Water vapour due to combustion? I haven't done the figures but I suspect that the WV we "pour out" is relatively insignificant. Also WV condenses , rains out swiftly.

But CO2 just lingers. For centuries. Remember everybody that's taken a breath has breathed in CO2 from Stevenson's Rocket train.

Right at the start of the industrial revolution.

Time to surf, get data and start calculating.

But yep no climatologist mentions Anthtropogenic WP so that's partial proof.

True Sceptic.

Er, the word I was looking for, with clarity in mind, was 'substance' because oxygen isn't a compound.

Have you noticed yet (from your own figures) that the 'substance' of greatest mass in these combustion processes just happens to be oxygen?

quote:

Oxygen is about 20% of the atmosphere and water vapour about 1%. You might have noticed that there is plenty more water in liquid form on the Earth's surface. CO2 is less than 0.04% of the atmosphere.

Yes and the more the traces of CO2 increase in the troposphere, the lower the percentage of the gas mixture is made up from oxygen. Though these changes are small at the moment and the 'saving grace' for CO2 is that plants use the carbon [Cm(H2O)n] and give-off the oxygen, and any CO2 that makes it high enough into the ionosphere gets split into its component atoms by irradiation (correct me if I'm wrong). Thus, a sustainable oxygen cycle for CO2 is possible, but at what recycle rate?

Water on the other hand, hardly gets out of the troposphere! Plants do use it and release some oxygen, but I'm not sure of the 'rate' that they release it (perhaps you could advise me?). Thus, a sustainable oxygen cycle for water 'may' be possible, but there is so much of it around that it is impossible to tell if there is a build up of it on the planet (unlike CO2) and at what rate.

quote:

Why do you imagine that those amounts of oxygen and water, relative to the amounts already present, are so important and CO2 is not? Even if we knew nothing about the properties of CO2, anyone can see that the relative change to its concentration due to fossil fuel consumption is vastly greater than any change to oxygen or water. Why do you continue to turn a blind eye to CO2 and keep looking for other factors (as if others are unaware of them anyway!)?

Well I've often said that CO2 is over stressed in a discussion and often confuses another issue, but I've not said that CO2 was unimportant!


After that digression this leads me back into my 'ongoing' point (back to topic) on the lowering profile of the ozone layer, and increasing 'nascent' oxygen in the form of ozone in the troposphere causing significant temperature increase.

TS, you can't just 'leave' us! Who'll pull my posts to pieces?

Best regards, suricat.

realprimate.

I think you have missed my point on this. To be sustainable, a continual process needs to be reversible and the time taken for the 'reverse' part of the cycle gives the maximum use rate of the process without depletion of the resource.

Best regards, suricat.

quote:

Originally posted by suricat:
True Sceptic.

Er, the word I was looking for, with clarity in mind, was 'substance' because oxygen isn't a compound.

I was referring to your "'mixed' substances". You already said "substance".

quote:

At the output there are two substances. Carbon dioxide and water (and these are both 'mixed' substances of carbon and oxygen, and hydrogen and oxygen respectively).

quote:

Have you noticed yet (from your own figures) that the 'substance' of greatest mass in these combustion processes just happens to be oxygen?

It could hardly be missed, as could CO2 being the next greatest.

quote:

Yes and the more the traces of CO2 increase in the troposphere, the lower the percentage of the gas mixture is made up from oxygen. Though these changes are small at the moment and the 'saving grace' for CO2 is that plants use the carbon [Cm(H2O)n] and give-off the oxygen, and any CO2 that makes it high enough into the ionosphere gets split into its component atoms by irradiation (correct me if I'm wrong). Thus, a sustainable oxygen cycle for CO2 is possible, but at what recycle rate?

I'm not sure what you mean, but CO2 levels were fairly stable and therefore sustainable for a long time until about 200 years ago. Since then photosysnthesis has clearly not been keeping up, even though some of the extra CO2 is being absorbed by the oceans.

quote:

Water on the other hand, hardly gets out of the troposphere! Plants do use it and release some oxygen, but I'm not sure of the 'rate' that they release it (perhaps you could advise me?). Thus, a sustainable oxygen cycle for water 'may' be possible, but there is so much of it around that it is impossible to tell if there is a build up of it on the planet (unlike CO2) and at what rate.

Do you mean oxygen or water?

quote:

Well I've often said that CO2 is over stressed in a discussion and often confuses another issue, but I've not said that CO2 was unimportant!

And yet you are more concerned with water vapour and oxygen at the moment, despite the fact that burning HCs affects, relative to the amount in the atmosphere, CO2 about 35 times as much as it does water vapour and about 400 times as much as it does oxygen.

quote:

After that digression this leads me back into my 'ongoing' point (back to topic) on the lowering profile of the ozone layer, and increasing 'nascent' oxygen in the form of ozone in the troposphere causing significant temperature increase.

