0.117%
Methane (CH4) 0.360%
0.294%

0.066%
Nitrous Oxide (N2O) 0.950%
0.903%

0.047%
Misc. gases ( CFC's, etc.) 0.072%
0.025%

0.047%
Total 100.00%
99.72

0.28%

When greenhouse contributions are listed by source, the relative overwhelming component of the natural greenhouse effect, is readily apparent.

From Table 4a, both natural and man-made greenhouse contributions are illustrated in this chart, in gray and green, respectively. For clarity only the man-made (anthropogenic) contributions are labeled on the chart.

Water vapor, responsible for 95% of Earth's greenhouse effect, is 99.999% natural (some argue, 100%). Even if we wanted to we can do nothing to change this.

Anthropogenic (man-made) CO2 contributions cause only about 0.117% of Earth's greenhouse effect, (factoring in water vapor). This is insignificant!

Adding up all anthropogenic greenhouse sources, the total human contribution to the greenhouse effect is around 0.28% (factoring in water vapor).



The Kyoto Protocol calls for mandatory carbon dioxide reductions of 30% from developed countries like the U.S. Reducing man-made CO2 emissions this much would have an undetectable effect on climate while having a devastating effect on the U.S. economy. Can you drive your car 30% less, reduce your winter heating 30%? Pay 20-50% more for everything from automobiles to zippers? And that is just a down payment, with more sacrifices to come later.

Such drastic measures, even if imposed equally on all countries around the world, would reduce total human greenhouse contributions from CO2 by about 0.035%.

This is much less than the natural variability of Earth's climate system!

While the greenhouse reductions would exact a high human price, in terms of sacrifices to our standard of living, they would yield statistically negligible results in terms of measurable impacts to climate change. There is no expectation that any statistically significant global warming reductions would come from the Kyoto Protocol.




" There is no dispute at all about the fact that even if punctiliously observed, (the Kyoto Protocol) would have an imperceptible effect on future temperatures -- one-twentieth of a degree by 2050. "

Dr. S. Fred Singer, atmospheric physicist
Professor Emeritus of Environmental Sciences at the University of Virginia,
and former director of the US Weather Satellite Service;
in a Sept. 10, 2001 Letter to Editor, Wall Street Journal


Research to Watch

Scientists are increasingly recognizing the importance of water vapor in the climate system. Some, like Wallace Broecker, a geochemist at Columbia's Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory, suggest that it is such an important factor that much of the global warming in the last 10,000 years may be due to the increasing water vapor concentrations in Earth's atmosphere.

His research indicates that air reaching glaciers during the last Ice Age had less than half the water vapor content of today. Such increases in atmospheric moisture during our current interglacial period would have played a far greater role in global warming than carbon dioxide or other minor gases.




" I can only see one element of the climate system capable of generating these fast, global changes, that is, changes in the tropical atmosphere leading to changes in the inventory of the earth's most powerful greenhouse gas-- water vapor. "


Dr. Wallace Broecker, a leading world authority on climate
Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory, Columbia University,
lecture presented at R. A. Daly Lecture at the American Geophysical Union's
spring meeting in Baltimore, Md., May 1996.


Known causes of global climate change, like cyclical eccentricities in Earth's rotation and orbit, as well as variations in the sun's energy output, are the primary causes of climate cycles measured over the last half million years. However, secondary greenhouse effects stemming from changes in the ability of a warming atmosphere to support greater concentrations of gases like water vapor and carbon dioxide also appear to play a significant role. As demonstrated in the data above, of all Earth's greenhouse gases, water vapor is by far the dominant player.

