Ice cores: Air temp rises before CO2 rises, explain that! H2O ignored as Greenhouse Gas contributing to rising temperature? Why?

Oh, Les...you say so much. Let me take this point by point.

1. "The real question is what caused the warming? The real answer is: we do not know for sure."

This is what I've been saying all along, but you always adamantly state that we KNOW the warming is caused by human activity.

As I said before - which you you have confirmed above - carbon dioxide levels rise as an EFFECT of rising temperatures. There is about an 800 year lag between rising temperatures and rising CO2. So, CO2 is not the cause for warming...it never has been. Carbon dioxide is a small percentage of greenhouse gases (only a single-digit percentage) which in turn are only a small percentage of our overall atmosphere.

The greenhouse effect would warm the upper troposphere, not surface temperatures which have been rising. However, the data indicates that the atmosphere is not warming as implied by the greenhouse theory. So, our miniscule contribution to greenhouse gases, and even smaller contribution to the total atmosphere, is not causing the planet to warm. And, for the record, carbon dioxide is not a "pollutant".

It's time to find a new theory.

2. "We know exactly where the carbon dioxide is coming from in the present situation. Most is coming from your tailpipe; you know, the big deal truck you claimed one time to drive to work? (You are not the only sinner!!! There are billions of us!)"

According to the NOAA website, we humans only contribute 3% of the annual carbon dioxide. The total amount of carbon dioxide is only .04% of our atmosphere. So, by my calculations, we contribute to .0012% of our atmosphere in the form of CO2.

3. "You are advocating polluting or despoiling everyone's air, water, and quality of life. And claiming you have a 'right' to do so"

No, I'm not "advocating" for that. I'm saying that we don't know for sure whether man is causing climate change or if we are even capable of doing it. See number 1.

4. "neither the shoes on your feet nor clothes on your back belong to you unless the rest of us, in the society allow you to own it, claim it, possess it. Sorry, Charley! Even the 'wealthiest' individual or corporation, is nothing if we the people decide to change the system."

Well, as long as the Constitution remains the way it is right now, I do own my property and have the right to defend it with force. The people who would like to change that are many of the people within the environmental movement who wish to control our daily lives with more restrictions on our freedom and additional taxes. This is why I am not too fond of this new environmental/communist movement.

5. "There is uncertainty as a result of the complexity involved in the nearly perfect equilibrium water achieves with the air and the air temperatures ambient."

This is true...there IS much uncertainty. This is part of the problem with the global warming hysterics. But if you'd like to know more about water vapor and precipitation and the role it plays in stabilizing our climate, read this:

http://www.nypost.com/seven/02262007/postopinion/opedcolumnists/not_that_simple_opedcolumnists_roy_w__spencer.htm?page=0

Dr. Spencer is very knowledgeable on this subject, one that is almost never brought up by Al Gore and his friends promoting fear and crises.

6. "We know historically that the CO2 in the air never went above 300 ppmv..."

Well, this statement is incorrect. "Never" is misleading. If you want to say it has not been above 300ppm in the last 40 million years or so, that's fine. But "historically" speaking, CO2 has been much higher than 300ppm for most of the Earth's history. I explained this in one of my recent xombytes:

http://www.xomba.com/a_world_crisis_the_new_global_terror

What is exciting about this now, is you modified your comment. I think that is wonderful!

So. I'm going to spruce up my post, and try to make it a little more civil, a little more collegial, and bring it to the point where, you can take off from it again.

But by posting this, it freezes this part of the thread. It freezes what YOU wrote. Like the ice cores being studied and new things found. As well as as a firming up of what we know.

In the next few hours, maybe I'll get the new look and feel of the posting up and then it will be worth debating for the points you want to make.

By the way, get as much help as you want. Read everything I've written for typographic errors, or where I put "know" for "no", or "your" for "you're", or any number of errors and I can go fix them, and these aren't even the good ones!

Get outside help if you need it!

You will have to live with this situation worsening and worsening far longer that I since you are younger and missed some of the good days of weather in the past, times of ultramarine deep indigo skies, less dust, clearer skies. Adequate ozone for protection. Though still dangerous at my elevation more than yours.(Most of the three inches of snow we had yesterday is now melted.)

And to mention that many of the infrared astronomy sites high in the Andes are only figuring to get on the outside 40 to 50 years before the warming of the atmosphere by CO₂brings with it an increased water vapor to interfere with their equipments abiities to detect energy in the designed infrared frequencies at nearly 17,000 feet.

Of course, you don't believe that prediction or have any problems with the 9+ billion people driving 2 billion cars.

