Never mind that in 2006 it was reported that levels of the second most important greenhouse gas, methane, have stabilized.
Scientists are now working to create a new “tootless” grass for bovine enjoyment which will help cut methane emissions from the bovine tailpipes. What next? A moratorium on baked beans at BBQs? Editing out that scene from Blazing Saddles so that school kids don’t get bad ideas that might harm the earth?
According to the Scientific American article: “During the two decades of measurements, methane underwent double-digit growth as a constituent of our atmosphere, rising from 1,520 parts per billion by volume (ppbv) in 1978 to 1,767 ppbv in 1998. But the most recent measurements have revealed that methane levels are barely rising anymore — and it is unclear why.”
From NewScientist: “Although this is good news, it does not mean that methane levels will not rise again, and that carbon dioxide remains the 800-pound gorilla of climate change.”
Indeed, methane has made a small uptick in the last year.
Actually, NewScientist is wrong. CO2 is not the biggest “gorilla” of greenhouse gas on planet earth. It’s water vapor. Our earth would be much colder without water vapor in the atmosphere…it would be much like Mars. I seem to recall seeing a figure for average global temperature of about -14°F with water vapor absent.
So many of the climate models focus solely on CO2, but they leave out water vapor as clouds in the equations, or assume water vapor is static.
CO2 is far from being the most potent greenhouse gas. Chloroflourocarbons (CFC’s) commonly used as refrigerants as far worse at trapping infra-red in our
atmosphere.
Of naturally created GHG’s, Methane is 23 times more effective at warming the atmosphere than CO2. Nitrous Oxide is even worse at 296. So far no emergency legislation has been authored to eliminate the effect of cows or dental surgeons. The Kyoto treaty does not address these other gases either.
Here is a gauge of various gases and their “GWP”:
Global Warming Potentials Of Gases
(100 Year Time Horizon)
GAS GWP
========================
Carbon dioxide (CO2) 1
Methane (CH4) 23
Nitrous oxide (N2O) 296
Hydrofluorocarbons
HFC-23 12,000
HFC-125 3,400
HFC-134a 1,300
HFC-143a 4,300
HFC-152a 120
HFC-227ea 3,500
HFC-43-10mee 1,500
Fully Fluorinated Gases
SF6 22,200
CF4 5,700
C2F6 11,900
C4F10 8,600
C6F14 9,000
The concept of the global warming potential (GWP) was developed to compare the ability of each greenhouse gas to trap heat in the atmosphere relative to another gas. In this case, CO2 is the reference gas. Methane, for example, has a GWP of 23 over a 100-year period. This means that on a kilogram for kilogram basis, methane is 23 times more potent than CO2 over a 100-year period.
The interesting thing here is that this stabilization of methane levels in our atmosphere happened all by itself, and the scientists are clearly baffled as to an explanation. But that doesn’t seem to phase anyone promoting research to prevent cow tooting.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
So, if I understand the bottom line of Harold Pierce Jr’s explanation of radiative transfer based on absorption of IR by water vapor vs CO2 (folks – that’s a BIG assumption, but here goes): essentially, water vapor absorbs IR, then re-radiates the absorbed energy. This quality makes it a greenhouse gas. Given its approximate atmospheric concentration and that water molecules have a permanant dipole, it is an efficient one (amounting to at least a 96.3% contribution globally), vs. the more limited ability of CO2 to do the same. Both absorb and re-radiate IR energy: water vapor efficiently (dipole +) and CO2 inefficiently (dipole -). That seems to be the key point, if I understand the thread.
So, on that basis, CO2 would have a minor contribution climate change, somwhere in the range of ~4% to <1%.
For the sake of argument, let’s assume these figures are somewhere in the ballpark of reality. The question then becomes, in my mind, how much of the CO2 in the atmosphere can be factored out of the overall CO2 load (?) and attributed specifically to anthropogenic sources? For example, isn’t the ocean a significant reservoir of CO2, which is released (or absorbed) according to whether the oceans warm or cool? Ditto other GHGs.
I recall reading (unreferenced source, like a George Will column) that the human contribution was in the realm of 3%. That sets the human contribution to greenhouse warming from CO2 to about a maximum of 0.1%-0.2% (eg, 4% X 3% = 0.12%) – don’t know about the other GHGs. This figure seems absurdly low, but even so, it suggests that we mortals have only a very minor, if not negligible effect on climate change globally. I’d love to see some actual figures on what the human contribution of CO2 is to the global CO2 load.
Thanks, y’all for putting up with an absolute novice!
