Flaw in the most basic math of AGW

[van]

GLC explain to me your math, you say that the earth receives approx 240 wm2 per hr ave but the ground emits approx 390 wm2 per hr ave. Where did the ground get the extra 150 wm2 to radiate?

[van]

Socold since you love to use the MODTRAN program to prove your point, explain to me why CO2 in this program has several times the forcing of H2O molecule for molecule. Or why it gives CO2 almost 3 times the forcing of CH4 @ the 1.7 ppm level when the basic physics says the CH4 has approx 3000 times the power of CO2 ?

The program doesn't pass muster on the reality check.

[nautonnier]

Jun 14, 2009 11:22:15 GMT socold said:

Jun 13, 2009 17:07:14 GMT nautonnier said:

"If we ignore the greenhouse effect and only include convection, evaporation, clouds and sunlight then the Earth's temperature makes no sense."

Don't ignore it - just remove CO₂ and run the calculations using water vapour as a GHG - then you will find that everything fits quite well.

So where are the calculations that you must have made or seen to come to this conclusion?

Your error is the strawman claim that CO₂ is the sole GHG.

Your error, I suspect, is making stuff up.

Well I saw no calculations in your post - only postulations. So it seemed fair to make a postulation in return. (postulations with numbers are still postulations!)

If you take water vapor out of the AGW calculations all AGW worries disappear as they rely on the increase in water vapor ' increasing the greenhouse effect as a 'positive feedback' to the CO₂ warming. Now you are postulating that there would be no greenhouse effect at all without CO₂ as far as I can see there is no support to the argument that ONLY CO₂ provides any greenhouse warming - perhaps you can cite a paper that says that?


There are many that state the opposite - that contrary to your post above Water Vapor is a more potent greenhouse gas than CO₂

"Contrary to common belief, the greenhouse effect may have more to do with water in our atmosphere than gases such as carbon dioxide"


physicsworld.com/cws/article/print/17402

"Greenhouse gases, mainly water vapor, are essential to helping determine the temperature of the Earth; without them this planet would likely be much colder. "

"When these gases are ranked by their contribution to the greenhouse effect, the most important are:[6]
water vapor, which contributes 36–72%
carbon dioxide, which contributes 9–26%
methane, which contributes 4–9%
ozone, which contributes 3–7%"


en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenhouse_gas


"Airborne radiometric measurements were used to determine tropospheric profiles of the clear sky greenhouse effect. At sea surface temperatures (SSTs) larger than 300 kelvin, the clear sky water vapor greenhouse effect was found to increase with SST at a rate of 13 to 15 watts per square meter per kelvin. Satellite measurements of infrared radiances and SSTs indicate that almost 52 percent of the tropical oceans between 20°N and 20°S are affected during all seasons. Current general circulation models suggest that the increase in the clear sky water vapor greenhouse effect with SST may have climatic effects on a planetary scale."

Direct Radiometric Observations of the Water Vapor Greenhouse Effect Over the Equatorial Pacific Ocean
Francisco P. J. Valero, * William D. Collins, Peter Pilewskie, Anthony Bucholtz, Piotr J. Flatau

www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/275/5307/1773

"(Washington, DC) The Environmental Protection Agency is seeking to classify water vapor as a pollutant, due to its central role in global warming. Because water vapor is the dominant greenhouse gas in the atmosphere, accounting for at least 90% of the Earth's natural greenhouse effect, its emission during many human activities, such as the burning of fuels, is coming under increasing scrutiny by federal regulators. "


www.ecoenquirer.com/EPA-water-vapor.htm

The real argument appears to be more on whether there is a need to have a CO₂ initiator for a greenhouse effect.

As CO₂ is not the sole ghg but one of many this is a difficult case to support. Also paleoclimatology shows that there is no relationship between CO₂ concentrations and temperature so there is no evidence that it _works_ as an initiator even if there is some hypothetical reasoning that says that it could. But methane a more powerful GHG than CO₂ could just as easily initiate a water vapor feedback if it were needed.

[dmapel]

soclod: "If co2 was removed from the atmosphere, about 10% less outgoing IR would be absorbed. A radiative forcing of -23wm-2.

www.realclimate.org/index.php/arc....ack-or-forcing/"

I followed that link to your usual source, and found the following in the text:

"Why does anyone even care about the other greenhouse gases since water vapour is 98% of the effect?"

So they are saying that CO2 accounts for less than 2% of the greenhouse effect. Right soclod?

I notice the team uses some funny spelling over there "vapour". Is that where you learned to spell "explaination". Why aren't you attending the re-indoctrination session over there at the realclimate camp with steve this week? Is steve ok?

