A Few Things Ill Considered

Did Greenpeace lie about arctic ice?

A commenter here brought up the controversy du jour for the denialosphere, how Greenpeace alledgedly admitted lying in a press release. Of course that stretch, (well, it’s a stretch to call it a stretch), was further stretched to “Greenpeace just admitted that much of the human-caused global warming hype is also a fraud.” Talk about extrapolation!

Anyway, as usual it is not what they would have us believe it is. Michael Tobis has all the details, worth reading. The whole thing rests on the imprecision of the phrase “arctic ice”, very commonly used to really mean “arctic sea ice”.

The cherry on top of the whole bogus controversy is BBC’s own usage of the same phrase in their headlines, for example: Arctic summers ice-free ‘by 2013′. The story is, of course, about sea ice.

Kind of like damning with faint praise, the fact that the best evidence of Greenpeace lying is this twisted farce of a scandal rather suggests they may not be that bad.

Comments

  1. #1 mememine69
    August 23, 2009

    Why do you warmies have this instant reflex for misery? This is the end of the world that we are talking about here with the CO2 theory.
    -1: It’s been 23 years of climate crisis predictions.
    -2: La Nina kicked it’s a$$ and it’s cooling!
    -3: It’s cooling right in front of our eyes yet the fear mongering misery lovers of globull warming jump at the chance of doom with every corporate media hysteria story about Polar Bears and some ice melting somewhere.
    How about you warmies make a promise with yourselves:
    *If you truly believe in global warming, get a sign that says THE END IS NEAR and start marching.
    *If not, get up and dance and celebrate the end of the world’s longest emergency; globull warming.
    Life is good, stop the fear. Preserve, not rescue our world.
    Learn to love nature and experience it as much as you can instead of throwing it on the operating table all the time like cave men fearing the unknown.

  2. #2 Bob Gardner
    August 23, 2009

    Cave Men….well know for there operating tables.

    *raised eyebrow of confusion*

  3. #3 Jason Dick
    August 23, 2009

    *sigh* La Nina (like its inverse, El Nino) is a short-term exchange of heat between the oceans and the atmosphere. Neither has much long-term impact upon temperature trends. La Nina could no more stop global warming than turning on the AC in your house.

  4. #4 mememine69
    August 23, 2009

    None of this has anything to do with the science. Until the advocates of radical change understand this, the skeptics will win most battles, fighting as an insurgent force against a staid and slow establishment. Globull Warmers are now the fat establishment and flat earthers that history will both curse and laugh at. The first thing that AGW proponents could do is change their attitude. Public opinion will move (slowly) towards whatever truth there is to be seen on this issue, but high-handed dismissals don’t work as well in the court of public opinion as admissions of uncertainty, pleas for cooperation and assistance, and going overboard in pursuit of transparency.We can’t keep up this public climate anxiety for another 23 years as scientists would rather be right than victorious, but there’s no excuse for the army of consultants and politicians (and green technologists) lined up at their side. They should have known better. Leading us to war like the neocons did with their WMD scam will not go unpunished this time. It’s called treason and deniers will have he last word and the last laugh. Preserve our world, not save it with needless fear from a CO2 mistake that confuses life itself with pollution.

  5. #5 dhogaza
    August 23, 2009

    The whole thing rests on the imprecision of the phrase “arctic ice”, very commonly used to really mean “arctic sea ice”.

    Coby, it’s worse. Tim Lambert has the entire press release, which I’ll copy below. There’s no way in the world it could’ve been honestly misunderstood as talking about the Greenland ice sheet, not sea ice. I had guessed earlier that perhaps the confusion was due to sloppy wording in the PR, but was wrong.

    Here’s an excerpt from the news story/PR:

    A recent NASA study has shown that the ice cap is not only getting smaller, it’s getting thinner and younger. Sea ice has dramatically thinned between 2004 and 2008. Old ice (over 2 years old) takes longer to melt, and is also much harder to replace. As permanent ice decreases, we are looking at ice-free summers in the Arctic as early as 2030.