O3 is a GHG, of course, but I don't know much about recent changes to the ozone layer.

quote:

TS, you can't just 'leave' us! Who'll pull my posts to pieces?

True Sceptic.

quote:

It could hardly be missed, as could CO2 being the next greatest.

Well spotted. Because of this and CO2's diffusion into cloud condensate, CO2 is retained in the hydrosphere and mixed in the stratosphere (though less abundant in the 'strat').

quote:

I'm not sure what you mean, but CO2 levels were fairly stable and therefore sustainable for a long time until about 200 years ago. Since then photosysnthesis has clearly not been keeping up, even though some of the extra CO2 is being absorbed by the oceans.

As CO2 PPM increase, so O2 PPM decrease. Though this is minor because CO2 is a trace gas.

Photosynthesis and respiration are organic catalytic reactions. Any forcing from one or the other will cause the equilibrium to 'shift'. This is an expected change in equilibrium, but to what degree and how great is the forcing (this is a rhetorical question)?

quote:

Do you mean oxygen or water?

I'll restate this in another form:
H2O on the other hand, hardly gets out of the troposphere! Plants do use H2O and release some O2, but I'm not sure of the 'rate' that they release O2 from H2O (perhaps you could advise me?). Thus, a sustainable O2 cycle for H2O 'may' be possible, but there is so much H2O around that it is impossible to tell if there is a build up of H2O on the planet (unlike CO2 [which 'lingers' as a gas] ) and at what rate.

The plant cycle I refer to is the electron chain that 'grabs' the hydrogen and releases the oxygen. Perhaps this is one of the processes in plant growth and respiration (thus, gives a CO2 output)?

quote:

And yet you are more concerned with water vapour and oxygen at the moment, despite the fact that burning HCs affects, relative to the amount in the atmosphere, CO2 about 35 times as much as it does water vapour and about 400 times as much as it does oxygen.

This isn't about what's in the atmosphere per se. This is about the products from the combustion of hydrocarbons and their ability to recycle! The 100% of the 25% that usually gets discussed.

quote:

O3 is a GHG, of course, but I don't know much about recent changes to the ozone layer.

When I speak of O3 this isn't usually with respect to its 'greenhouse gas' role. Though it is a 'strong' greenhouse gas. This is usually to do with its ability to interact with ultraviolet (UV). When UV insolation strikes O3, the O3 efficiently converts the UV into heat (IR). That is why the ozone layer is (was) so hot.

Best regards, suricat.

True Sceptic.

Perhaps I should explain this bit a little better.

quote:

When I speak of O3 this isn't usually with respect to its 'greenhouse gas' role. Though it is a 'strong' greenhouse gas. This is usually to do with its ability to interact with ultraviolet (UV).

Would be better explained as:

quote:

When I speak of O3 this isn't usually with respect to its 'greenhouse gas' role. Though it is a 'strong' greenhouse gas. When I speak of O3 this is usually to do with its ability to interact with ultraviolet (UV).

Hope this is better.

Best regards, suricat.

quote:

Originally posted by suricat:
True Sceptic.

Perhaps I should explain this bit a little better.

quote:

When I speak of O3 this isn't usually with respect to its 'greenhouse gas' role. Though it is a 'strong' greenhouse gas. This is usually to do with its ability to interact with ultraviolet (UV).

Would be better explained as:

quote:

When I speak of O3 this isn't usually with respect to its 'greenhouse gas' role. Though it is a 'strong' greenhouse gas. When I speak of O3 this is usually to do with its ability to interact with ultraviolet (UV).

Hope this is better.

Best regards, suricat.

Yes, but what I don't understand is where you are going with this. Where is the relevance to the subject line?

True Sceptic.

quote:

Yes, but what I don't understand is where you are going with this. Where is the relevance to the subject line?

Well whether you imply HC combustion, the 'usual' reference to CO2, or the thread relevance.

You can completely ignore the effects of CO2 for global warming and still find causes for global warming generated by burning HCs. You can also discover many, worsening, chemical hazards due to their combustion as well (upper 'and' lower tropospheric O3 to name but one reagent), but all that usually seems to be discussed by most debaters is, 'CO2'.

Has global warming stopped? In short, no it hasn't. As this new 11 year solar cycle gets stronger I expect to see temperatures increasing again, but this has little to do with CO2!

Best regards, suricat.

quote:

Originally posted by suricat:
True Sceptic.

quote:

Yes, but what I don't understand is where you are going with this. Where is the relevance to the subject line?

Well whether you imply HC combustion, the 'usual' reference to CO2, or the thread relevance.