The ability of humans to influence greenhouse water vapor is negligible. As such, individuals and groups whose agenda it is to require that human beings are the cause of global warming must discount or ignore the effects of water vapor to preserve their arguments, citing numbers similar to those in Table 4b . If political correctness and staying out of trouble aren't high priorities for you, go ahead and ask them how water vapor was handled in their models or statistics. Chances are, it wasn't!

|| Global Warming || Table of Contents ||
References:

1) Current Greenhouse Gas Concentrations (updated October, 2000)
Carbon Dioxide Information Analysis Center
(the primary global-change data and information analysis center of the U.S. Department of Energy)
Oak Ridge, Tennessee

Greenhouse Gases and Climate Change (data now available only to "members")
IEA Greenhouse Gas R&D Programme,
Stoke Orchard, Cheltenham, Gloucestershire, GL52 7RZ, United Kingdom.
2) "Carbon cycle modelling and the residence time of natural and anthropogenic atmospheric CO2:on the construction of the 'Greenhouse Effect Global Warming' dogma;" Tom V. Segalstad, University of Oslo

3) Greenhouse Gases and Global Warming Potentials (updated April, 2002)
Carbon Dioxide Information and Analysis Center (CDIAC), U.S. Department of Energy
Oak Ridge, Tennessee.

4) Warming Potentials of Halocarbons and Greenhouses Gases
Chemical formulae and global warming potentials from Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, Climate Change 1995: The Science of Climate Change (Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 1996), pp. 119 and 121. Production and sales of CFC's and other chemicals from International Trade Commission, Synthetic Organic Chemicals: United States Production and Sales, 1994 (Washington, DC, 1995). TRI emissions from U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1994 Toxics Release Inventory: Public Data Release, EPA-745-R-94-001 (Washington, DC, June 1996), p. 73. Estimated 1994 U.S. emissions from U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Inventory of U.S. Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Sinks, 1990-1994, EPA-230-R-96-006 (Washington, DC, November 1995), pp. 37-40.

5) References to 95% contribution of water vapor:

a. S.M. Freidenreich and V. Ramaswamy, “Solar Radiation Absorption by Carbon Dioxide, Overlap with Water, and a Parameterization for General Circulation Models,” Journal of Geophysical Research 98 (1993):7255-7264

b. Global Deception: The Exaggeration of the Global Warming Threat
by Dr. Patrick J. Michaels, June 1998
Virginia State Climatologist and Professor of Environmental Sciences, University of Virginia

c. Greenhouse Gas Emissions, Appendix D, Greenhouse Gas Spectral Overlaps and Their Significance
Energy Information Administration; Official Energy Statistics from the U.S. Government

d. Personal Communication-- Dr. Richard S. Lindzen
Alfred P. Slone Professor of Meteorology, MIT

e. The Geologic Record and Climate Change
by Dr. Tim Patterson, January 2005
Professor of Geology-- Carleton University
Ottawa, Canada
Alternate link:
f. EPA Seeks To Have Water Vapor Classified As A Pollutant
by the ecoEnquirer, 2006
Alternate link:

g. Does CO2 Really Drive Global Warming?
by Dr. Robert Essenhigh, May 2001
Alternate link:

h. Solar Cycles, Not CO2, Determine Climate
by Zbigniew Jaworowski, M.D., Ph.D., D.Sc., 21st Century Science and Technology, Winter 2003-2004, pp. 52-65
Link:

5) Global Climate Change Student Guide
Department of Environmental and Geographical Sciences
Manchester Metropolitan University
Chester Street
Manchester
M1 5GD
United Kingdom

6) Global Budgets for Atmospheric Nitrous Oxide - Anthropogenic Contributions
William C. Trogler, Eric Bruner, Glenn Westwood, Barbara Sawrey, and Patrick Neill
Department of Chemistry and Biochemistry
University of California at San Diego, La Jolla, California

7) Methane record and budget
Robert Grumbine



Useful conversions:

1 Gt = 1 billion tons = 1 cu. km. H20

1 Gt Carbon(C) = ~3.67 Gt Carbon Dioxide(CO2)

2.12 Gt C = ~7.8 Gt CO2 = 1ppmv CO2



This page by: Monte Hieb
Last revised: March 2, 2007
 
  • Like
Reactions: aussiefisho
Upvote 0

FishRock

Still trying to figure it all out
Mar 27, 2013
2,085
2,880
Alaska
Name
JAM
Boat
Thunnus - 22' Koffler BayBee (1990)
I know the intent of the original post was not necessarily to trigger a debate. When a I see long posts on the subject from either side I have a tough time figuring out what it all means. I use the KISS method. Keep It Simple Stupid.