[dmapel]

nautonnier: ""(Washington, DC) The Environmental Protection Agency is seeking to classify water vapor as a pollutant, due to its central role in global warming. Because water vapor is the dominant greenhouse gas in the atmosphere, accounting for at least 90% of the Earth's natural greenhouse effect, its emission during many human activities, such as the burning of fuels, is coming under increasing scrutiny by federal regulators. "

www.ecoenquirer.com/EPA-water-vapor.htm"

According to the realclimate link that soclod provided, water vapour accounts for 98% of the greenhouse effect, not 90%. Is the ecoenquirer a sister publication of the National Enquirer? I haven't seen it in the supermarkets.

[socold]

Jun 14, 2009 12:33:10 GMT van said:

GLC explain to me your math, you say that the earth receives approx 240 wm2 per hr ave but the ground emits approx 390 wm2 per hr ave. Where did the ground get the extra 150 wm2 to radiate?

Radiation absorbed from the atmosphere

[socold]

Jun 14, 2009 12:49:26 GMT van said:

Socold since you love to use the MODTRAN program to prove your point, explain to me why CO2 in this program has several times the forcing of H2O molecule for molecule.

Because it does in reality

Or why it gives CO2 almost 3 times the forcing of CH4 @ the 1.7 ppm level when the basic physics says the CH4 has approx 3000 times the power of CO2 ?

It doesn't have anything close to 3000 times the power of co2

The program doesn't pass muster on the reality check.

The program is based on the very basic physics you fail to use against it

[nautonnier]

Jun 14, 2009 16:41:48 GMT socold said:

Jun 14, 2009 12:33:10 GMT van said:

GLC explain to me your math, you say that the earth receives approx 240 wm2 per hr ave but the ground emits approx 390 wm2 per hr ave. Where did the ground get the extra 150 wm2 to radiate?

Radiation absorbed from the atmosphere

SoCold you forgot the IPCC health warning about not fully understanding the effects of clouds.

The numbers associated with the conduction/convection/clouds/precipitation/albedo etc are not at all certain with negative feedbacks due to convective clouds in the tropics of more than 100Wm^-2 reported in some peer reviewed papers (more recent than the paper with the image that you cite).

[socold]

Jun 14, 2009 13:10:33 GMT nautonnier said:

Jun 14, 2009 11:22:15 GMT socold said:

So where are the calculations that you must have made or seen to come to this conclusion?

Your error, I suspect, is making stuff up.

Well I saw no calculations in your post - only postulations. So it seemed fair to make a postulation in return. (postulations with numbers are still postulations!)

If you take water vapor out of the AGW calculations all AGW worries disappear as they rely on the increase in water vapor ' increasing the greenhouse effect as a 'positive feedback' to the CO₂ warming.

You claimed "just remove CO2 and run the calculations using water vapour as a GHG - then you will find that everything fits quite well."

But now your own sources refute your claim. For example you post this:

"When these gases are ranked by their contribution to the greenhouse effect, the most important are:[6]
water vapor, which contributes 36–72%
carbon dioxide, which contributes 9–26%
methane, which contributes 4–9%
ozone, which contributes 3–7%"
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenhouse_gas

So removing co2 would lead to a reduction in the greenhouse effect and therefore the observed temperature of the Earth's surface would be unexplainable.

My point is twofold and only twofold

1) Without gases in the atmosphere absorbing surface radiation (the greenhouse effect) the Earth would be colder than observed. This first point is aimed at people who are trying to get away with arguing that the greenhouse effect is some kind of fraud.

2) Without co2 in the atmosphere absorbing surface radiation, the greenhouse effect would not be strong enough to explain the observed temperature of the Earth. This point is aimed at people who grudgingly accept the greenhouse effect is a reality but are trying to get away with arguing that co2 plays no part.

Now you are postulating that there would be no greenhouse effect at all without CO₂

No I am not.

[socold]

Jun 14, 2009 14:51:11 GMT @dmapel said:

soclod: "If co2 was removed from the atmosphere, about 10% less outgoing IR would be absorbed. A radiative forcing of -23wm-2.

www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2005/04/water-vapour-feedback-or-forcing/

I followed that link to your usual source, and found the following in the text:

"Why does anyone even care about the other greenhouse gases since water vapour is 98% of the effect?"

So they are saying that CO2 accounts for less than 2% of the greenhouse effect. Right soclod?

Nope, how about you read it in context which requires you to actually read the sentences surrounding phrases rather than quotemining them?

[poitsplace]

Jun 14, 2009 12:49:26 GMT van said:

Socold since you love to use the MODTRAN program to prove your point, explain to me why CO2 in this program has several times the forcing of H2O molecule for molecule. Or why it gives CO2 almost 3 times the forcing of CH4 @ the 1.7 ppm level when the basic physics says the CH4 has approx 3000 times the power of CO2 ?

The program doesn't pass muster on the reality check.

If it was based on raw absorption numbers that wound actually be 100% correct though. Due to the logarithmic nature of absorption methane (at ONLY 1.7ppm) doesn't even absorb a significant amount of its spectrum and any increases in concentration greatly increase its absorption. Carbon dioxide is at such high concentrations that increases have very little affect. Water vapor is at such extreme concentrations (as much as 1% of the atmosphere) that it's completely pointless to consider increases.