You can completely ignore the effects of CO2 for global warming and still find causes for global warming generated by burning HCs. You can also discover many, worsening, chemical hazards due to their combustion as well (upper 'and' lower tropospheric O3 to name but one reagent), but all that usually seems to be discussed by most debaters is, 'CO2'.

That is not quite true. The people who keep bringing up CO2 are usually the AGW "sceptics". They do this to express their disbelief in its importance, and this varies from genuine scepticism to outright dishonesty about established measurements.

There are other GHGs, of course. No one claims otherwise, but you need to make a case for any of them being as important as you claim. Mere assertions and ideas about what might happen are not enough.

quote:

Has global warming stopped? In short, no it hasn't. As this new 11 year solar cycle gets stronger I expect to see temperatures increasing again, but this has little to do with CO2!

As we saw recently, any link between solar activity and temperature is not apparent at all since the early 1990s.

Given that the 2000 solar maximum was a weak one, why have temperatures gone up at all?

True Sceptic.

Why don't you accept the facts as they are. There are many routes to global warming. They don't all include the 'greenhouse gas' properties of CO2! However, CO2 seems to be the only connection that you accept as absolute!

Best regards, suricat.

quote:

Originally posted by suricat:
True Sceptic.

Why don't you accept the facts as they are. There are many routes to global warming. They don't all include the 'greenhouse gas' properties of CO2! However, CO2 seems to be the only connection that you accept as absolute!

Best regards, suricat.

What? How on earth could anyone reply rationally to my last message with the above?

Truly, you are obsessed with CO2*, as are nearly all other "sceptics"!

And please tell us what the "facts" are that I should accept?

*I wonder, is this some sort of phobia? It certainly has all the hallmarks.

TS

quote:

*I wonder, is this some sort of phobia? It certainly has all the hallmarks

Careful TS, next you'll be signing yourself as Roger58.

The proposition is that anthropic CO2 is driving the global warming / climate change observed in the last century and that it is predicted to continue catastrophically into the future.

So how can one examine and challenge this without focussing on CO2?

quote:

Originally posted by Son of Mulder:
Careful TS, next you'll be signing yourself as Roger58.

The proposition is that anthropic CO2 is driving the global warming / climate change observed in the last century and that it is predicted to continue catastrophically into the future.

So how can one examine and challenge this without focussing on CO2?

Where is Rog BTW?

Only some say "catastrophically" so that is a strawman.

I suggest only that "sceptics" do a better job in proving the alleged greater importance of other factors. To do that, it should not be necessary to make false claims about CO2, or indeed about recent solar activity.

Any more IFS (Infernal Server Errors) and I'm off!

quote:

Originally posted by TrueSceptic:

quote:

Originally posted by Son of Mulder:
Careful TS, next you'll be signing yourself as Roger58.

The proposition is that anthropic CO2 is driving the global warming / climate change observed in the last century and that it is predicted to continue catastrophically into the future.

So how can one examine and challenge this without focussing on CO2?

Where is Rog BTW?

Only some say "catastrophically" so that is a strawman.

I suggest only that "sceptics" do a better job in proving the alleged greater importance of other factors. To do that, it should not be necessary to make false claims about CO2, or indeed about recent solar activity.

Any more IFS (Infernal Server Errors) and I'm off!

Don't know why I said "IFS"; it should be "IFE" of course.

quote:

Originally posted by TrueSceptic:

quote:

Originally posted by TrueSceptic:

quote:

Originally posted by Son of Mulder:
Careful TS, next you'll be signing yourself as Roger58.

The proposition is that anthropic CO2 is driving the global warming / climate change observed in the last century and that it is predicted to continue catastrophically into the future.

So how can one examine and challenge this without focussing on CO2?

Where is Rog BTW?

Only some say "catastrophically" so that is a strawman.

I suggest only that "sceptics" do a better job in proving the alleged greater importance of other factors. To do that, it should not be necessary to make false claims about CO2, or indeed about recent solar activity.

Any more IFS (Infernal Server Errors) and I'm off!

Don't know why I said "IFS"; it should be "IFE" of course.

Good grief. I give up. Must find my brain.

True Sceptic.

quote:

What? How on earth could anyone reply rationally to my last message with the above?

Truly, you are obsessed with CO2*, as are nearly all other "sceptics"!

And please tell us what the "facts" are that I should accept?

*I wonder, is this some sort of phobia? It certainly has all the hallmarks.

Sorry TS, but it gets so frustrating when you say:
"There are other GHGs, of course. No one claims otherwise, but you need to make a case for any of them being as important as you claim. Mere assertions and ideas about what might happen are not enough.".

I'm not using 'greenhouse gas' theory! This is 'direct insolation biasing' (and a spread of the spectrum that can cause atmospheric heating).