If we can reduce the pollution we generate the world will be better for everyone. Pickup your trash, reuse, recycle and walk when you can. Mother Nature can end us all, why should we help accelerate that?

And the amount of water vapor in the atmosphere is directly related to air temp. The more energy there is in a system the more active it becomes. More storms, wind, rain, snow. Does it make a difference if I put the first or last straw on the camels back when I did not have to put any on?
 
Upvote 0

$norkle

Member
May 6, 2008
692
1,331
Corvallis,OR
Name
Bruce
Boat
In my dreams!
I know the intent of the original post was not necessarily to trigger a debate. When a I see long posts on the subject from either side I have a tough time figuring out what it all means. I use the KISS method. Keep It Simple Stupid.

If we can reduce the pollution we generate the world will be better for everyone. Pickup your trash, reuse, recycle and walk when you can. Mother Nature can end us all, why should we help accelerate that?

And the amount of water vapor in the atmosphere is directly related to air temp. The more energy there is in a system the more active it becomes. More storms, wind, rain, snow. Does it make a difference if I put the first or last straw on the camels back when I did not have to put any on?

X2
 
Upvote 0

BiggestT

I Post A Lot But I Can't Edit This
Sep 8, 2004
12,133
8,155
Fullerton
Name
SM
Boat
Salsipuedes & Czech Mate
I know the intent of the original post was not necessarily to trigger a debate. When a I see long posts on the subject from either side I have a tough time figuring out what it all means. I use the KISS method. Keep It Simple Stupid.

If we can reduce the pollution we generate the world will be better for everyone. Pickup your trash, reuse, recycle and walk when you can. Mother Nature can end us all, why should we help accelerate that?

And the amount of water vapor in the atmosphere is directly related to air temp. The more energy there is in a system the more active it becomes. More storms, wind, rain, snow. Does it make a difference if I put the first or last straw on the camels back when I did not have to put any on?

Here's your KISS:

"Anthropogenic (man-made) CO2 contributions cause only about 0.117% of Earth's greenhouse effect, (factoring in water vapor). This is insignificant!"

"Adding up all anthropogenic greenhouse sources, the total human contribution to the greenhouse effect is around 0.28% (factoring in water vapor)."

I whole heartedly agree that we should be conscious of pollution, I recycle everything I can. However, there is an agenda behind all this and we are definitely reaching the point of diminishing returns. I'll give you an example that we can readily see and feel the effects of.

Diesel fuel used to be much cheaper than gasoline. It was easier to refine. Then they implemented Low Sulfur Diesel toe reduce soot pollution. Not happy with that, they mandated Ultra Low Sulfur Diesel (ULSD). To make ULSD it requires 1.25x the crude input that was used for Low Sulfur Diesel. ULSD has lower energy content than Low Sulfur Diesel. So it now requires more crude input to make ULSD, you won't go as far on a gallon of it and it's debatable whether the improvements in air quality we've seen from going to ULSD have justified the costs.

Similar with the whole Global Warming agenda. The whole focus is on Man made CO2 emissions, but look at the figures I've shown here. Man's portion of the greenhouse gases is insignificant, yet were lead to believe that it is man who is changing the climate from burning carbon based fuels. Sorry, but there's this big orange thing that rises every morning and sets every evening that has far greater effect on our climate than man ever will. The Warmists want you to go back to living in caves.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

carcass

Member
Apr 25, 2009
759
327
Cedar City Utah
Name
scott
Boat
None
​follow the money

​​​most of those scientists who are for GW depend on govt money to keep their research going. The IPCC has been discredited due to numbers being fudged, temperature readings from areas surrounded by buildings, concrete, etc... and completely leaving out the Medieval Warming Period and little ice age.