But again the problem is that it only models the ABSORPTION and that's only half the physics. The gases themselves actually emit energy on their own based on concentration and temperature...while absorption is based only on concentration. The difference between absorption and emission is the only potential "back-radiation". As such the TRUE limitation really has more to do with minimum atmospheric temperature than with anything else.

Water vapor is the 800 pound gorilla of the greenhouse gases. Water vapor and it's phase changes are so powerful that it essentially sets the minimum atmospheric temperature. The key aspect to this is that once the temperature drops sufficiently the concentration of water vapor falls off enough to let its spectrum travel freely into space.

Along the way, due to its overlapped spectrum, much of CO2's energy gets sidetracked into water vapor's spectrum. Since there is (until the tropopause) so much more water vapor than CO2 and because water vapors spectrum covers so much more of the black body curve for earth's temperature range a great deal (probably most) of CO2's energy gets sidetracked into water vapor's spectrum and radiated away.

Socold is right that CO2 can slow down the flow of energy but its not going to be at the rate the raw numbers on absorption would suggest.

[socold]

Jun 14, 2009 14:56:52 GMT @dmapel said:

nautonnier: ""(Washington, DC) The Environmental Protection Agency is seeking to classify water vapor as a pollutant, due to its central role in global warming. Because water vapor is the dominant greenhouse gas in the atmosphere, accounting for at least 90% of the Earth's natural greenhouse effect, its emission during many human activities, such as the burning of fuels, is coming under increasing scrutiny by federal regulators. "

www.ecoenquirer.com/EPA-water-vapor.htm"

According to the realclimate link that soclod provided, water vapour accounts for 98% of the greenhouse effect, not 90%. Is the ecoenquirer a sister publication of the National Enquirer? I haven't seen it in the supermarkets.

The realclimate article says:

Whenever three or more contrarians are gathered together, one will inevitably claim that water vapour is being unjustly neglected by 'IPCC' scientists. "Why isn't water vapour acknowledged as a greenhouse gas?", "Why does anyone even care about the other greenhouse gases since water vapour is 98% of the effect?", "Why isn't water vapour included in climate models?", "Why isn't included on the forcings bar charts?" etc.

And from this Dmapel gets the idea that Realclimate are stating that "water vapour is 98% of the greenhouse effect".

What's worse is the article further down actually gives % contribution for co2 to the greenhouse effect and it aint 98%.

So many clues but dmapel got none of them. It's almost as if he's doing it on purpose.

[dmapel]

soclod: "So many clues but dmapel got none of them. It's almost as if he's doing it on purpose."

You are really quick, soclod. It was on purpose, and I purposely made it obvious that it was on purpose. You have been ignoring me despite the nice rapport that was developing between us, and I just wanted to get your attention. I miss steve. Did he do something wrong to cause him to be sent back for re-indoctrination?

Why don't you try to find a source other than realclimate to back up your knee-jerk rejections of any comment that doesn't keep faith with the hysterical catastrophic AGW dogma.

How long is it going to take you to figure out that nautonnier was jerking your chain with this: "(Washington, DC) The Environmental Protection Agency is seeking to classify water vapor as a pollutant, due to its central role in global warming. Because water vapor is the dominant greenhouse gas in the atmosphere, accounting for at least 90% of the Earth's natural greenhouse effect, its emission during many human activities, such as the burning of fuels, is coming under increasing scrutiny by federal regulators. "

www.ecoenquirer.com/EPA-water-vapor.htm"

There's also an interesting article there about polar bears suffering from heat exhaustion.

Do you ever read any of references that other's post here soclod?

[dmapel]

Yo soclod,

"Right now, we are not so concerned about the water vapor exhaled by people. That is low on our list of priorities", said Mr. Donaldson. "We'll tackle that manmade source at a later time." One likely result of such regulation would be an additional tax on fuels used by cars, trucks, passenger jets, and a wide variety of industries and utilities.

Predictably, the Bush Administration has voiced opposition to any regulation of water vapor emissions. White House staffer Lew Moninsky told ecoEnquirer, "This is simply ridiculous. The EPA wants to regulate all human activity out of existence. What about the massive amounts of water vapor being evaporated from the world's oceans every second? That's OK?, but human production of small amounts of vapor isn't? If it weren't for water vapor, there would be no rainfall! Give me a break!"

"Well, of course the Administration would say that…", said Mr. Donaldson, "..they're in the pocket of 'big oil' anyway."

White House staffer Lew Moninsky. Could it be another intern soclod?

[dmapel]

poitsplace: " Water vapor is the 800 pound gorilla of the greenhouse gases. Water vapor and it's phase changes are so powerful that it essentially sets the minimum atmospheric temperature. The key aspect to this is that once the temperature drops sufficiently the concentration of water vapor falls off enough to let its spectrum travel freely into space. "

And maybe it sets the maximum temperature as well. That makes CO2 the ninety pound weakling. Why don't they get it?