Global Warming Opens Up Antarctic Waterways

[SailOar]

Originally Posted by sailorchic34

Oops sorry, that is 0.001%, that is man's contribution to water vapor.

Water vapor makes up 95% ish of green house gases. CO2 makes up 3.6% and of that 3.6% about 3.5 percent ish, gee, lets just call it 5% of that, is manmade. The other 95 percent of co2 is natural. So mans total contribution is about 0.28%. The IPCC got rid of water vapor as it makes AGW so much easier to believe.

Yes man does influence greenhouse gases and CO2 is increasing due to mans burning of fuels and clear cutting rainforests.

So if everyone reduced their fuel use 10% it would reduce total greenhouse gases by 0.03%, maybe.

Explaining how the water vapor greenhouse effect works

Climate Myth...
“Water vapour is the most important greenhouse gas. This is part of the difficulty with the public and the media in understanding that 95% of greenhouse gases are water vapour. The public understand it, in that if you get a fall evening or spring evening and the sky is clear the heat will escape and the temperature will drop and you get frost. If there is a cloud cover, the heat is trapped by water vapour as a greenhouse gas and the temperature stays quite warm. If you go to In Salah in southern Algeria, they recorded at one point a daytime or noon high of 52 degrees Celsius – by midnight that night it was -3.6 degree Celsius. […] That was caused because there is no, or very little, water vapour in the atmosphere and it is a demonstration of water vapour as the most important greenhouse gas.” (Tim Ball)


What the science says...
Water vapour is the most dominant greenhouse gas. The greenhouse effect or radiative flux for water is around 75 W/m2 while carbon dioxide contributes 32 W/m2 (Kiehl 1997). These proportions are confirmed by measurements of infrared radiation returning to the Earth's surface (Evans 2006). Water vapour is also the dominant positive feedback in our climate system and a major reason why temperature is so sensitive to changes in CO2.

Unlike external forcings such as CO2 which can be added to the atmosphere, the level of water vapour in the atmosphere is a function of temperature. Water vapour is brought into the atmosphere via evaporation - the rate depends on the temperature of the ocean and air, being governed by the Clausius-Clapeyron relation. If extra water is added to the atmosphere, it condenses and falls as rain or snow within a week or two. Similarly, if somehow moisture was sucked out of the atmosphere, evaporation would restore water vapour levels to 'normal levels' in short time.

Water Vapour as a positive feedback
As water vapour is directly related to temperature, it's also a positive feedback - in fact, the largest positive feedback in the climate system (Soden 2005). As temperature rises, evaporation increases and more water vapour accumulates in the atmosphere. As a greenhouse gas, the water absorbs more heat, further warming the air and causing more evaporation. When CO2 is added to the atmosphere, as a greenhouse gas it has a warming effect. This causes more water to evaporate and warm the air to a higher, stabilized level. So the warming from CO2 has an amplified effect.

How much does water vapour amplify CO2 warming? Without any feedbacks, a doubling of CO2 would warm the globe around 1°C. Taken on its own, water vapour feedback roughly doubles the amount of CO2 warming. When other feedbacks are included (eg - loss of albedo due to melting ice), the total warming from a doubling of CO2 is around 3°C (Held 2000).

Empirical observations of water vapour feedback and climate sensitivity
The amplifying effect of water vapor has been observed in the global cooling after the eruption of Mount Pinatubo (Soden 2001). The cooling led to atmospheric drying which amplified the temperature drop. A climate sensitivity of around 3°C is also confirmed by numerous empirical studies examining how climate has responded to various forcings in the past (Knutti & Hegerl 2008).

Satellites have observed an increase in atmospheric water vapour by about 0.41 kg/m² per decade since 1988. A detection and attribution study, otherwise known as "fingerprinting", was employed to identify the cause of the rising water vapour levels (Santer 2007). Fingerprinting involves rigorous statistical tests of the different possible explanations for a change in some property of the climate system. Results from 22 different climate models (virtually all of the world's major climate models) were pooled and found the recent increase in moisture content over the bulk of the world's oceans is not due to solar forcing or gradual recovery from the 1991 eruption of Mount Pinatubo. The primary driver of 'atmospheric moistening' was found to be the increase in CO2 caused by the burning of fossil fuels.

Theory, observations and climate models all show the increase in water vapor is around 6 to 7.5% per degree Celsius warming of the lower atmosphere. The observed changes in temperature, moisture, and atmospheric circulation fit together in an internally and physically consistent way. When skeptics cite water vapour as the most dominant greenhouse gas, they are actually invoking the positive feedback that makes our climate so sensitive to CO2 as well as another line of evidence for anthropogenic global warming.

[jackdale]

[QUOTE=sailorchic34;1807358]

Originally Posted by jackdale

Yet solar output changes 1.3 watts per foot over the last three 11 year solar cycles. Where as co2 forcing is calculated at 1.2 watts per foot. So it looks like changes in solar impacts as much change as co2.

Where did you dig up that CO2 forcing number?