The latest debunking occurred when all those global wArming scientists were caught in the ice near Antarctic, which was during Antarctica's summer. See ice in the Arctic has rebounded as well.

Funny that even Hansen has no answers for his computer models being wrong over and over again.
What warming did occur was "eh, who cares" and it stopped over 15 years ago.

All they have to do is look at the geological record, and actual measurements instead of their computer models to see what has happened in the past.

I'm all for conservation and alternative fuels, but it just hasn't gotten to the point when it is financially sound or can meet our energy needs.
 
Upvote 0

aussiefisho

Always learning to fish smarter.
May 19, 2011
382
69
76
South Australia, Australia
Name
Russell Iles
Boat
Sold
http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/greenhouse_data.html

"Putting it all together:
total human greenhouse gas contributions
add up to about 0.28% of the greenhouse effect."

"5. To finish with the math, by calculating the product of the adjusted CO2 contribution to greenhouse gases (3.618%) and % of CO2 concentration from anthropogenic (man-made) sources (3.225%), we see that only (0.03618 X 0.03225) or 0.117% of the greenhouse effect is due to atmospheric CO2 from human activity. The other greenhouse gases are similarly calculated and are summarized below."

Sorry, but that tail is not wagging this climate change dog.

Global Warming:
A closer look at the numbers

|| Global Warming || Table of Contents ||



Water Vapor Rules
the Greenhouse System



Just how much of the "Greenhouse Effect" is caused by human activity?

It is about 0.28%, if water vapor is taken into account-- about 5.53%, if not.

This point is so crucial to the debate over global warming that how water vapor is or isn't factored into an analysis of Earth's greenhouse gases makes the difference between describing a significant human contribution to the greenhouse effect, or a negligible one.

Water vapor constitutes Earth's most significant greenhouse gas, accounting for about 95% of Earth's greenhouse effect (5). Interestingly, many "facts and figures' regarding global warming completely ignore the powerful effects of water vapor in the greenhouse system, carelessly (perhaps, deliberately) overstating human impacts as much as 20-fold.

Water vapor is 99.999% of natural origin. Other atmospheric greenhouse gases, carbon dioxide (CO2), methane (CH4), nitrous oxide (N2O), and miscellaneous other gases (CFC's, etc.), are also mostly of natural origin (except for the latter, which is mostly anthropogenic).

Human activites contribute slightly to greenhouse gas concentrations through farming, manufacturing, power generation, and transportation. However, these emissions are so dwarfed in comparison to emissions from natural sources we can do nothing about, that even the most costly efforts to limit human emissions would have a very small-- perhaps undetectable-- effect on global climate.



For those interested in more details a series of data sets and charts have been assembled below in a 5-step statistical synopsis.

Note that the first two steps ignore water vapor.

1. Greenhouse gas concentrations

2. Converting concentrations to contribution

3. Factoring in water vapor

4. Distinguishing natural vs man-made greenhouse gases

5. Putting it all together



Note: Calculations are expressed to 3 significant digits to reduce rounding errors, not necessarily to indicate statistical precision of the data. All charts were plotted using Lotus 1-2-3.

Caveat: This analysis is intended to provide a simplified comparison of the various man-made and natural greenhouse gases on an equal basis with each other. It does not take into account all of the complicated interactions between atmosphere, ocean, and terrestrial systems, a feat which can only be accomplished by better computer models than are currently in use.

Greenhouse Gas Concentrations:
Natural vs man-made (anthropogenic)



1. The following table was constructed from data published by the U.S. Department of Energy (1) summarizing concentrations of the various atmospheric greenhouse gases, and supplemented with information from other sources (2-7). Because some of the concentrations are very small the numbers are stated in parts per billion. DOE chose to NOT show water vapor as a greenhouse gas!



