My belief in Global Warming is getting shaky

[InfiniteNow]

To follow-up on the excellent points made by CraigD, water vapour is very important, but the reason it is the cause for less concern (besides the fact that it is a "feedback" and not a "forcing") is the relatively short time that it stays in the atmosphere (roughly 10 days), whereas CO₂ stays in the atmosphere for decades, and even over 100 years.

So, inputting water vapour into the atmosphere has a relatively short lived effect, whereas CO₂ concentrations just keeps building upon themselves without going away so quickly.


Freeztar gave a link in post #81 which explains this issue very clearly.


RealClimate - Water Vapor in comparison

While water vapour is indeed the most important greenhouse gas, the issue that makes it a feedback (rather than a forcing) is the relatively short residence time for water in the atmosphere (around 10 days).

<...>

At Day 0 there is zero water, but after only 14 days, the water is back to 90% of its normal value, and after 50 days it's back to within 1%. That's less than 3 months. Compared to the residence time for perturbations to CO2 (decades to centuries) or CH4 (a decade), this is a really short time.

[Michaelangelica]

Originally Posted by CraigD

Because water vapor is also a strong absorber and emitter of visible light (which is why we can see it), I believe the net effect of jet contrails is similar to that of clouds, cooling the Earth by preventing visible light from reaching the surface to heat it and be re-emitted as infrared.

Graphs like the one in linked to in post #119 are helpful in visualizing this.

So the more we fly/travel the better?

[freeztar]

Originally Posted by Michaelangelica

So the more we fly/travel the better?

No, that's not what he is implying.
Jets leach a lot more than H2O. Clouds are water vapor (+ some other stuff). Contrails are a different beast.

I believe the point that Craig was making is that contrails and clouds have similar cooling effects.

[InfiniteNow]

Originally Posted by Michaelangelica

So the more we fly/travel the better?

Cost/Benefit analysis shows that the costs of the fuel expenditure are far from trumped by the acute cooling benefit of the water vapor.


Time flies like an arrow, fruit flies like a banana.

[Turtle]

Originally Posted by Michaelangelica

So the more we fly/travel the better?

Mmmmm...inspite of the contrails' cooling effects, the combustion of hydrocarbon fuel is producing CO2. So many little details messing up the big picture oh my. Just when you think underwater volcanoes may drive warming a little bit, now we have to consider that the absence of terrestrial volcanism may be driving it a bit. What's a modeler to do?

Lunar eclipse may shed light on climate change - space - 03 March 2008 - New Scientist Space

Originally Posted by David Shiga

Last month's lunar eclipse not only treated skygazers to a ruddy view of the Moon – it revealed that Earth's atmosphere contains little light-blocking volcanic dust.
Some researchers say the low volcanic dust levels in the atmosphere over the last dozen years could be contributing to global warming, but others dispute the claim.

[InfiniteNow]

Hey, would you look at that. More irrelevant non-specific hand-waving from Turtle... aka, Hypography's own George C. Marshall Institute.


Way to go, man. You're overturning mountains of evidence with each post.

[freeztar]

Originally Posted by Turtle

Just when you think underwater volcanoes may drive warming a little bit, now we have to consider that the absence of terrestrial volcanism may be driving it a bit. What's a modeler to do?

Maybe that's why these aren't included in the models. They balance out.

[Turtle]

Originally Posted by freeztar

Maybe that's why these aren't included in the models. They balance out.

Velly nice. Nice to see you concede things left out. Now where'd I put that butterfly? As to the investigation I just referenced, I'd say it hasn't been out long enough to include in any simulations, and we well know that is the case for data current & historical on the bottom of the deep blue seas. Can we say conspiracy of little errors? Sure we can.

I'd spend a little more on investigating more of that 1/4 million or more underwater volcanoes if it were my money. Oh wait; some of it IS my money.

Speaking of equalling out, how much charcoal buried in the garden equals out a 170 mile drive @15mpg? I want to pay forward for a hole hunt.

[freeztar]

Originally Posted by Turtle

Velly nice. Nice to see you concede things left out.

I've always agreed with you on that.

Now where'd I put that butterfly? As to the investigation I just referenced, I'd say it hasn't been out long enough to include in any simulations, and we well know that is the case for data current & historical on the bottom of the deep blue seas. Can we say conspiracy of little errors? Sure we can.

I'd spend a little more on investigating more of that 1/4 million or more underwater volcanoes if it were my money. Oh wait; some of it IS my money.

I'd love to see more research in these areas as well.

Regardless, I still stand by my assertions that the climate models are fairly accurate, even without these missing factors ("little errors").

Speaking of equalling out, how much charcoal buried in the garden equals out a 170 mile drive @15mpg? I want to pay forward for a hole hunt.

That's ~11.3 gallons. Multiply that by the weight of carbon in a gallon of gasoline (~5.5 lbs.) and you end up with ~62 lbs. of carbon to sequester. That's quite a bit of charcoal for a backyard enthusiast and a surprisingly high number for such a relatively short trip.

Numbers from here: How can 6 pounds of gasoline create 19 pounds of Carbon dioxide?

[Turtle]

Originally Posted by freeztar

I've always agreed with you on that.

I'd love to see more research in these areas as well.

Regardless, I still stand by my assertions that the climate models are fairly accurate, even without these missing factors ("little errors").

Acknowledged on the holy bridge...errr...holey bridge, twixt us.

Originally Posted by Freezacoaliean

That's ~11.3 gallons. Multiply that by the weight of carbon in a gallon of gasoline (~5.5 lbs.) and you end up with ~62 lbs. of carbon to sequester. That's quite a bit of charcoal for a backyard enthusiast and a surprisingly high number for such a relatively short trip.

Numbers from here: How can 6 pounds of gasoline create 19 pounds of Carbon dioxide?

Spank my bottom & call me Sally! If I make the charcoal myself in my little retort, with its 7 to 1 return on wood/charcoal, that's a whopping 434 pounds of woot. What if I walk there at ~ 2 miles an hour?