Can you imagine the opportunities for H₂fueled vehicles? Fuel cells to combine H₂ with O₂ to form H₂O and then maybe squirt that in to the atmosphere. I mean water vapor in Duluth during the Winter is just some real fog, NOW. It turns into little icy fog, coming out with the CO₂ and the CO.

With propulsion turned into 2(H₂) + O₂ = 2(H₂O) maybe we can figure out a way to make the water become the greenhouse forcing component you think it needs to be characterized as. . . or the street fogger of the future. Imagine, following too close means you get fogged, or really iced. Yeah, in the northern states they use the "defroster" to sublimate the frosty ice on the windshield, and it turns into teeny tiny, tiny ice crystals that at night reflect light as though an approaching automobile has lights pointed to the sky.

Yeah, in Florida, you probably have to use them as "defoggers". More like the Brits, when it is warm.

Yes, we can even imagine a pub-future where you must contain the water vapor you exhale or pay a fine for it along with the CO₂ you exhale, after the C in your food has been burned to CO₂. And if you read "A diamond in the Air, for you that pure Carbon in your exhaled breath makes a Carbon Vapor Deposition Diamond that weighs in at nearly 200 lbs! (Heck for you it probably exceeds 200 lbs.)

Good luck.

Neener!! Neener!! Neener!! How "exciting"! I got you both FROZE now!!

Oh Shoot!! That's right! Damn!! Les can still go in and change his original post around however he likes to make it more "civil" and "collegial"...which I'm pretty sure has something to do with giving you equal authority to speak on this subject, or something like that...Well, never mind. What do I know?

The way I read it though is that he's got you froze, but he can change around whatever he said already. And don't forget that if all else fails, he can always just delete the entire post in the guise of changing the title, and then repost it, minus your comments. Like it or not, he has the ulitmate authority.

It's amazing, isn't it, how little it takes to entertain some people? Myself, I wouldn't play this game anymore Pub. It appears to me that the more you two argue about it, the more rapidly the maturity level seems to be falling off.

Who knows, that may well lead to shallow-breathing and a rapid heart rate, and that can't hardly be healthy.

Lady:P

has been

Wow, Less...you are just so clever. You "froze" my comment. I really don't care. I'm just going to finish up with this xombyte right here, so then we won't have to worry about anyone changing their articles or comments.

I just want to take some of Lady's advice and say this:

This entire article was just one long, roundabout way of acknowledging almost all of the points I've made about global warming. You just try to make it so boring that people get lost or stop reading...then they may assume that what you're saying "disproves" my comments.

You acknowledged the fact that we don't know what has caused the warming.

You acknowledged the fact that CO2 rises AFTER temperature increases, and that there is a lag.

You acknowledged that the Milankovitch cycles do play a role in climate variations.

You ackowledged that plate tectonics can play a role, even if it is over a very long period of time.

You acknowledged that water vapor does play a role in our climate, despite the fact that you're not sure how much.

You've acknowledged the fact that CO2 levels have been much higher in the past.

So, it appears that we are in agreement on many things. All I need you to do now is admit that the Sun really does play an important role in our climate and that polar bears really aren't on the verge of extinction. If that happens, we really don't have much more to argue about.

Now you can lock this in..."freeze" it if you like. I think I'm making some progress with you. There is hope after all. I'm done here.

The post that was here I removed. Shame on me for being so hard on a young person.

Freeze!!

Lady:P

I'm just going to come right out with how I feel, and I hope that neither of you take this too personally, but I'm weary of this crap!!

It would appear to me Les, that you are far too sensitive already. I don't understand why you post something that you continually go back and change, and add to, and take away from, and take down, and put back up. How many people are going to go back and view the new revised version anyway? I know I don't!

Half the time it's hard for me to understand and follow what you are saying anyway, but this just makes it worse. I don't see how your postings can be getting any attention, because I can't follow them most of the time anyway.

I would like to learn, and if there is something about what Publius is saying that isn't correct, then I would like to know that and understand that too. But I don't learn anything here because you are so busy arguing with him that you get harder and harder to understand. I don't read these articles to side with either of you. But lately it seems that I read them just to watch the two of you argue!

People are going to disagree with you, Les, no matter what you say, especially in matters of science, religion, politics, etc. So why don't you just post the damned thing the way you want it to be the first time, and then let it fly, come what may?

That's what seems so immature to me. You let this young man get you so riled up apparently, that you keep going back and changing things and even removing entire posts to remove his comments. But how many people do you really think are paying attention to it by then?

It appears to me that you both have very valid points. Whatever it is between you two, it gets old, and eventually it takes away from any interest on the subject.