TABLE 1.
The Important Greenhouse Gases (except water vapor)
U.S. Department of Energy, (October, 2000) (1)
(all concentrations expressed in parts per billion) Pre-industrial baseline Natural additions Man-made additions Total (ppb) Concentration Percent of Total
Carbon Dioxide (CO2) 288,000 68,520 11,880 (2) 368,400 99.438%
Methane (CH4) 848 577 320 1,745 0.471%
Nitrous Oxide (N2O) 285 12 15 312 0.084%
Misc. gases ( CFC's, etc.) 25 0 2 27 0.007%
Total 289,158 69,109 12,217 370,484 100.00%


The chart at left summarizes the % of greenhouse gas concentrations in Earth's atmosphere from Table 1. This is not a very meaningful view though because 1) the data has not been corrected for the actual Global Warming Potential (GWP) of each gas, and 2) water vapor is ignored.

But these are the numbers one would use if the goal is to exaggerate human greenhouse contributions:

Man-made and natural carbon dioxide (CO2) comprises 99.44% of all greenhouse gas concentrations (368,400 / 370,484 )--(ignoring water vapor).

Also, from Table 1 (but not shown on graph):

Anthropogenic (man-made) CO2 additions comprise (11,880 / 370,484) or 3.207% of all greenhouse gas concentrations, (ignoring water vapor).

Total combined anthropogenic greenhouse gases comprise (12,217 / 370,484) or 3.298% of all greenhouse gas concentrations, (ignoring water vapor).

The various greenhouse gases are not equal in their heat-retention properties though, so to remain statistically relevant % concentrations must be changed to % contribution relative to CO2. This is done in Table 2, below, through the use of GWP multipliers for each gas, derived by various researchers.


Converting greenhouse gas concentrations
to greenhouse effect contribution
(using global warming potential )



2. Using appropriate corrections for the Global Warming Potential of the respective gases provides the following more meaningful comparison of greenhouse gases, based on the conversion:

( concentration ) X ( the appropriate GWP multiplier (3) (4) of each gas relative to CO2 ) = greenhouse contribution.:


TABLE 2.
Atmospheric Greenhouse Gases (except water vapor)
adjusted for heat retention characteristics, relative to CO2
This table adjusts values in Table 1 to compare greenhouse gases equally with respect to CO2. ( #'s are unit-less) Multiplier (GWP) Pre-industrial baseline(new) Natural additions (new) Man-made additions (new) Tot. Relative Contribution Percent of Total (new)
Carbon Dioxide (CO2) 1 288,000 68,520 11,880 368,400 72.369%
Methane (CH4) 21 (3) 17,808 12,117 6,720 36,645 7.199%
Nitrous Oxide (N2O) 310 (3) 88,350 3,599 4,771 96,720 19.000%
CFC's (and other misc. gases) see data (4) 2,500 0 4,791 7,291 1.432%
Total 396,658 84,236 28,162 509,056 100.000%

NOTE: GWP (Global Warming Potential) is used to contrast different greenhouse gases relative to CO2.


Compared to the concentration statistics in Table 1, the GWP comparison in Table 2 illustrates, among other things:

Total carbon dioxide (CO2) contributions are reduced to 72.37% of all greenhouse gases (368,400 / 509,056)-- (ignoring water vapor).

Also, from Table 2 (but not shown on graph):

Anthropogenic (man-made) CO2 contributions drop to (11,880 / 509,056) or 2.33% of total of all greenhouse gases, (ignoring water vapor).

Total combined anthropogenic greenhouse gases becomes (28,162 / 509,056) or 5.53% of all greenhouse gas contributions, (ignoring water vapor).

Relative to carbon dioxide the other greenhouse gases together comprise about 27.63% of the greenhouse effect (ignoring water vapor) but only about 0.56% of total greenhouse gas concentrations. Put another way, as a group methane, nitrous oxide (N2O), and CFC's and other miscellaneous gases are about 50 times more potent than CO2 as greenhouse gases.

To properly represent the total relative impacts of Earth's greenhouse gases Table 3 (below) factors in the effect of water vapor on the system.


Water vapor overwhelms
all other natural and man-made
greenhouse contributions.



3. Table 3, shows what happens when the effect of water vapor is factored in, and together with all other greenhouse gases expressed as a relative % of the total greenhouse effect.


