Deception by Science

[RenaissanceMan]

But water vapor isn't "exactly the same" as CO2 which stays in the atmosphere a lot longer. The graph follows the CO2 content, not water vapor.(??)

And thus is misleading and deceptive in the extreme.
The WHOLE POINT is to consider greenhouse warming. Omitting the primary greenhouse gas is anti-scientific. It is terribly dishonest.

You haven't explained why 3.4% is a lot different to (SIC) 17.5%, or why you chose to use the first value.

I didn't make up the 3.4% figure. I obtained it from reliable sources.
You, on the other hand, fabricated 17.5% by ASSUMING that all carbon dioxide increases are EXCLUSIVELY anthropogenic. Your basis for such an assumption is what, exactly? But even so, if you were to plot a 70 ppm increase from the bottom, the argument of deception remains. It's extremely small, in relation to 21,000 ppm.

Q.E.D.

I assume you did this "on faith". If that's true, then you aren't very good at science are you? Here you are, on the one hand trying to claim deception is being foisted on the world, and on the other using deceptive statistics, pulling numbers out of your ass.

And after I gave you sincere compliments, you stoop to this.
We were having a perfectly reasonable discussion about SCIENCE and then you spew your vulgarity and hatred. You think that's scientific, do you?

That's a bit of a hoot. Did you know that plants don't grow very well at high temperatures?

In the context of a 70 ppm increase, the correlative temperature is anything BUT "high."

Moreover, since you pretend to know SO VERY MUCH about science, you might wish to explain exactly HOW quickly oceans are warming up, and how far they have to go before phytoplankton begins to "not grow very well."

Then too the world's great tropical rainforests in South America and Africa seem to be doing quite well despite temperatures of well over 100 degrees F.

Let me introduce you to plants growing in the hot springs of Yellowstone National Park, as well as those in the ocean depths.

Isn't science amazing? Stick with it, instead of trying to attack the messenger, Halfabrane.

 

[Trippy]

For reasons that will soon become clear my former pride at being an APS Fellow all these years has been turned into shame, and I am forced, with no pleasure at all, to offer you my resignation from the Society.

It is of course, the global warming scam, with the (literally) trillions of dollars driving it, that has corrupted so many scientists, and has carried APS before it like a rogue wave. It is the greatest and most successful pseudoscientific fraud I have seen in my long life as a physicist. Anyone who has the faintest doubt that this is so should force himself to read the ClimateGate documents, which lay it bare. (Montford's book organizes the facts very well.) I don't believe that any real physicist, nay scientist, can read that stuff without revulsion. I would almost make that revulsion a definition of the word scientist.

Still haven't revised the basic materials I reccomended you review have you?

 

[Trippy]

The "Peer Review" (SIC) process being "one of the cornerstones of the Scientific Method (SIC), however did Copernicus advance science, the word derived from "scientia," which is Latin for "knowledge"?

The fatuous pretense that the "Peer Review (SIC) process is fundamental to the attainment of knowledge is as flawed and irrational as Fraggle Rocker's attempt to create proper nouns to suit his fancy.

You're going to have to clarify your abuse of sic.
First off, it's not an abbreviation, so there's no need to capitalization, it comes to us from the latin adverb sīc.
Secondly, there are no grammatical or spelling errors in the quoted text, so one can only assume that you're trying to appeal to ridicule or suggest that those two word statements contain some kind of logical or factual error - presumably intended to suggest that peer review and the scientific method are fundamentally flawed.

 

[Trippy]

You are the FIRST person smart enough to ask such questions.

The very FIRST. Kudos.

The infrared spectra of carbon dioxide and water vapor differ considerably, but they appear to be comparable in magnitude. Nevertheless, let's attribute carbon dioxide TEN times the absorptive capacity of water vapor.

No he isn't.

You, apparently were, however, unable to figure it out.