Also, it doesn't matter to me how old or young someone is if they are bringing up relevant points. But you keep pointing out how young he is, as if that says something about the level of his intelligence or his knowledge about a subject. What is wrong with admitting that there might have been new developments? Or that he might be right about something now and then?

Science is not set in concrete...theories are being proven wrong, and new things are being discovered all the time. I mean we might all still be using leeches to cure our cancer if we didn't learn something since then, you know?

In the end it seems to me that you are both in agreement on a number of points, but YOU are so hell bent on making this "kid" admit that you are right and he is wrong, that you go out of your way and all around to say the exact same thing that he just said.

I'm weary of trying to keep up with all your postings and how they change. Just post your article and move on because neither of you are getting any younger.

Lady:P

I tried mature; I tried senstitive. Now, my only recourse: Response

I have just about finished the revised post, and it should not index any differently, names the same, and I hope that it is more satisfying. I want to thank you for the comment and to assure you I read every word, thought up most of the kind nuances and some that weren't as to your motivation for making the comment, and decided YOU ARE CORRECT on EVERY SCORE!!!! and still deserve a response, such as the one I provide herewith: (Com' on! sourpuss, Smile! for a bit.)

LadyP wrote:

I'm just going to come right out with how I feel, and I hope that neither of you take this too personally, but I'm weary of this crap!!

What is your engagement in this 'crap'? This is about a serious situation settling on humanity. This is a situation which has been caused by man. It is anthropogenic. And since the election in 1994 where the Newt boys promised a new "Contract with America" and in fact, were talking about holding the Article V Consitutional Convention, which turns power away from Washington and Back to the People -- well from that time until this last Congress was elected, we've seen 13 years of criminal malfeasance. This situation is cause by them in congress and the fraud sitting in the oval office. But this 'crap' has nothing to do with you except as to be come a solidly informed citizen, so why are you enjoining? (Not that I mind. . .well, much.) Just what brings you to this posting of mine? Really? Actually -- well, you know, I'm glad you are here, even weary! But that will not keep me from drawing your blood if needed. . .all in good faith.

It would appear to me Les, that you are far too sensitive already. I don't understand why you post something that you continually go back and change, and add to, and take away from, and take down, and put back up. How many people are going to go back and view the new revised version anyway? I know I don't!

Okay. You don't get it!

I am not expecting, nor do I care, actually, if no one from this website ever reads a single science post or political post or celebrity post I have written, though I hope they do, and hope they enjoy them or not,(like i.e.) Publius, et. al., and yours truly! I WANT OTHER PEOPLE TO READ THEM! OUTSIDE!

These science articles I strive to write, are supposed to be educational, informative, and durable.

I attempt to put into these posts things you can take to the bank. If Publius wants to bring his political psuedoscience into the discussion -- I can't stop him!

It really depends on the science quality of his posting as judged by none other than ME! Most of his posting-nonsense, is nonsense. When it comes to a science slant -- it is junk science at best.

At the same time, it is like you posting something well written, a touch emotional, and clearly and pointedly directed at some conceptualization of Science and scientists in that it reflects not the knowledge you have or can acquire but an emotional opinion of how two writers can get along or not in their writing.

I would rather have someone knowledgable acting as a foil than some political 'hack' attempting to cheapen or distort what we do know or are learning. Claiming to have his "constitutional rights" to defend his "property" (shoes and shirt on his back) which he neither understands nor supports He writes "well," just is basically a helot for a persuasion which in a mode similar to Jihadic Islam; is self-destructive, diminshes mankind as a whole, (as him educating the 'dumb' masses, which he actually believes), and discourages species potential survival.

His political kind, like Anne Coulter, coyly ingraitiatingly, using language that describes 10-12% of our species and a very important "intelligent" genetic variation on the basic theme, as some kind of double-speak acting as the key to political correctness, via some rehabilitation scheme.

In the same vein I would support his utilization of her skills as reward in his Prison Gladiator operation, where she is properly bagged and gagged for/or as a small part of the "reward." This is more in line with his approach, not mine -- but like Annie, "writers" can play with words to evoke the desired mood.

That scenario aside, "controversy" is also a key to attracting blog, BB, or internet readership. In that direction my brother-in-law describes that after his father's death his mother, while the kids were aboard in the car, would follow the screaming wail of the ambulance or firetruck to the scene of someone's misfortune, as a proxy for "family entertainment".

Blood, guts, smoke and flame, some unfortunate high human drama, like many popular TV entertainments -- glorifying the lowest common denominator. You need to only see my brother-in-law's facial expression when the wailing screaming of a siren sounds.