If you can't understand that, I don't know what else to say.

BTW. The acronym you were looking for was ISE.

Best regards, suricat.

quote:

Originally posted by suricat:
True Sceptic.

Sorry TS, but it gets so frustrating when you say:
"There are other GHGs, of course. No one claims otherwise, but you need to make a case for any of them being as important as you claim. Mere assertions and ideas about what might happen are not enough.".

I'm not using 'greenhouse gas' theory! This is 'direct insolation biasing' (and a spread of the spectrum that can cause atmospheric heating).

If you can't understand that, I don't know what else to say.

I had no idea what you were talking about. Perhaps you would like to refer us to published research on this, and why it is so important?

quote:

BTW. The acronym you were looking for was ISE.

Yes, I know

True Sceptic.

quote:

I had no idea what you were talking about. Perhaps you would like to refer us to published research on this, and why it is so important?

TS. As far as I know there is no 'current research', or publication of findings in this direction. There probably 'is' no current research because 'the world' accepts the 'CO2 back radiation' theory. I consider this 'back radiation' theory to be, as yet, unproven. Just look at a warm week and a cold week over a region and you'll notice more back radiation difference caused by water vapour changes than you would ever see caused by CO2!

You think that you are a sceptic? I, personally, do however acknowledge global warming. I accept this from evidence provided by 'trusted' observations. I just don't yet accept the CO2 back radiation model offered because of material inconsistencies (and I don't care whether it was 'man made or not'). The IPCC hints at some of these uncertainties, but I'm tired now an may post on this another day.

The importance of the hypothesis could be the difference between doing not enough for the wrong reasons and doing just enough for the right reasons (though at this stage this is only conjecture).

Catch you later.

Best regards, suricat.

True Sceptic.

Hi, this is where you can download some IPCC info.

http://www.ipcc.ch/ipccreports/ar4-wg1.htm

Be warned, you'll need 'acrobat reader' for this and some of the files are large (some are about 20MB), so you'll also need a good connection speed.

I've not read a great many of these reports (they are heavy going), but to save you a 'bit' of time I've 'cherry picked' a couple of details that should interest you.

In chapter 2, report page 139, you'll find a paragraph that describes CO2:O2 ratio relationships and how "O2 is decreasing at a faster rate than CO2 is increasing" (Manning and Keeling (2006)). This isn't much bulk of information considering the size of the rest of the report (combustion to water?).

Chapter 2, report page 149, is the start of their ozone rendition. If you read this carefully I think you will begin to realise that the altitude profile of ozone is lowering.

I've not yet found any mention of ozone's efficient ability to transform UV to IR in the atmosphere. Thus literally, 'atmospheric albedo' from UV. If you find mention of this I'd be interested. All I can find reference to is the radiative forcing (RF) to IR that they use.

There is also some info on NOx (various oxides of nitrogen) in this chapter.

Enjoy.

Best regards, suricat.

quote:

Originally posted by suricat:
True Sceptic.

TS. As far as I know there is no 'current research', or publication of findings in this direction. There probably 'is' no current research because 'the world' accepts the 'CO2 back radiation' theory. I consider this 'back radiation' theory to be, as yet, unproven. Just look at a warm week and a cold week over a region and you'll notice more back radiation difference caused by water vapour changes than you would ever see caused by CO2!

Any claim that mainstream climate science is "CO2 Science" and nothing else is obviously untrue. Even if it were true, there are many denialist and 'astroturf' organisations perfectly willing to publish anything attacking the mainstream view and supporting alternatives. Yet we see "no 'current research'" on your pet idea. As it appears that no one has considered it, I suggest you stop wasting your time here and start researching and writing a paper that will turn climate science on its head!

quote:

You think that you are a sceptic? I, personally, do however acknowledge global warming. I accept this from evidence provided by 'trusted' observations. I just don't yet accept the CO2 back radiation model offered because of material inconsistencies (and I don't care whether it was 'man made or not'). The IPCC hints at some of these uncertainties, but I'm tired now an may post on this another day.

The importance of the hypothesis could be the difference between doing not enough for the wrong reasons and doing just enough for the right reasons (though at this stage this is only conjecture).

If by "sceptic" you mean someone who automatically disbelieves the mainstream and instead believes everything else, no matter how unlikely, then I am not one.

I am a sceptic in the usual sense, however. I have a particular dislike of pseudoscience and of unsupported claims about the paranormal and the supernatural, including religion. You could call me a Randian (James Randi of JREF $1M challenge fame) if such a word exists.

In the end, your ideas seem to be based on little more than a conspiracy theory, namely that there's a conspiracy to ignore everything except CO2.

This might be my last post here.

Best of luck with that paper!