TABLE 3.
Role of Atmospheric Greenhouse Gases
(man-made and natural) as a % of Relative
Contribution to the "Greenhouse Effect"
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%



As illustrated in this chart of the data in Table 3, the combined greenhouse contributions of CO2, methane, N2O and misc. gases are small compared to water vapor!

Total atmospheric carbon dioxide (CO2) -- both man-made and natural-- is only about 3.62% of the overall greenhouse effect-- a big difference from the 72.37% figure in Table 2, which ignored water!

Water vapor, the most significant greenhouse gas, comes from natural sources and is responsible for roughly 95% of the greenhouse effect (5). Among climatologists this is common knowledge but among special interests, certain governmental groups, and news reporters this fact is under-emphasized or just ignored altogether.

Conceding that it might be "a little misleading" to leave water vapor out, they nonetheless defend the practice by stating that it is "customary" to do so!




Comparing natural vs man-made concentrations
of greenhouse gases



4. Of course, even among the remaining 5% of non-water vapor greenhouse gases, humans contribute only a very small part (and human contributions to water vapor are negligible).

Constructed from data in Table 1, the charts (below) illustrate graphically how much of each greenhouse gas is natural vs how much is man-made. These allocations are used for the next and final step in this analysis-- total man-made contributions to the greenhouse effect. Units are expressed to 3 significant digits in order to reduce rounding errors for those who wish to walk through the calculations, not to imply numerical precision as there is some variation among various researchers.



Putting it all together:
total human greenhouse gas contributions
add up to about 0.28% of the greenhouse effect.



5. To finish with the math, by calculating the product of the adjusted CO2 contribution to greenhouse gases (3.618%) and % of CO2 concentration from anthropogenic (man-made) sources (3.225%), we see that only (0.03618 X 0.03225) or 0.117% of the greenhouse effect is due to atmospheric CO2 from human activity. The other greenhouse gases are similarly calculated and are summarized below.

TABLE 4a.
Anthropogenic (man-made) Contribution to the "Greenhouse
Effect," expressed as % of Total (water vapor INCLUDED)
Based on concentrations (ppb) adjusted for heat retention characteristics % of Greenhouse Effect
% Natural
% Man-made
Water vapor 95.000%
94.999%

0.001%
Carbon Dioxide (CO2) 3.618%
3.502%

0.117%
Methane (CH4) 0.360%
0.294%

0.066%
Nitrous Oxide (N2O) 0.950%
0.903%

0.047%
Misc. gases ( CFC's, etc.) 0.072%
0.025%

0.047%
Total 100.00%
99.72

0.28%

When greenhouse contributions are listed by source, the relative overwhelming component of the natural greenhouse effect, is readily apparent.

From Table 4a, both natural and man-made greenhouse contributions are illustrated in this chart, in gray and green, respectively. For clarity only the man-made (anthropogenic) contributions are labeled on the chart.

Water vapor, responsible for 95% of Earth's greenhouse effect, is 99.999% natural (some argue, 100%). Even if we wanted to we can do nothing to change this.

Anthropogenic (man-made) CO2 contributions cause only about 0.117% of Earth's greenhouse effect, (factoring in water vapor). This is insignificant!

Adding up all anthropogenic greenhouse sources, the total human contribution to the greenhouse effect is around 0.28% (factoring in water vapor).



The Kyoto Protocol calls for mandatory carbon dioxide reductions of 30% from developed countries like the U.S. Reducing man-made CO2 emissions this much would have an undetectable effect on climate while having a devastating effect on the U.S. economy. Can you drive your car 30% less, reduce your winter heating 30%? Pay 20-50% more for everything from automobiles to zippers? And that is just a down payment, with more sacrifices to come later.

Such drastic measures, even if imposed equally on all countries around the world, would reduce total human greenhouse contributions from CO2 by about 0.035%.

This is much less than the natural variability of Earth's climate system!