His face flushes, reddens a touch; cheeks and neck clearly in pavlovian reward response glowing; a faint to warm developing hint of a smile clearly of something he enjoys, eyes both instantly glistening and sparkling -- all from the sound of the siren! He restrains himself, otherwise he woud be in his car gleefully joining some parade of chasers getting pleasurable endorphins on the drug of someone else's misery.

In our blog postings that same fire or accident attracts voyeurs and produces clicks. That is sometimes why I leave the inanities. And from my side of the isle here is a blogger for Pubs delight:

http://bostonphoenix.com/boston/news_features/top/features/documents/05163474.asp

I do side with the Thomas Jefferson's political philosophies, making me very different from the current Democrats. And I one was a Goldwater AuH₂O supporter before these neophytes were even born, or knew what a political philosophy was. So, finally, when I look at blog durability, I am not interested in the patter of inanities and circular reasoning which you will see when I finally repost the content, but will likely leave these comments this time. It depends on more than my "mood. . ."

But I can erase him. By folding the table, putting up the chairs and moving them to the next booth, I can remove his inane, inflamatory, and pointedly specious psuedoscience; I can eliminate his outright distortions, I can stamp out his offbeat misunderstandings, and dispense with his intentional misrepresentations. Global warming is serious stuff.

Half the time it's hard for me to understand and follow what you are saying anyway, but this just makes it worse. I don't see how your postings can be getting any attention, because I can't follow them most of the time anyway.

Thanks. I will try to make them more readable, make them better by repairing them, elucidating things for readers, illustrating features not obvious, but important. I will try to make a complex species survival subject more simple, more understandable. I assume people often know more than they know, just because I know it. So I will do better. Or try, at least. (Did you know that Abe Lincoln, (he would be a Jefferson Dem now,) wrote several versions of his Gettysburg Address? Revised it even after eloquently delivering it amidst applause?)

(On that score: I can't think of a single worthwhile historically important or memorable speech GWB has performed -- let alone authored. Can you? Comedic ones don't qualify, nor logical Spoonerisms.)

I would like to learn, and if there is something about what Publius is saying that isn't correct, then I would like to know that and understand that too. But I don't learn anything here because you are so busy arguing with him that you get harder and harder to understand. I don't read these articles to side with either of you. But lately it seems that I read them just to watch the two of you argue!

Certainly. I think you will see the tautologies (redundancies, or as Dave used to say, "redundundancies. . .") but more, the circular reasonings. We ALL use them. Recognitions of implicit assumptions, assertions, or using an assumption to prove itself. I am not going to spend or waste time illustrating many of those if I can avoid them.

In science especially, it is important to grasp the common ways that logic is misused, and how to counter or correct them. Scientists in the quest for truth, need to know how to make a statement based on verifable observational evidence, measurements that are open to everyone's scrutiny, without the use of such dishonest logical tricks. In this effort the quest for truth, as scientists -- with this purpose clear, there is never an appropriate occasion to give non-scientists a set of false statements.

As a scientist, you can have any poitical opinion you want, but the "scripture" is the phenomenal world, the one with fossils and ice bubbles and atmospheric concentrations, and datum shifts, and dynamic change -- and solid logic to interpret what is seen. I really do not care if I am believed or not; since the evidence when reduced to the simplest form possible outlines the range truth must lie within.

From logic, a premise forms the basis for acceptance of a conclusion. If the premise is insubstantial, the conclusion is unconvincing, even if likely or true. To strengthen what seems a weak line of evidence, multiple lines of evidence are developed and comaparisons of the conclusions reached by entirely independent and unrelated methods are made.

“One doubtful thing cannot be admitted as proof, said Thomas Paine, "that another doubtful thing is true.”

I will only touch on these in the revised posting which is not supposed to be a drama.

People are going to disagree with you, Les, no matter what you say, especially in matters of science, religion, politics, etc. So why don't you just post the damned thing the way you want it to be the first time, and then let it fly, come what may?

Disagreement is fine. But. Science is Knowledge. Disagree, and with your disagreement dredge-up independently verifiable observational data, "rocks and dirt," from the real world and cite them and demonstrate through specific measurements why one is to conclude only "this" instead of "that".

Religion and Politics and much else, are beliefs.
God revises species; and so do we. We are discovering the Rules, the real Rules. These are Gods Laws. There are Laws even God can't break or violate, not while here in this universe. (How Large is God?) Disagree all anyone wants. If Pub wants some erased comments back, he is in the same boat everyone else is if he did not make a copy aforehand.
When I become "satisfied" with the blog it stays as is. Most of them are left the same as created, but when I make a mistake, and I do make plenty of them -- I want to correct the errors. Typo, conceptual, math, whatever. As the author . . .there are only a few that I can't change. Damn it! Woman! can't you see that?