The absorption bands of water in the IR part of the spectrum are pretty much saturated. This was one of the first debates that was had, back in the 20's and 30's, was the fact that the CO[sub]2[/sub] and H[sub]2[/sub] NIR spectra over lap, and in those regions water so completely dominates the absorption spectra that it was generally expected that changing ppCO[sub]2[/sub] would have little or no influence, and the idea of anthropogenic climate change was pretty much dismissed as a 'cute idea'.

It wasn't until the '50s or '60s, during the cold war, that scientists started getting more accurate spectra, and started seeing the fine structure that people began to realize "Oh wait, we might actually have a problem here".

 

[Trippy]

Do you know how much water vapor contributes to atmospheric warming? Is it proportional to the ~1.5% you quoted, and does this extend to the percentage of CO2? The warming from CO2 is proportional to the total percentage of CO2 in the atmosphere?

Is the warming effect an immediate consequence of H2O and CO2 levels, or is there a time factor?

The difference between atmospheric water vapour and atmospheric CO[sub]2[/sub] in terms of it's effects on global warming is that the absorption bands of water are pretty much saturated, they're in a region of non linear response, where it takes huge changes in partial pressure to cause a small change in absorption.

Atmospheric ppCO[sub]2[/sub] on the other hand is in the range where absorption responds linearly to changes in partial pressure - doubling or halving the partial pressure doubles or halves the amount of absorption by CO[sub]2[/sub] in the atmosphere. You can confirm this for yourself, if you so desire, just have a look and see if you can find NIR calibration curves for NIR spectroscopy for around 310ppm - I'm fairly sure they're there.

I should also hasten to add that ppH[sub]2[/sub]O is dictated by temperature (see, for example, the the Goff-Gratch equation) the only effect that dumping more water vapour into the atmosphere is likely to have is increasing the amount of water dumped on the oceans and the land by the atmosphere.

 

[Trippy]

I also refer you to LeChatelier's Principle, which states that systems at equilibrium tend to reduce increases on one side of the equation. In other words, there is a dynamism tending to reduce increases in the carbon dioxide concentration. Plants have been shown to grow faster with higher CO2, just as they grow faster with more nutrients or water.

Yes, LeChatelier's principle applies here, because it applies to equilibria, however, equilibria take time, and there is still only a finite pool of reactants and products.

Plant growth represents the most rapid carbon sink, but it's also the smallest.

Yes, plant growth will increase with increasing ppCO[sub]2[/sub] but only in those areas within optimal temperature bands, and with sufficient rainfall (that's assuming that they don't get cut down and burned first).
Exposed Sillicates react with atmospheric CO[sub]2[/sub] to provide a larger sink that is slower to respond, and finally CO[sub]2[/sub] is water soluble, and water is permeable, leading to phenomena such as the Carbonate Compensation Depth, which results in the deposition of carbonates on the ocean floor where it is above a certain depth (which depends on temperature and ppCO[sub]2[/sub]) which allows the oceans to absorb more CO[sub]2[/sub] through acid base chemistry. This is the slowest responding sink, and also the largest.

 

[arfa brane]

I didn't make up the 3.4% figure. I obtained it from reliable sources.
You, on the other hand, fabricated 17.5% by ASSUMING that all carbon dioxide increases are EXCLUSIVELY anthropogenic.

No I assumed the GRAPH itself is accurate, I assumed ZERO about anthropogenic anything.

It shows a ~55ppm increase from 1958 to 2001 which is ~17.5%.

The 3.4% figure looks a little unreliable compared to what the graph is saying. Did you consider that the 70ppm increase you originally said the graph is showing doesn't correlate with 13ppm? You didn't NOTICE that 70 and 13 are different numbers?

 

[synthesizer-patel]

Yes, plant growth will increase with increasing ppCO[sub]2[/sub] but only in those areas within optimal temperature bands, and with sufficient rainfall (that's assuming that they don't get cut down and burned first).

I've never quite understood this assumed outcome of some of the climate models.
Generally plant growth isnt CO[sub]2[/sub] limited - its micronutrient (usualy nitrogen) limited.