    They say you can’t be too thin or too young, but this unfortunately doesn’t apply to the Arctic sea ice. Polar bears are the first to suffer from it, but many other species could be affected as well.

    The “misunderstanding” is due to a blatant quote mine, which in context is perfectly clear.

  6. #6 mememine69
    August 23, 2009

    Gwynne Dyer’s prediction of 10 thousand dead American soldiers from the first Gulf War is legendary. Carl Sagon’s prediction of a nuclear winter from the first Gulf War oil fires is a huge joke and a sad joke too. The only bigger jokes are you misery loving doomers that like to scare our kids.
    HEAT ALERTS FOR LONDON ONTARIO :
    Aug./09 first heat alert in two years and the first smog warning of 2009.
    Previous years’ heat alerts:
    2005: July 12
    2006: May 29, July 16-17, July 31-Aug. 1
    2007: June 26-27, July 9, Aug. 1-3
    2008: none
    2009: 1, so far
    You warmies are like bible thumpers trying to prove god exists and I promise this invisible enemy of Climate Change (formally known as weather, climate variation or the great unknown) you hysterical fear mongers are getting us into will not go unpunished like the neocon’s WMD scam.
    Polar Bears were at one time before North American settlement indigenous to as far south as Minnesota but called Yellow Bears because of the summer coat they retained longer but still the same bear.
    The doomers can’t sustain the promise of the end of the world for another 23 years.
    And why do you wish for this misery to happen and why would you be so anxious for it to be true? It’s sick what you people are doing.
    Get ahead of the curve because history will curse all of you fear mongers.
    Preserve, respect, love and enjoy our planet, not save and rescue it with needless fear from a myth.

  7. #7 Lucas McCarty
    August 23, 2009

    I get the feeling that Mememine69 is not the slightest bit interested in what anyone else has to say.

  8. #8 dhogaza
    August 23, 2009

    Carl Sagon’s prediction of a nuclear winter from the first Gulf War oil fires is a huge joke and a sad joke too.

    This one’s particularly funny? The oil fires were going to cause a nuclear holocaust?

  9. #9 doug l
    August 23, 2009

    I ove GP, having worked for them and with them, and would again if the stars align, but really this is a story of how GP uses the techniques of mass media to bring the question to the forum with very little pretense of solving the problem at the same time…and where the media, whether its the BBC or Pravda or National Geographic, its modus operandi is not so much to inform us completely but to get us interested enough to have the issue even penetrate the dense foglike atmosphere of doubt and resentment that pervades the world around us, unless we just like looking at the commercials which are always crystal clear.
    Is GP lying? Are people listening?

  10. #10 anon
    August 23, 2009

    Do we really want to have these pirates (greenpeace) in our corner (science)?

  11. #11 crakar14
    August 23, 2009

    Coby,

    The point of my earlier post was to highlight the fact that a scary story does not imply scientific fact, no matter who tells the story nor how scary it is.

    [coby here: I understand that was your point but you picked a bad instance to make it. The"scary story" was in fact scientifically accurate. NASA was saying arctic sea ice might be gone in the summer by 2030. GP said exactly the same thing in the same way.]

    The bottom line with all this is that GP made claims that did not have any scientific foundation. They made claims that were proven to be false by there own admission.

    [coby: This is either an outright lie crakar, or you have not even read any of the linked material. They made claims about arctic sea ice, the BBC reporter cherry picked a single sentence that gave the impression they were talking about the greenland ice sheet, Leipold said "if" that is what the press release said "then" it was inaccurate. Please have the integrity to admit this clear reality, crakar.]

    On one hand he claims it was but a mere “mistake” he then goes on to state that there is nothing wrong with “emotionalizing issues” in order to bring the public around to its way of thinking and alter public opinion.

    AKA a scary story teller and nothing more.

    To be fair to GP, they are not the only ones guilty of this attempt to decieve the public, this type of activity has been around for many many years and still thrives today as an alternative to the truth.

    [coby: As evidenced by this very comment of yours, ironic isn't it?]