Anthony, the cow picture was absolutely perfect!
My apologies to Dr Singer to whom I erroneously attributed the weak references to. They should have been attributed to Monte Heib.
ArchStanton,
thanks for your effort.
I have to admit that the chart is rather fun, especially since three papers have come out in the last 2 years debunking the so-called greenhouse effect of CO2 that the IPCC, and warmers in general, need for their catastrophe.
So, you can not find any support for the effects of H2O. I will do the same as the warmers continuously do to us Sceptics who question their position.
Read AR4. It is in there. The necessary FEEDBACK to get CO2 amped is now a connection to H2O!!!! But, as with most of their pseudo science of feedbacks and forcings, there is little physical or well known about it.
Sorry about that!!
As has been mentioned by several people in this thread, H2O comes in many styles and effects. It can be positive feedback or negative. Kinda like some of the people here in San Francisco!!!
Re: Harold Pierce, Jr.
Actually, CO2 has 4 vibrational modes,3 of which are ir active, though 2 of these are at the same frequency (technical term: doubly degenerate). In any event, CO2 molecules do not need to collide with other molecules in order to absorb ir radiation or vibrate in all of thir modes. Molecules vibrate even at low temperatures (zero point energy— a manifestation of the uncertainty principle).
Arch Stanton cited:
“f) http://www.ecoenquirer.com/EPA-water-vapor.htm
This curious and undated document also does not support the 95% claim (it states 90% but makes no claim to a source.) I’m not sure who was being facetious here; the reporter or the EPA. (Did this really happen?)”
Interesting, I stumbled across this site just this afternoon. I didn’t read that article, but had you read some others you would have figured it out. I started with the Levitating Island article, http://www.ecoenquirer.com/levitating-islands.htm , which was more intriguing than I expected. “Pristine Alaskan Glacier Turns Into Tropical Wasteland” at http://www.ecoenquirer.com/Frosty-Cove-Alaska.htm made the seriousness of the site clear, and “More Polar Bears Suffering Heat Exhaustion” at http://www.ecoenquirer.com/polar-bear-heat.htm convinced me the site will need further study. The photo of the bear hugger is a bit misleading.
A check with whois showed that the domain name is owned by someone you just apologized to. The person in Alabama….
It’s been around for years, but not updated lately. Do others here know about it? I would have expected several references by now. Hopefully with tongue properly implanted and not like http://www.sott.net/signs/editorials/signs20060308_EcoEnquirerAWasteofCyberspace.php
Hey – I just noticed that dhmo.org does note DHMO contributes to global warming and the “Greenhouse Effect”, and is one of the so-called “greenhouse gasses.”
At least some people enjoy climatology. 🙂
-Ric
6 easy steps the save the planet (The first 5 do absolutely nothing!).
http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2008/05/gore_tells_how_we_can_solve_it.html
Gorebull website:
http://www.wecansolveit.org/content/action/
@Ric
Looking at the photo of the bear-hugger, I’d say it’s at least 75″F over there!
That bear needs a cold beer quick.
Alex Cull, I laugh at ‘wind farm’, but you’ve probably predicted the future; HVAC barns. A fart is a terrible waste to waste.
=============================
Arch Stanton said: “LOL, I guess it is made for you if you are prone to believe propaganda because you like its sound rather than questioning it.
Let’s check out Singer’s claim to 95% of the GHG effect being attributed to water vapor; he is very clear about his sources”
Nice try, Arch. But I’ll take Singer’s information over anything you can offer. I’ve known Singer for over 10 years and consider him a scientist of impeccable integrity who wouldn’t jeopardize his reputation for anyone or anything.
As I said in my post, I’ve been researching water’s role in the GHE for quite awhile and have wrestled with just about every scenario imaginable. From figures as high as 99%, to Singer’s (and others) 95% , and onto the 67% quoted by the IPCC, the actual amount seems to be as illusive as quick silver. But for the purpose of reporting the best available number, I’ll settle for the 95% figure until proven otherwise.
You and your other Pogie friends seem to thrive on demonizing the names of all opposed to your nonsense. Surprise, surprise: your stature is coming to an abrupt end! You can only lie, deceive, and manipulate others for a given time. As the truth finally emerges, you’re going to be left with a reputation in rags and the laughing stock of those in the scientific and academic communities who stood by their guns and against the exploitation and destruction of the scientific method.