That's what seems so immature to me. You let this young man get you so riled up apparently, that you keep going back and changing things and even removing entire posts to remove his comments. But how many people do you really think are paying attention to it by then?

I have successfully maintained an imagination, limited yes, diminished with age, reality, and lessened capacity, but an imagination none the less. Riled up? Not really. But it makes me smile! Who would imagine that the Brief Future of the Sun would be read as much as it has been? And apparently understood, just as you understood it. The only reason we would go back to read it is for whatever it brough us in the first place.

It appears to me that you both have very valid points. Whatever it is between you two, it gets old, and eventually it takes away from any interest on the subject.
At that point, please feel free to butt out! or post as you are here! If I delete the posting and re-write it for the public, and not the Writer's of Xomba (say that word, make it rhyme with Ommmmm. . .then finalize it with the parted lips releasing the captured 'b. . ." or "zommm. . .buhhh..." But superficially it may sound like the points are valid, but how can two contradictory positions be mediated?

In science they can't. One is correct. The other is hogwash. In politics or diplomacy, or mediation, you do not care about truth -- only "harmony." Science is about truth. About knowledge.

In science a consensus vote is meaningless. That said -- you ought to start getting uneasy about the fact that the most inharmonious community on the planet are agreeing that we monkeys are monkeying around to our species and other species detriment. And LadyP, it has nothing to do with harmony.

It is a warning; and it is real. And it is scary, though you and I are of an age where we will not live long enough to see the very negative aspects of our legacy, and our failue as a species to take the austere measures to fight it. (It is way too late to stop it. But we can and should assess a proper punishment on those deserving.)

Also, it doesn't matter to me how old or young someone is if they are bringing up relevant points. But you keep pointing out how young he is, as if that says something about the level of his intelligence or his knowledge about a subject. What is wrong with admitting that there might have been new developments? Or that he might be right about something now and then?

When I was young, younger than Pub, I had many of the same illusions. I woke up one day and realized how wrong and stupid I had been. Pub may never wake up; he may continue to sleepwalk he may continue to be the way he is. Life changes us. Truths do not change. Beliefs do. His knowledge seems limited to his beliefs. New knowledge I am interested in. This prediction stuff is tricky, and gambling is mathematically well defined; but this is one we can't afford to gamble on. I am attempting to educate people, smart capable people, not the ones in pubs profiles he is bent on educating; in his words:"the dumb masses". Now should HE change his profile? It isn't a posting?

Science is not set in concrete...theories are being proven wrong, and new things are being discovered all the time. I mean we might all still be using leeches to cure our cancer if we didn't learn something since then, you know?

Science, the grist of it, is pretty much set in concrete. Theories are NOT. Theories undergo extinction episodically. Technically, Non Sequitur applies to leeches and cancer, remember apricot pits? Medicine is not yet Science; and the statistical actuarial approach is currently a better way to describe the witchcraft called medicine -- still, than trying to elevate it to "medical science." Not that we can't change it. Life changing Experiments anyone?

In the end it seems to me that you are both in agreement on a number of points, but YOU are so hell bent on making this "kid" admit that you are right and he is wrong, that you go out of your way and all around to say the exact same thing that he just said.

Actually not. This kid will never admit anything of the kind without a complete life transforming experience. If he did, he would be come an advocate.

We agree on the essentials of the language, the tools of communication; if not the precise use of it. But really, little else.

I'm weary of trying to keep up with all your postings and how they change. Just post your article and move on because neither of you are getting any younger

Look. You do not have to read and post to everything written.
I enjoy getting older. I hate wearing out.

Don't tell me you had to read my time post, without underestanding it! Here we have us aging, processes occurring in one direction, no time travel except foreward, no eternal youth . . . Look. A writer could make up a better world than one where we get old. . .dorian gray?

From the superficial surface . . . or from deep with in my heart or being. . .I thank you graciously for posting your comment even if you are disgusted with me, with him, or with us. Thanks anyway! And of course you can read without comment or quibble, or not. Always a pleasure, well sometimes, well, usually. . . well, now and then...
on occassion. . . every now and again. . .

Have you seen the Geico commercials where the caveman is given a chance to respond to the psychologist in a "point/counterpoint" type forum?

After some prattling by the psychologist, the caveman is given the opportunity to respond. He says, "Yes, I have a response. Uhhh, what?"

I love that commercial!! So call me a cavewoman! Aren't we all dumb masses? Really?

