Re: Global warming test

On Mon, 30 Apr 2007 17:50:20 -0700, "Mark Test" <MARKT38@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
wrote:

"George O. Bizzigotti" <gbizzigo@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:41ub33lboqo3ht38fl4k6ehpab2pq4s5vc@xxxxxxxxxx
On Sat, 28 Apr 2007 11:17:44 -0700, "Mark Test" <MARKT38@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
wrote:

Sulphur and other emmissions are down, due to laws and the actions of the
EPA, which I support. We can increase production and reduce emmissions.
This link shows the AQI (Air Quality Index) of the US.

http://airnow.gov/index.cfm?action=airnow.national

You'll notice only 4 US cities have unhealthy AQI's.....

Today it's only 3, which points out the problem with using that web
site as a broad indicator of air quality: it's a daily report.
Ground-level ozone production depends on sunlight and high
temperatures, and so is not likely to be a problem in the spring. Look
at that same web site in July, and it is much more likely that there
will be more unhealthy AQI's.

And how is that different than averaging all of the Earth's temp to
come up with a "global temp"? (A quite useless stat)

The fact remains, US air is cleaner today than it was 30 years
ago, the chart supported my claim.

I agree that US air is generally cleaner today than it was 30 years
ago.

Nevertheless, that web site supports only the claim that the air was
relatively clean on 28 April 2007 (or whatever other date one likes).
My argument is that looking at a phenomenon like the AQI (which has a
pronounced and well-understood seasonal fluctuation) for a single day
doesn't support such a sweeping statement. It's as bad as those who
argue that we must be experienceing global warming because it was 102
in New York one day last summer.

[snip]

The question of whether the levels of CO2 in the atmosphere can cause
climate change was addressed in "Climate Change 2001: The Scientific
Basis:"

http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc_tar/wg1/index.htm

For example, chapter 3 covers the carbon cycle and atmospheric carbon
dioxide

http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc_tar/wg1/pdf/TAR-03.PDF?bcsi_scan_AEE9EC396C942F39=0&bcsi_scan_filename=TAR-03.PDF

which is a source for Mr. Griessel's statement that the annual
contribution of CO2 from volcanoes contributes on average less than 1%
of the atmospheric carbon flux (see p. 188). Mr. Test attempted to
refute that by citing a single volcanic eruption which contributed
large amounts of particulate aerosol to the atmosphere, which in turn
cooled the climate for several years. It's similar to asserting that
the average adult male can dunk a basketball by citing an NBA player.

No it isn't. I stated that a single volcanic eruption can cool the earth
for years...it's significant.....it is incredible that on avg <1% of carbon
flux can COOL the earth for years. Why aren't we following natures'
lead and ingest more CO2 into the atmosphere to cool it? As has
been shown that by placing CO2 in the upper atmosphere it
reflects the sunlight into space and thus causes cooling.

http://www.sciencenews.org/articles/20020511/fob1.asp

The contails covered in that article are only peripherally related to
CO2. Contrails are ice crystals, not CO2. Similarly, the issue with
Mt. Pinitubo was that the eruption injected particulates into the
stratosphere; these particulates similarly are not CO2. Partiuculates
are small particles, primarily ash and sulfate minerals, that (like
ice crystals in contrails) reflect sunlight and cool the atmosphere.
This is a different issue than CO2, which does not cause cooling.
Interestingly enough, climate scientists know the difference and their
current global climate models take clouds and particulate aerosols
into account.

[snip]

what's next? H2O?

Nice straw man. Unfortunately for that argument, the water in the
atmosphere is limited by its saturation vapor pressure. When that
value is exceeded, the excess water is removed from the atmosphere as
rain. Water is a greenhouse gas. The average global concentration of
water in the atmosphere is not going to double in a century; the
concentration of CO2 will close to double by 2100 in the absence of
changes in emissions.

Still, the number one greenhouse gas is water vapor (95%), while CO2
makes up only 3.6%, (99% of CO2 occurs naturally).

That is the part about this theory that I have a problem with. It would seem
we need to focus on the major cause of the greeenhouse effect, not the
least. Additionally, none of the climate models calculate for water vapor.
If you know of any studies or models that factor in water vapor, please
point me in that direction.

First of all, Mr. Test's statistic is approximately correct only in
terms of volume fraction of water and CO2. However, CO2 is a more
efficient greenhouse gas than water, so water vapor is responsible for
60-70% of the greenhouse effect and CO2 is responsible for 20-30%. The
reason for the lack of precision is the overlap in the IR spectra of
the two, as well as the presence of other greenhouse gases.

The reason water is not widley considered a greenhouse pollutant is
that it has a relatively short residence time in the atmosphere; water
gets removed as rain in something like 10 days on average, whereas
changes in CO2 levels persist for decades to centuries. Water levels
are included in the climate models; the vapor is a greenhouse gas,
whereas clouds lead to the opposite effect (cooling) as demonstrated
by the contrail article cited by Mr. Test. Evaportation from the
oceans and rainfall tend to keep water vapor levels roughly constant
despite anthropogenic effects.

The bottom line is that whereas water vapor levels are roughly
constant, CO2 levels are increasing, and it's the amount of change
that is the issue rather than the baseline amount.

I'll close by noting that discussion of what society ought to do about
global climate change is a legitimate topic for political debate, and
such debates on costs versus benefits are reasonable, because there is
no scientific test for whether a particular benefit is worth a given
cost. However, arguing that global climate change is nonexistent or a
natural phenomenon is not supportable based on the science cited
above.

What science? You stated an opinion.

I cited the IPCC report:

http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc_tar/wg1/index.htm

which describes the scientific basis for global climate changes.
Had I intended to argue on the basis of my personal interpretation, I
would have written "for the reasons described above." My point was
that skeptics need to rebut the IPCC in order to credibly argue that
global climate change is non-existant. What to do about it is a
political rather than scientific issue.

Regards,

George
**********************************************************************
Dr. George O. Bizzigotti Telephone: (703) 610-2115
Noblis Fax: (703) 610-1558
3150 Fairview Park Drive South E-Mail: gbizzigo@xxxxxxxxxx
Falls Church, Virginia, 22042-4519
**********************************************************************
Noblis
For the best of reasons

--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Global warming test
    ... 210 Pg carbon per year (120 Pg cycles between the land and atmosphere ... the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere has ... that it has a relatively short residence time in the atmosphere; water ... are included in the climate models; the vapor is a greenhouse gas, ...
    (sci.military.naval)
  • Re: Global warming test
    ... 210 Pg carbon per year (120 Pg cycles between the land and atmosphere ... well state that only 76% of the CO2 currently in the atmosphere is ... Got it.....I was told that many models don't factor in water vapor. ... are included in the climate models; the vapor is a greenhouse gas, ...
    (sci.military.naval)
  • Re: The case for AGW
    ... CO2 is not a pollutant! ... facilitated through lubrication by water between the ice and the base ... The water lubricant has two sources. ... atmosphere where the rarefied nature of the atmosphere opens this ...
    (uk.politics.misc)
  • Re: Global warming test
    ... This link shows the AQI (Air Quality Index) of the US. ... contribution of CO2 from volcanoes contributes on average less than 1% ... lead and ingest more CO2 into the atmosphere to cool it? ... Unfortunately for that argument, the water in the ...
    (sci.military.naval)
  • Re: Global warming test
    ... This link shows the AQI (Air Quality Index) of the US. ... The question of whether the levels of CO2 in the atmosphere can cause ... climate change was addressed in "Climate Change 2001: ... Unfortunately for that argument, the water in the ...
    (sci.military.naval)
Loading