Science & Technology News

[AllenRbrts]

Originally Posted by Dieseldude

The dominant effect of water vapor is well stated early in the paper.
"Water vapor contributes significantly to the greenhouse effect, between 35% and 65 % for clear sky conditions and between 65% and 85% for a cloudy day."

I certainly never said that water didn't matter, it does. You tried to suggest that water had 70x the effect of CO2, it doesn't. It is more like 2.5x (at 330PPM) which is consistent with the numbers you quoted from newhaul's paper which is why I asked if he had even read it.

[ImaginaryNumber]

Originally Posted by Dieseldude

The graphs are interesting, but the area under the H2O curve is much greater than the area under the CO2 curve, showing that H2O dominates. This supports the graph posted by Newhaul.

Originally Posted by Dieseldude

The dominant effect of water vapor is well stated early in the paper.
"Water vapor contributes significantly to the greenhouse effect, between 35% and 65 % for clear sky conditions and between 65% and 85% for a cloudy day."

Water vapor is like the ship.
CO2 is like the rudder.

Water vapor is reactive.
CO2 (and methane, and other gases) is controlling.

Water vapor reacts to temperature. As the temperature goes up, water vapor in the atmosphere increases. As temperature goes down, water vapor over-saturates in the atmosphere and condenses out. No one is proposing directly reducing global temperatures by attempting to reduce the amount of water vapor in the atmosphere.

The concentration of CO2 already in the atmosphere is not affected by the temperatures typically found on earth. (Mars has some CO2 ice clouds; Titan has methane rain and lakes) The atmosphere is far from being saturated with CO2 (or methane). Increasing or decreasing CO2 (or methane) will increase or decrease temperature. Increasing or decreasing temperature will increase or decrease water vapor.

https://www.acs.org/content/acs/en/c...t-the-co2.html

[AllenRbrts]

Originally Posted by newhaul

I have posted it all before they all know the sources but here ya go

https://www.sciencedirect.com/scienc...05844018327415
The part reviewed paper is also a downloadable PDF as well as cytable

If you want to understand the science, this is a pretty good article. This is not about modelling the climate, but understanding the energy budget between in the incoming and outgoing radiation for the earth. Both of those numbers are well known and measurable. This paper explains how the various gases in the atmosphere interact to form that budget. It also discusses the effect of clouds on the energy budget. Your article only discusses the effect of water vapor. This article gives the whole picture of all the gases and how they interact. This paper is from 1997, some of the other references I have given were from the 60s and 70s. The basic science of all this has been known for 100 years. This paper ties most of it together.

It also contains and explains versions of the charts I have posted recently.

https://journals.ametsoc.org/view/jo...l?tab_body=pdf

[Dieseldude]

Originally Posted by AllenRbrts

Actually found a study which has the relative influence of O2, CO2 and H2O in the amount of outgoing radiation from the earth. This was done with the concentration of 330ppm of CO2, so today's influence would be more. It shows that H2O has about 2.5X the absorption that CO2 does in the atmosphere. So your 72x number was off by about a factor of 30. But remember water is acting like an amplifier as well. Warming caused by CO2 causes more water vapor in the atmosphere which then causes more warming.

http://climateknowledge.org/figures/...ys_%201978.pdf

Can't make sense out of the chart. But it does not account for dispersal of water vapor. Since equatorial regions are warmer, H2O vapor is more prevalent there. And since those regions are naturally warmer, H2O has a greater effect there. Can't get away from it, water vapor outranks CO2. Even NASA admits, "Water vapor is also the most important greenhouse gas in the atmosphere."
https://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/gl...YDAL2_M_SKY_WV

[Dieseldude]

Originally Posted by AllenRbrts

If you want to understand the science, this is a pretty good article. This is not about modelling the climate, but understanding the energy budget between in the incoming and outgoing radiation for the earth. Both of those numbers are well known and measurable. This paper explains how the various gases in the atmosphere interact to form that budget. It also discusses the effect of clouds on the energy budget. Your article only discusses the effect of water vapor. This article gives the whole picture of all the gases and how they interact. This paper is from 1997, some of the other references I have given were from the 60s and 70s. The basic science of all this has been known for 100 years. This paper ties most of it together.

It also contains and explains versions of the charts I have posted recently.

https://journals.ametsoc.org/view/jo...l?tab_body=pdf

Thanks for the article, will try and take some time to read.

[newhaul]

We determined that in 2018, atmospheric anthropogenic fossil CO2*represented 23% of the total emissions since 1750 with the remaining 77% in the exchange reservoirs. Our results show that the percentage of the total CO2*due to the use of fossil fuels from 1750 to 2018 increased from 0% in 1750 to 12% in 2018, much too low to be the cause of global warming.

https://journals.lww.com/health-phys...tivity,.2.aspx


There is a link to the PDF of the study in this article

https://dailysceptic.org/2022/01/19/...limate-change/

[AllenRbrts]

Originally Posted by newhaul

We determined that in 2018, atmospheric anthropogenic fossil CO2*represented 23% of the total emissions since 1750 with the remaining 77% in the exchange reservoirs. Our results show that the percentage of the total CO2*due to the use of fossil fuels from 1750 to 2018 increased from 0% in 1750 to 12% in 2018, much too low to be the cause of global warming.

https://journals.lww.com/health-phys...tivity,.2.aspx

Unreviewed article written by 3 radiological scientists (all emeritus from the same institution) in a journal for radiation safety. The article claims that C14 measurement tracer technique which has tons of reviewed and published articles is junk science. I really had a hard time wading through the paper, lots of facts and figures that didn't tie together. I never found where they explained where the doubling of CO2 in the atmosphere was coming from if it wasn't fossil fuels. The basic article is around in other places on the net from early times, I didn't find a truly published and reviewed version of it. Call me a skeptic