You apparently missed my whole point, and once again you've succeeded in totally tweedle-deeing me.

Perhaps you are out of your element here on Xomba, or perhaps I should just mind my own business since I obviously don't know what the hell you are talking about.

Lady:P

Geico was a Government Employees Insurance Company, and got it's start as a government employees thing.

I enjoy the commercials, and I side with the caveman.

I realize now you do not grasp what I am addressing. I have a few more equations to attempt to get into the mix, but you are into ego, not content.

Thanks for the comments.

I did not misunderstand one thing you replied.

Yes I believe you did not see what I was addressing.

I am getting the revised post ready. There is nothing to remove.

I do think you need to stick to meaningful comments and content and refrain from comments that have to do with ego.

Xomba has promise. thanks for your concerns.

stay tuned. Be on content. be in context.
thanks

"Then explain to us why water vapor, the number one greenhouse gas (over 95%), is left out of the equation when discussing greenhouse gases." -- This question was asked because nobody that I've seen discussing global warming ever mentions water vapor. I was not asking whether it was a forcing agent or not. That was your own interpretation - probably done so in order to try to make me appear foolish. So, answering my question...

"Water vapor is an efficient absorber of outgoing longwave infrared radiation on Earth and is, therefore, a primary greenhouse gas. Since the amount of water vapor in the atmosphere increases with increasing surface temperature, and the increase in water vapor further increases the temperature, there is a positive feedback." (emphasis added)

So now that you've recognized it is a greenhouse gas, and the primary one, my question still remains. Why don't the advocates of man-made global warming ever mention it? Not as a forcing component, just completely ignore it? It is certainly an important variable in our climate and according to the above statement (that there is a positive feedback), it does contribute to increased temperatures.

Other than that, it seems that there are many uncertainties about climate change that have not been solved scientifically. This is why I find it amusing that so many people can speak about our future with absolute certainty, which has been my argument about this subject from day one. Thanks for clearing it up and justifying my position.

I'll get back to you soon.

You are a classic illustration!

hang in there.

"Freeze" away, Les. I am a classic illustration...of brilliance. I suppose you will now tell me that water vapor isn't a greenhouse gas, or that I misunderstood the entire article. Do you really want me to go through your entire article and point out your errors and contradictions, and your attempts to misrepresent my questions I pose to you? Apparently there is some credibility to what I'm asking you...how many times have you had to edit and revise your articles because of a problem I've pointed out?

Take your time getting back to me. You'll need it.

In the meantime, maybe you should read the article below again and determine if you're ready to stop the misrepresentations of my questions and assumptions about my character and stick to fact-based science. Unless, of course, you'd rather be a political writer.

http://www.xomba.com/you_are_a_featured_writer

how many are interested in any of the things being posted here?
freeze it you keep dancin who cares

You silly men!!

Lady:P

and offensive comments and cleaned up most of the language.

But, I realized though I explained the Water Vapor situation in the xombyte, I did not do so explicitly in this chatter back and forth to publius in the comments. Let me try to do that here. . .
----- Publius quoted my wording. . .

"Water vapor is an efficient absorber of outgoing longwave infrared radiation on Earth and is, therefore, a primary greenhouse gas. Since the amount of water vapor in the atmosphere increases with increasing surface temperature, and the increase in water vapor further increases the temperature, there is a positive feedback."

Publius also mentioned the "Climate Forcing" concept I addressed in the byte, but not really in these comments. So I'll touch on that here -- or as I say in the Xombyte, "beat a horse that has been long dead. . ." Few people even worry about the long buggy whip or horse whip era the phrase began with. . .And some still kick their dog when they should know better. . .

On the water vapor!

How can Publius say "we" ignore water vapor as a GHG? Do you ignore the everyday NOAA weather forcasts and say we do not address water vapor? Water vapor, leads to rain, and snow and is both life and the weather! H20 is the most important component of life on Earth, and possibly elsewhere in the universe. Have I not written "As Venus is, Earth will become?"

Water vapor is the MOST important of the greenhouse gas components and it is not at all ignored. But it is not a forcing component at this stage of the Earth's climate in the face of solar evolution.

When folks in the hot humid portions of the country feel local humidity and have heard the National Weather Service readings of humidity, do you think the Water Vapor is being ignored? Or when you hear a forcast for Rain or Snow, or a hurricane with its immense water and water vapor content -- is it obvious we are somehow ignoring water vapor as a part of the climate? Where do these deniers and contrarians thing rain snow and hurricanes come from? "Weather" and its variability "is" water vapor and its local variability.