[jackdale]

Originally Posted by sailorchic34

Funny how the earth warms up in the daytime and cools off at night. You would thing that with CO2 being the driver that the temperature would be the same day and night.

Me thinks big ball of fire in sky might have a wee bit of influence. It is a variable star after all and does not have a constant flux rate. Co2 impact is about 1.2 watts per square meter, where solar flux is only 1340 watts per meter.

Mind you I expect if the amazon rainforest had not been clear cuting for the last 40 odd years, co2 might be a tad lower.

Your numbers are way off.

[Lake-Effect]

Originally Posted by SV THIRD DAY

Take all of the CO2 generated by the USA and get rid of it....once you figure out that it doesn't matter you start to realize the scam of the entire movement. If they care about CO2, but it doesn't matter if the USA end 100% of it tomorrow....hmm....then why else are they hyping this scam...money/power/control and most of all forgiveness from their eco sins to mother Gia. It is their Religion....just like ISIS.

[SV THIRD DAY]

My Carbon Footprint it less than your....ha ha ha....classic.

[SailOar]

Contribution of natural factors and human activities to radiative forcing of climate change.[102] Radiative forcing values are for the year 2005, relative to the pre-industrial era (1750).[102] The contribution of solar irradiance to radiative forcing is 5% the value of the combined radiative forcing due to increases in the atmospheric concentrations of carbon dioxide, methane and nitrous oxide.[103]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global...Solar_activity

[SV THIRD DAY]

Originally Posted by jackdale

Your numbers are way off.

She's an engineer....you are a...???

[Lake-Effect]

Originally Posted by SV THIRD DAY

She's an engineer....you are a...???

Even engineers should defend their assertions.*

(* you're exempt. Special CF dispensation)

[SV THIRD DAY]

Originally Posted by Lake-Effect

Even engineers should defend their assertions.*

(* you're exempt. Special CF dispensation)

I did what I could to help get this thread above the 100 page mark...so I'm on coast control now.

[Reefmagnet]

Originally Posted by LakeSuperior

I was careful there. Anthony didn't write the article!

Since when does that stop them?

Originally Posted by jackdale

I have sufficient brains to know enough not to buy a bridge. It seems that you are lacking in that area.

I hear Reefmagnet is looking for a bridge to fill the gap in his knowledge.

Don't need no darned bridge. I own the roads. The sticker on the back of my supercharged V12 urban road warrior SUV says so. ;-)

Originally Posted by Lake-Effect

(and happy Earth day. at least to the ones who give a fig about it)

Darnit! I missed the party.

Originally Posted by SV THIRD DAY

She's an engineer....you are a...???

I've noticed maths isn't a strong point with a lot of alarmists.


Sent from my SGP521 using Cruisers Sailing Forum mobile app

[tp12]

Originally Posted by Reefmagnet

They're grown ups. 100 pages (Rustic!) and the thread hasn't been shut down because all in all even though we disagree, even make the odd jibe, the conversation stays for the most part civil. There's only been the odd few - like yourself - that feels the need to hurl insults because they have nothing better to offer.

And for the record, it's hard to debate with chronic pasters sans comments because it's akin to talking to a brick wall.

So there.

Sent from my SGP521 using Cruisers Sailing Forum mobile app

There were no insults in my post. And you've responded with more childish comments.

Your 'argument' about pasting still doesn't stack up. Pasting implies content - maybe read it? Maybe that's the point? Sheesh...

[Reefmagnet]

Originally Posted by tp12

There were no insults in my post. And you've responded with more childish comments.

Your 'argument' about pasting still doesn't stack up. Pasting implies content - maybe read it? Maybe that's the point? Sheesh...

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet_troll

Sent from my SGP521 using Cruisers Sailing Forum mobile app

[jackdale]

Originally Posted by Reefmagnet

I've noticed maths isn't a strong point with a lot of alarmists.


Sent from my SGP521 using Cruisers Sailing Forum mobile app

I have noticed that literacy is a not a strong point among your crowd.

[tp12]

Originally Posted by Reefmagnet

Internet troll - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Sent from my SGP521 using Cruisers Sailing Forum mobile app

Yep - you are. That's not an insult, it's a statement of fact. If you don't like it, stop trolling. Simples.

[Reefmagnet]

My first post:

Originally Posted by Reefmagnet

Northern hemisphere's cold winter been more than offset by the southern's hot summer. Has the big freeze in the north been attributed to global warming, I wonder?

Sent from my SGP521 using Cruisers Sailing Forum mobile app

Your first post:

Originally Posted by tp12

Wow, are there really people who still doubt climate change?

Unbelievable

In*Internet slang, a*troll*(/ˈtroʊl/,*/ˈtrɒl/) is a person who sows discord on the Internet by starting arguments or upsetting people, by posting inflammatory,[1]*extraneous, or*off-topic*messages in an online community (such as a*newsgroup, forum,*chat room, or blog) with the deliberate intent of provoking readers into an*emotional*response[2]*or of otherwise disrupting normal on-topic discussion.[3]

Yep, I'm definitely the troll.


Sent from my SGP521 using Cruisers Sailing Forum mobile app