 

[iceaura]

Unfortunately this entire increase in carbon dioxide concentration is implicitly assumed to be anthropogenic, or man-made wherever the graph is displayed, to the gasps of frightened audiences.

It's not implicitly assumed - it's directly and carefully calculated, using years of data and careful isotope analysis, all of which is published and reviewed.

Meanwhile, your entire argument seems to be that the CO2 concentration is really tiny, therefore increasing it can't be significant. You know this because you can make graphs showing how tiny it is.

That's hard to take seriously, as arguments go.

 

[Trippy]

I've never quite understood this assumed outcome of some of the climate models.
Generally plant growth isnt CO[sub]2[/sub] limited - its micronutrient (usualy nitrogen) limited.

Perhaps, however bear in mind that (IIRC) plant absorption of CO[sub]2[/sub] tends to be a diffusion controled process, and it's only true up to a certain point that upping ppCO[sub]2[/sub] ups plant growth.

 

[Emil]

"Essential elements for growth.
The elements in greatest abundance in plants are the raw materials for photosynthesis. Photosynthesis uses light energy to split apart the oxygen and hydrogen of water and to split apart the carbon and oxygen from carbon dioxide taken from the atmosphere. Photosynthesis then releases the oxygen from carbon dioxide back into the atmosphere and recombines the remaining elements to form sugar. Sugar is the starting material for all processes in plants that require energy. Also, the bulk of a plant is made of sugar polymers (e.g.cellulose and starch) or compounds derived from sugar."

"What do essential elements do for the plant?
Nitrogen is the element that is most associated with enhanced plant growth and is a key component of all proteins. Many proteins function as enzymes or biological catalysts, making plant metabolism possible.
Plants have very efficient pumps to take N from the soil, usually in the form of nitrate, and to bind it to sugar fragments to form amino acids, the building blocks of proteins. Deficiency in N decreases production of chlorophyll and enzymes, resulting in decreased photosynthesis, decreased growth, and premature senescence.
Potassium is also critical for photosynthesis, cell expansion, and to regulate the opening and closing of stomates. Deficiency of K leads to chlorosis and scorching of the leaf margins...." Plants' essential chemical elements by Northern Research Station

 

[RenaissanceMan]

No I assumed the GRAPH itself is accurate, I assumed ZERO about anthropogenic anything.

The GRAPH may be accurate, but it is nevertheless misleading.
To the extent that we rely on data provided by what we assume are unbiased authorities, we may likewise rely on the 3.4% figure for man-made carbon dioxide. You choose, for reasons unknown, to up this 3.4% for matters of ax-grinding convenience.

It shows a ~55ppm increase from 1958 to 2001 which is ~17.5%.

I repeat, if you plot the graph from 11 ppm to 68 ppm on the right with the top at 21,000 ppm, it is little changed.

Your argument fails utterly. Completely.

///You didn't NOTICE that 70 and 13 are different numbers?

I had no idea. Thank you so much for pointing that out.
I applaud you on your mathematical acumen.
Now plot 70ppm on the graph of 21,000 ppm.

Shazam!

It now looks like THIS:

 

[Trippy]

Ren.
Your argument is as wrong as it is irrelevant.

Let's apply your argument to, let's say pharmacology.

It's only 22ppm of Ricin... What are you worried about, water causes death through asphyxiation, and it's far more common than poisoning by Ricin, and the Human Body is 55-78% water, see I've prepared this bar graph that shows the major constituents of toxins in the human body, and you expect me to believe that adding this tiny little slither over here could possibly be dangerous?

If you believe that, I've got some Nachos for you...

Just as well the medical profession doesn't have the same philosophy as you eh?

 

[arfa brane]

To the extent that we rely on data provided by what we assume are unbiased authorities, we may likewise rely on the 3.4% figure for man-made carbon dioxide.

All I assumed was that if the graph is accurate, the figure of 3.4% is questionable. If the anthropogenic contribution is really only ~13ppm or so since 1958, then there is ~50ppm or so to account for, isn't there? Where did all the non-anthropogenic CO2 come from?