The extremes we see and the changes we are beginning to see are reflective of the "anthropogenic forcing" of change by further polluting the air with component gases, the greenhous gases, which have lifetimes in the air of much greater time span than a couple of weeks --which is a water molecules' gas phase maximum lifetime.

As CO2, CH4, Chloroflourocarbons, N02, and the other GHGs which are man made or influenced are poured by man's activity into the air -- the result is that the air warms and the warmer air hold more vaporous H20. These man-made and contributed gases are forcing components whose atmospheric lifetimes are measured in years, decades and centuries, not in weeks.

Increased Water Vapor in the air is a "resultant component" not a source of the global atmospheric heating problem, but a resultant. The problem is the continued dumping of the detritus of burning Carbon into the air -- at a rate much greater than we or nature can remove. And if we do not stop contributing in excess of what nature can remove or remove it
ourselves -- we need, as a species, to stop contributing to the forcing.

Do we talk about water vapor? Sure, all the time!

Besides the change of phase from solid to liquid to vapor for water is completely beyond anthropogenic control. Is someone in the industrial or transportation or energy sectors producing more water vapor than nature does? Man has no control over the Water Vapor but we do over those things Pubby thinks are supported by man's god-given right to pollute.

----

I have to leave it alone and after a week read it again and hope it makes sense. I may further hunt for typos and attempt to fix or strengthen conceptual approaches. In other words, edit it -- fix wording and ideas to clarify the relationships becoming obvious as the CO2 keeps piling up.

There is no maximum "limit" to the amount of CO2 that can exist in the air. Water is destined to eventually evaporate, and saturate the air completely planet wide and rise high enough to allow the increasingly intensifying UV from the warming Sun to break the water's hydrogen oxygen bond and allow most of the hydrogen so liberated to escape to space. As Venus is, Earth will become. But if the schedule is followed, it will take about 3 billion years yet to completely accomplish. The interesting thing about the entire scenario is that the astronomical model of the Sun is right on, and thousands of Sun-like stars show that the model predicted warming goes right along with the solar mass and the initial proportions of constituent materials in the molecular cloud that collapsed to be the Sun.

(A reasonably intelligent way to delay, but not avoid the cooking of the Earth by the Sun -- when the water become the major forcing component -- is to move the Earth to an orbit farther from the Sun. But there are other bodies that complicate the issue. That is a major engineering challenge. Doing so could extend life's time on Earth a few billion years. Oh yes, one of the "easiest" ways to move a planet is to use another planet -- one with substantial mass -- to pull the desired orbit into existence. Read Larry Niven's "Time out of Mind" for a general idea of how Larry, and likely future planetary orbital engineers, would move things around the Solar System. Uranus is the Planet Larry wants to use as the shaper of orbits -- anyone want to tell me why? It is an elegant and beautiful approach. But it does take knowledge and a command of technology that might be only one or two centuries in our future. I takes real command of raw energies, of power. The choice of Uranus is a very nice use of circumstance that occured early in the solar system's history. Ideas Anyone?)

As to the timeframe for the cooking of Earth, the initial stellar mass of our Sun is the determinant -- and with 400 billion stars in the Milky Way Galaxy a large number of Sun-like stars in various conditions of age, the "surprises" are going to be minimal to significantly nonexistent.

For Earth, there is still uncertainty as to generally when the "runaway" water-driven moist greenhouse will begin. If it truly requires the 10% insolation increase, at the top of the atmosphere, then that condition can occur in the 900 million year to 1.2 billion year range, with the Sun cooking along as usual. (Anyone want to 'fine-tune' the Sun? That is why moving the Earth might be an easier endeavor than somehow tinkering with a star.)

If we last long enough, say 20,000 years from now as a species, I think we might have a really good understanding of Earth's climate and a technological capacity to control it -- but who comes with us? Which other lifeforms do we allow to share the Earth with us?

Of course, with the current continent/tectonic arrangement we might be able to accelerate the advent of a "runaway" ten- million-fold with enough CO2 pumped into the air. No doubt we can make it uncomfortable, kill a lot of life forms and humans -- but I think a sustainable runaway greenhouse with water as the actor is far outside of even our abiity to force it with the C we can access easily. I hope I am right on that. That said, after a few million years of CO2 excess, I think the H2O re-settles the issue. That is, if we kill our own species future along with much of Earth's life -- I think things would get "back to normal" in less than a few million years.

That is, if we are able to cross that threshold, and unleash somehow or initiate the true runaway there could be no turning back. Or definitely no easy one. It would be like a slow death, not a swift one. Earth life would be over.