While the greenhouse reductions would exact a high human price, in terms of sacrifices to our standard of living, they would yield statistically negligible results in terms of measurable impacts to climate change. There is no expectation that any statistically significant global warming reductions would come from the Kyoto Protocol.




" There is no dispute at all about the fact that even if punctiliously observed, (the Kyoto Protocol) would have an imperceptible effect on future temperatures -- one-twentieth of a degree by 2050. "

Dr. S. Fred Singer, atmospheric physicist
Professor Emeritus of Environmental Sciences at the University of Virginia,
and former director of the US Weather Satellite Service;
in a Sept. 10, 2001 Letter to Editor, Wall Street Journal


Research to Watch

Scientists are increasingly recognizing the importance of water vapor in the climate system. Some, like Wallace Broecker, a geochemist at Columbia's Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory, suggest that it is such an important factor that much of the global warming in the last 10,000 years may be due to the increasing water vapor concentrations in Earth's atmosphere.

His research indicates that air reaching glaciers during the last Ice Age had less than half the water vapor content of today. Such increases in atmospheric moisture during our current interglacial period would have played a far greater role in global warming than carbon dioxide or other minor gases.




" I can only see one element of the climate system capable of generating these fast, global changes, that is, changes in the tropical atmosphere leading to changes in the inventory of the earth's most powerful greenhouse gas-- water vapor. "


Dr. Wallace Broecker, a leading world authority on climate
Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory, Columbia University,
lecture presented at R. A. Daly Lecture at the American Geophysical Union's
spring meeting in Baltimore, Md., May 1996.


Known causes of global climate change, like cyclical eccentricities in Earth's rotation and orbit, as well as variations in the sun's energy output, are the primary causes of climate cycles measured over the last half million years. However, secondary greenhouse effects stemming from changes in the ability of a warming atmosphere to support greater concentrations of gases like water vapor and carbon dioxide also appear to play a significant role. As demonstrated in the data above, of all Earth's greenhouse gases, water vapor is by far the dominant player.

The ability of humans to influence greenhouse water vapor is negligible. As such, individuals and groups whose agenda it is to require that human beings are the cause of global warming must discount or ignore the effects of water vapor to preserve their arguments, citing numbers similar to those in Table 4b . If political correctness and staying out of trouble aren't high priorities for you, go ahead and ask them how water vapor was handled in their models or statistics. Chances are, it wasn't!

|| Global Warming || Table of Contents ||
References:

1) Current Greenhouse Gas Concentrations (updated October, 2000)
Carbon Dioxide Information Analysis Center
(the primary global-change data and information analysis center of the U.S. Department of Energy)
Oak Ridge, Tennessee

Greenhouse Gases and Climate Change (data now available only to "members")
IEA Greenhouse Gas R&D Programme,
Stoke Orchard, Cheltenham, Gloucestershire, GL52 7RZ, United Kingdom.
2) "Carbon cycle modelling and the residence time of natural and anthropogenic atmospheric CO2:on the construction of the 'Greenhouse Effect Global Warming' dogma;" Tom V. Segalstad, University of Oslo

3) Greenhouse Gases and Global Warming Potentials (updated April, 2002)
Carbon Dioxide Information and Analysis Center (CDIAC), U.S. Department of Energy
Oak Ridge, Tennessee.

4) Warming Potentials of Halocarbons and Greenhouses Gases
Chemical formulae and global warming potentials from Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, Climate Change 1995: The Science of Climate Change (Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 1996), pp. 119 and 121. Production and sales of CFC's and other chemicals from International Trade Commission, Synthetic Organic Chemicals: United States Production and Sales, 1994 (Washington, DC, 1995). TRI emissions from U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1994 Toxics Release Inventory: Public Data Release, EPA-745-R-94-001 (Washington, DC, June 1996), p. 73. Estimated 1994 U.S. emissions from U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Inventory of U.S. Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Sinks, 1990-1994, EPA-230-R-96-006 (Washington, DC, November 1995), pp. 37-40.