Jack Koenig, Editor
The Mysterious Climate Project
http://www.climateclinic.com
ATTN: A. Fucaloro
I’m one of those pot-boiling organic chemist whose routinely use IR spectroscopy, but I’m not particulary knowledgeable about the details of the gas-phase molecular spectroscopy of small molecules. Thanks for the info. However, isn’t there some controversy about contribution of collision-induced dipole moments vs those from natural vibrations to absorption of IR at moderate pressure (i.e., ca 1 atm)?
Has anyone seen any empirical data on the water vapour content of the atmosphere?
For such an important metric in the global warming field, someone should be studying it. I have searched for this data before and found absolutely nothing.
There has been an increase in low cloud cover in the middle and higher latitudes (which might be related to water vapour or not I don’t know) but even an increase in low cloud cover could be responsible for all the increased temperature in the last century. Precipitation patterns across the globe have not changed much – a small increase in the US that I am aware of.
Where is the empirical water vapour data?
EUREKA!
ATTN: Everbody!
I have finally found a really nice IR spectrum of ambient air which shows the absorptions of H2O and CO2 that are on scale. GO:
http:www.nzclimatescience.images/PDFs/ccr.pdf
See page 12 of this article and note the conditions of the air. There is a fairly large amount of water vapor in the air at 28 deg C and 76% rel humidity.
The most important part of the spectrum is at the far right side. The author mentions the maximum in the OLR IR spectrum from earth is at 500 wavenumbers.
Joel M. Kauffman is a biochemist and somewhat of a gadfly on certain health issues.
I recommend that you printout this article for ready reference.
On an unrelated note, watching the excellent “What the Romans Did For US” series on History International, the narrator was talking about the first Roman landing on the British Isles, and made a side remark, “The ocean has receded quite a bit in the last 2000 years…” So, how about all that “unprecedented” nonsense?
Are the GISS April temp numbers out?
I think the thing here is that water vapor makes up 95% of GHGs in the atmosphere, not that it makes up 95% of the GHG effect. Big difference.
Guys, Ecoenquirer is a satire site, like The Onion.
Satire for one is deadly serious for another.
I am thinking campfire coffee and sliced beef off the spit.
Saving Gaia is so Ge.
I’ll be happy when I don’t have to see this flaming cow…
REPLY: Oh you just wait, I have more pictures. 😉
As others have pointed out, most bovine methane comes from the front end raher than the rear. But I really did enjoy your photoshopped picture.
I recently emailed the makers of Beano (really works) that the active ingredient be commercialized to prevent bovine flattulence, possibly save the planet, and increase their sales by billions. It didn’t get very far. Some nincompoop answered me that it was only approved for human use, not for animal use.
Jeff, I guessed as much, but there is actually a very simple explanation as well. What you are seeing would be the shadows of the early morning rain-clouds over the various island at dawn. Alas, Frosty Cove is just a tiny bit too obvious. Funny, though.
Bill Illis said: “Has anyone seen any empirical data on the water vapour content of the atmosphere?”
Bill, I’ve spent over 1,000 hours researching that very subject since last September with no answer in sight. I’ve interviewed dozens of scientists (mostly climatologists), read hundreds of papers, and I can’t get a definitive answer to what is as you describe, the most important metric of all. The only thing I can say is that it’s MASSIVE and dwarfs all other GHGs in comparison.
One has to remember, climatology is in its infancy. And if there’s one thing to will come out of the AGW hoax, it will be a better understanding of the world in which we live, including our atmosphere.
Jack Koenig, Editor
The Mysterious Climate Project
http://www.climateclinic.com
One thing I never saw mentioned was how much CO2 is absorbed by the plants the Cows eat.
I figured out that even with the 23 times the GWF that Methane has over CO2, due to the large amounts of grass or grain that are eaten by cows, depending on how you figure it, they absorb 5 to 7 times the Green House Gas Effect then they emit.
Let me find the numbers and get them to ya here in a few!
Pierre Gosselin said: “I’ll be happy when I don’t have to see this flaming cow…”
Anthony replied: “Oh you just wait, I have more pictures.”
How about one with an old fashioned spark plug afterburner mounted about 3″ from her butt? You could hang a small battery from her underbelly and tie the whole thing together with a solar cell. During the day the solar cell would keep the battery charged and when the cell wasn’t charging, a relay would allow the flow of the battery’s current to enter a coil and onto the spark plug.
The cow pasture would look great at night, and besides, it would create jobs for all those hired to extinguish the resulting fires. Damn. I’m a genius!
I don’t want to leave my name
Tony. It’s pretty obvious when you look at the picture. But the satire is still funny.