But, I can't see our capability of doing this as truly possible. The Sun is not hot enough yet; but we could in the interim, while the Sun warms, significanly limit the potential life has already evolved.

In desperation, and far too late we could lament not having hung the guilty trying to exploit that CO2 legacy path. That is, the turning point has been passed, perhaps, and the best we might hope for in the short 2,000-3,000 year term ahead is that there still be enough partial pressure of O2 in the air for us and other animals to breathe. That is, more than 17.5% - 18%? Again, we need to constrain the behavior of Multinational Corporations. Yes, yes, and we have a very bad meme in a religious guise that this species needs to repair or excise. Bad memes are mind viruses that can virtually kill species like ours untill they are corrected or excised.)

By ourselves? our little individual recycling and green lives efforts are important for the perspective kind of like the transition form a smoking to a non-smoking nation. (Hey if you are a neo-conservative libertarian who wants to smoke, gee inhale deeply and stay in that smoke filled room and do not pollute the neighborhood and hurry with getting cancer and die. Please. Hurry. Obviously, you do not belong in the rest of the world or with it!)

Individually, I think the very best you can do is work for zero population growth and then reduction of human numbers. If you are a mad scientist you can help by designing a virus that targets only women and kills them. (See Frank Herbert's "White Plague" for a quick method to eliminate the CO2 neo-conservative, libertarian plague. It would also aid in the elimnation of numerous religious memes, by letting them die out.

Otherwise, we will see nothing that can prevent the extinctions ahead. That is, it is too late. What can you do? What legacy does the future bear from us? Tell us all how to get the CO2 out.

It is not that we didn't have a warning -- or simply that we made mistakes. We mindlessly destroyed by inattention -- the finest goventment by electing not only incompetence, but coupled it with a whole drama of malfeasance in an administration so guided by the idea of corporate profit, of skimming profit, of manipulation of legal systems to steal energy of investment -- away from the world for their personal use -- that I can see our species Devil standing here, before us, as he will be seen by history and the CO2 legacy promoted.

This Devil has multiple faces -- some few of the faces it wears, some few of them, maybe most of them, look like you and me.

Of course, we will struggle, especially when the dawning occurs. It is easy to burn C "into" the atmosphere, but tough to get it "out" with economical easily accessible technology.

(It costs more energy than you derived from burning the C in the first place -- to get it out of the air. With all chemical and mechanical operations acting at the requisite entropic values of less than 100% efficiency, to get the C back, takes more energy than you got from it when you put the carbon dioxide into the air. To recover the C from the CO2, means really, USING all green energy or at least not pumping more CO2 into the air while extracting it.

The biological sequestration via plants also does not escape the laws of thermodynamics, and that is why the living systems of plants can only recover a limited amount of C over an arbitrary period of time.

The efficiency cost to recover the C needs to be maximized by using devices which are non-polluting mechanisms. It requires energies on a scale only the Sun itself can supply. Nuclear fission, the French approach, may be the only short term means of getting the C out of the air.

Look, the Oil Companies and cronies have taken the promise of nuclear power and trashed it. The problems with long-term use of nuclear energy are the same greedy problems humans have in many other fields. A contractor cuts corners, the disposition or NIMBY driven by a library full of regulatory hoops supported by the very same people who are polluting the atmosphere with CO2. The regulatory issue is not a business proposition, not an economy difficulty, it is a purely chimeric collection of rules to help one 'industry' over another.

The focus of the current administration is wrong, likely the new administration will get it wrong too. It may take a civil revolution, or a bloody one to remove business from the direct control of government. The administration is wrong.

The problem is far more important than profit motive, far more important than any other problem faced by this species. It concerns collective species survival, not of the Bush conglomerate Trillion dollar world wide value -- but the actual survival of our species and others. (Before we deal with the giants of industry, wealth and power, of governmental unscrupulousness, and deal with them for their role and their crimes against the species (humanity) and planet -- we need to hold them upside down and shake their pockets clean, and collect back from them, for the cleaning of the world, the money and power these scum have taken from it and from us and from your children's future.)

If we need socialistic structure to take care of the damages of the fossil fuel era, so be it. All nuclear facilities need to be owned, built by closely monitored contracting, and operated by the federal apparatus to insure efficient and safe power generation and distribution. Privatizing the operation of an energy dependent society is like the privatizing of a national military. It is wasteful of human and national resources.

Solar insolation is too weak right now for that runaway greenhouse to occur without overwhelming help from malfeasance. It is stress the earth-life system does not need, and stress that is avoidable.

Tip: -- if you are young, avoid investing in current coastal properties.

Was this offensive enough for you?