5) References to 95% contribution of water vapor:

a. S.M. Freidenreich and V. Ramaswamy, “Solar Radiation Absorption by Carbon Dioxide, Overlap with Water, and a Parameterization for General Circulation Models,” Journal of Geophysical Research 98 (1993):7255-7264

b. Global Deception: The Exaggeration of the Global Warming Threat
by Dr. Patrick J. Michaels, June 1998
Virginia State Climatologist and Professor of Environmental Sciences, University of Virginia

c. Greenhouse Gas Emissions, Appendix D, Greenhouse Gas Spectral Overlaps and Their Significance
Energy Information Administration; Official Energy Statistics from the U.S. Government

d. Personal Communication-- Dr. Richard S. Lindzen
Alfred P. Slone Professor of Meteorology, MIT

e. The Geologic Record and Climate Change
by Dr. Tim Patterson, January 2005
Professor of Geology-- Carleton University
Ottawa, Canada
Alternate link:
f. EPA Seeks To Have Water Vapor Classified As A Pollutant
by the ecoEnquirer, 2006
Alternate link:

g. Does CO2 Really Drive Global Warming?
by Dr. Robert Essenhigh, May 2001
Alternate link:

h. Solar Cycles, Not CO2, Determine Climate
by Zbigniew Jaworowski, M.D., Ph.D., D.Sc., 21st Century Science and Technology, Winter 2003-2004, pp. 52-65
Link:

5) Global Climate Change Student Guide
Department of Environmental and Geographical Sciences
Manchester Metropolitan University
Chester Street
Manchester
M1 5GD
United Kingdom

6) Global Budgets for Atmospheric Nitrous Oxide - Anthropogenic Contributions
William C. Trogler, Eric Bruner, Glenn Westwood, Barbara Sawrey, and Patrick Neill
Department of Chemistry and Biochemistry
University of California at San Diego, La Jolla, California

7) Methane record and budget
Robert Grumbine



Useful conversions:

1 Gt = 1 billion tons = 1 cu. km. H20

1 Gt Carbon(C) = ~3.67 Gt Carbon Dioxide(CO2)

2.12 Gt C = ~7.8 Gt CO2 = 1ppmv CO2



This page by: Monte Hieb
Last revised: March 2, 2007


Too much for this simple person to comprehend, but I agree.
We are to clever by half.
Have no doubt whatsoever we are stuffing up our planet.
The attempt to fix will be so slow, we will most likely never fully recover.
In the meantime loss of habitat, species and many things we currently take for granted.


The deniers......Ignorance is bliss.
aussiefisho
 
Upvote 0

BiggestT

I Post A Lot But I Can't Edit This
Sep 8, 2004
12,133
8,155
Fullerton
Name
SM
Boat
Salsipuedes & Czech Mate
Too much for this simple person to comprehend, but I agree.
We are to clever by half.
Have no doubt whatsoever we are stuffing up our planet.
The attempt to fix will be so slow, we will most likely never fully recover.
In the meantime loss of habitat, species and many things we currently take for granted.


The deniers......Ignorance is bliss.
aussiefisho

The Global Warming Alarmists rely and prey upon the ignorance that prevails amongst a preponderance of the population. They came up with a plausible theory, then instill some fear and it goes viral. But the problem is, when you drill into their "facts" and "data" it doesn't pass the smell test and really starts to fall apart. The vast hoardes who can't even understand what I copied and pasted here just blindly accept what the fear mongering warmists want them to believe. They actually have a name for them, they're called Sheeple.
 
Upvote 0

middleofnowhere

Gopher Killer
Sep 16, 2008
3,803
491
Yucca Valley, CA USA
Name
Scott
Boat
Twin Vee "MamaMia"
Jon:
...and over 30 years ago one of the primary predictions of the climate change models was that we would experience more rapid swings in weather conditions and with greater amplitude------you've just described it in spades!

A little over 30-years ago they were talking about a looming ice age. Please cite the 30-year old models that predicted the weather amplitude swings happening now. How is the weather today any worse than what it was during any historic cycle?
 
Upvote 0