[newhaul]

Originally Posted by AllenRbrts

Unreviewed article written by 3 radiological scientists (all emeritus from the same institution) in a journal for radiation safety. The article claims that C14 measurement tracer technique which has tons of reviewed and published articles is junk science. I really had a hard time wading through the paper, lots of facts and figures that didn't tie together. I never found where they explained where the doubling of CO2 in the atmosphere was coming from if it wasn't fossil fuels. The basic article is around in other places on the net from early times, I didn't find a truly published and reviewed version of it. Call me a skeptic

Here is the pdf of the study try to read it in full before retort.

https://arxiv.org/pdf/2101.05183.pdf

[AllenRbrts]

Originally Posted by newhaul

Here is the pdf of the study try to read it in full before retort.

https://arxiv.org/pdf/2101.05183.pdf

Sorry I failed the assignment to read it in full.. Did you read it in full??

My take it is another unpublished, unreviewed jumble by somebody well outside the field. The article is peppered with quotes like "In order to justify our audacious forecast for the aa-index, we have to make a little diversion on the solar dynamo and its short-, medium- and long-term cycles. The reader should be warned, though, that our arguments do not reflect the mainstream of solar dynamo theory. " In the conclusion the author admits his theory doesn't fit the last 12 years of temperature data, so he just clips it at 2008. He definitely is singing your tune with "we expect a significant temperature drop for the coming years, which then might re-establish the strong correlation between aa-index and delta T"

Sorry I'm not very swayed this article, but I will certainly give you points for finding these "gems".

[pt49]

What about SO2?

It is reported that the amount of SO2 emitted from the Tonga volcanic explosion, combined with the particular weather pattern in play at the time will likely cause a global cooling event for a few years.

There is also a theory that the sunspot activity cycle is causing increased volcanic activity which I must admit is way beyond my education level.

[newhaul]

Originally Posted by pt49

What about SO2?

It is reported that the amount of SO2 emitted from the Tonga volcanic explosion, combined with the particular weather pattern in play at the time will likely cause a global cooling event for a few years.

There is also a theory that the sunspot activity cycle is causing increased volcanic activity which I must admit is way beyond my education level.

Has to do with cosmic rays.
Here is one of the studies reports
https://www.sciencedirect.com/scienc...966?via%3Dihub

[pt49]

Originally Posted by newhaul

Has to do with cosmic rays.
Here is one of the studies reports
https://www.sciencedirect.com/scienc...966?via%3Dihub

Interesting...
"note the possibility that the 1991 Mt. Pinatubo eruption was triggered by the same mechanism: an increase in cosmic-ray flux triggered by Typhoon Yunya, as a decrease in atmospheric pressure results in an increase in cosmic-ray flux.

... the Tongan eruption happened while a Cyclone (Typhoon/Hurricane) was active just to the south.

[GordMay]

Pollution crosses ‘planetary boundary’

The production of plastics and other pollutants now outstrips our ability to monitor it and threatens global ecosystems.

Researchers [1] at the Stockholm Resilience Centre [SRC] conclude that chemical pollutants have crossed a ‘planetary boundary’, the point at which human-made changes to the Earth push it outside the stable environment of the last 10,000 years.

The concept stems from an influential 2009 Nature paper [2] that suggested nine boundary conditions in the Earth system that could, if crossed, result in tipping points that could harm human life.
At the time, the impact of chemical pollutants was not known — but now, we’ve gone too far, say the researchers. “The total mass of plastics now exceeds the total mass of all living mammals,” says ecotoxicologist and study author Bethanie Carney Almroth. “That to me is a pretty clear indication that we’ve crossed a boundary.”

The authors call for a global organization* focused on chemical pollution, which includes industrial waste products, plastics, pesticides and antibiotics.

More about ➥ https://www.theguardian.com/environm...say-scientists


* ‘Scientists call for IPCC-like group on chemical pollution’
➥ https://cen.acs.org/environment/poll...99/web/2021/10


[1] “Outside the Safe Operating Space of the Planetary Boundary for Novel Entities” ~ by Linn Persson et al [2022]
➥ https://pubs.acs.org/doi/10.1021/acs.est.1c04158


[2] “A safe operating space for humanity” ~ by Johan RockstrÖm et al [2009]
Crossing certain biophysical thresholds could have disastrous consequences for humanity. Three of nine interlinked planetary boundaries have already been overstepped.
➥ https://www.nature.com/articles/4614...i3BzTImg%3D%3D

[geoleo]

Originally Posted by AllenRbrts

Unreviewed article written by 3 radiological scientists (all emeritus from the same institution) in a journal for radiation safety. The article claims that C14 measurement tracer technique which has tons of reviewed and published articles is junk science. I really had a hard time wading through the paper, lots of facts and figures that didn't tie together. I never found where they explained where the doubling of CO2 in the atmosphere was coming from if it wasn't fossil fuels. The basic article is around in other places on the net from early times, I didn't find a truly published and reviewed version of it. Call me a skeptic

This all sounds like VOODOO.

[newhaul]

Originally Posted by AllenRbrts

Unreviewed article written by 3 radiological scientists (all emeritus from the same institution) in a journal for radiation safety. The article claims that C14 measurement tracer technique which has tons of reviewed and published articles is junk science. I really had a hard time wading through the paper, lots of facts and figures that didn't tie together. I never found where they explained where the doubling of CO2 in the atmosphere was coming from if it wasn't fossil fuels. The basic article is around in other places on the net from early times, I didn't find a truly published and reviewed version of it. Call me a skeptic

How about the artificially elevated c14 caused by the nuclear testing it will and I'm sure does skew the numbers . Not to mention from cosmic rays . Which have been elevated for several decades.

Nuclear causes rapid decay of radio isotopes