Note that all you achieve by adding the ppm of H2O vapor to the graph is scale it.

H2O is a qualitatively different molecule than CO2, it cycles heat much more rapidly--it's responsible for most of the cooling in the upper atmosphere. The reason there is a separate CO2 graph is because it's a longterm greenhouse gas and has a cumulative effect over decades--it increases the temperature of the atmosphere which means it can hold more water vapor and transport more heat around.

Water vapor has a more or less constant effect. Why add apples to oranges?

 

[arfa brane]

The naive idea that water vapor in the atmosphere and CO2 gas, both being able to store heat, should be on the same graph or otherwise some kind of deception is bring carried out, really only reflects something on people who try to apply this kind of logic.

For one thing, it doesn't rain CO2. Because water evaporates and condenses, it transports heat away from the surface--of the ocean and of landmasses--and is recycled over days. CO2 remains a gas, and traps heat but doesn't transport much of it. It reflects infrared back towards the surface--the oceans warm up and evaporate more, etc.

As to the contribution to background CO2 humans are responsible for, something or someone, according to that graph, added 17.5% more CO2 between 1958 and 2001, and this appears to be at least one undisputed fact.
Maybe there was a lot of volcanic activity that nobody noticed? Perhaps aliens are terraforming the planet? ...?

 

[RenaissanceMan]

///

H2O is a qualitatively different molecule than CO2, it cycles heat much more rapidly--it's responsible for most of the cooling in the upper atmosphere. The reason there is a separate CO2 graph is because it's a longterm greenhouse gas and has a cumulative effect over decades--it increases the temperature of the atmosphere which means it can hold more water vapor and transport more heat around.

Water vapor has a more or less constant effect. Why add apples to oranges?

I added a far more crucial greenhouse gas to a greenhouse gas.
YOU brought up apples and oranges.

Try to stick to the subject of the graph, please. Leave fruit out of this.

EVEN GRANTING all your qualifications still does not excuse the misleading aspect of a non-zero base, and attributing ALL carbon dioxide increase to humans.

The absolute refusal of doomsday Luddites to consider something as simple as a graph makes clear that you have an agenda, which is NOT science.
Your agenda is feeling good about yourself, "doing something," feigning intellectual superiority, and putting down all who deign to disagree with you.

Meanwhile you do little or nothing toward reaching the vaunted "80% reduction" in your own carbon footprint.

You're like Al Gore and Barack Obama and the Prime Minister of Britain and Prince Charles that way. They just fly and burn a lot more than you do.

 

[RenaissanceMan]

The Scary Graph

Reality, Intruding Into Your World

Which graph will earn Al Gore more money, strike more fear into the heart of Joe Sixpack, and make him compliant with your relentless demands that he OBEY?

Attributing ALL of the increase to humans changes the Scary Graph from the red line below, to the more nearly scary blue line:

 

[synthesizer-patel]

Perhaps, however bear in mind that (IIRC) plant absorption of CO[sub]2[/sub] tends to be a diffusion controled process, and it's only true up to a certain point that upping ppCO[sub]2[/sub] ups plant growth.

Fair point - I have tendency to think in terms of marine systems where there is a much greater availability of inorganic carbon and the concepts don't ways translate well to terrestrial systems

 

[arfa brane]

I added a far more crucial greenhouse gas to a greenhouse gas.

No, you added two things together that have very different longterm effects.

By doing that, you have only demonstrated a rather stunning lack of understanding of the dynamics of the carbon cycle, and the role of water vapor in the same cycle. I don't really have any "qualifications", but I do have a working bullshit detector.

 

[RenaissanceMan]

Toss this goofball ideologue for stooping to the your, you are, you're nonsense. The nonsense this goofball spewed is far worse than some posting error in grammar.

"goofball ideologue". How very *scientific* of you.

This is a place of science and scholarship,

///

As brucep proves so clearly and convincingly.