    In my previous post I also mentioned the fact that no attempt has been made to educate the public on even the most basic issues of AGW, to this day the only attempt by the Australian Gov. has been to film black balloons filled with helium floating up into the sky.

    [coby: 0.20 seconds with The Goggle puts the lie to this statement: http://www.google.com/webhp?hl=en&q=climate+change+FAQ#hl=en&q=climate+change+FAQ&aq=f&aqi=&fp=35e5f905b5e4329b
    There are FAQ's and primers everywhere.]

    I then stated this obvious and deliberate attempt to dupe the public will come back to haunt them, as Leipold said “emotionalizing issues” in order to bring the public around to its way of thinking and alter public opinion.

    A good example of scary story telling was seen last week with Senator Stabenow reciting the well worn out story that AGW will cause more hurricanes and tornadoes.

    [coby: this is not a scientifically unsupportable statement.]

    She even went on to say that “global warming creates volativity”, “i feel it when i’m flying. The storms are more volatile. We are paying the price in more hurricanes and tornadoes”. Mind you Stabenow’s version of flying is in a Gulfstream V private jet.

    But how true is her statement?

    [coby: It is ridiculous. Perhaps we should get the science from actual scientific sources]

    It is well known that tropical cyclones require certain preconditions for their formation, cyclones do not occur within 5 degrees of the equator and they require a differential in temps between ocean and air to form. Therefore a warming world will see less and a cooling world will see more even the IPCC gets this fact right.

    [coby: False. Please provide the passage in the IPCC report that states a warmer world will have fewer storms]

    So where does she get her scary story from? Not based on scientific fact that is for sure. Mind you she is not Robinson Caruso when it comes to telling this lie, Senator Kerry, Al Gore and i believe Hansen himself? have also told similar lies.

    [coby: crakar, you are the one lying here. Now either back up your assertion about the IPCC and fewer storms or retract this crap.]

    The truth is the number of cyclones that reach land have not changed in the last 150 years. The number of severe tornadoes has in fact fallen throughout the past 30 years.

    Now why will statements like this and from GP come back to haunt them? Well it is quite simple as a vast majority of the masses only knowledge of AGW is known via the consumption of scary stories, when not if these scary stories do not come to pass the masses will see them for the liars they are.

    All that can be done, and can be seen today already happening is to simply make the scary stories even more scarier than before.

    While i am here i would like to ask a question to everybody to answer if they wish.

    More than 700 scientists from 400 institutions in 40 countries have contributed to papers over the past 20 years providing evidence of the medieval warm period. Now according to Dr Micheal “hockey stick” Mann this did not exist.

    [coby: crakar, the MWP is real. What MBH98 showed, and numberous subsequent studies have shown, is that it was not global. Please provide a study of *global* temperatures that indicate more warming in the MWP than we are seeing today.]

    However his latest work seems to be in contradiction with this. Manns latest work shows a strong peak in tropical cyclone activity in the middle ages. One of two consequences follows. Either his original hockey stick graph that attempted to abolish the medieval warm period was wrong, or there was no connection between temperatures and the frequency, intensity and duration of tropical cyclones in the middle ages, in which event, even if hurricanes had become more prevalent in recent times, there is plainly no compelling connection between them and global temperatures.

    Any thoughts on what the answer is to Micheals conundrum?

    [coby: as you yourself stated above, cyclones are a regional phenomenon, it does not require global climate change to affect regional climate. You are quite simply trying to force your own wishful thinking out of a very limited finding. But let me ask you a couple of questions:
    1. do you now find Mann's research to be reliable, now that it seemingly lends support to your view of the MWP? If so, why?
    2. if Michael Mann is the fraud you continually claim, why is he publishing results that are possibly at odds with his earlier studies?]

  12. #12 TheBlindWatcher
    August 23, 2009

    mememine69 is pretty funny. I like the bit about yellow bears – woven so beautifully into the main point.

  13. #13 dhogaza
    August 24, 2009

    The bottom line with all this is that GP made claims that did not have any scientific foundation. They made claims that were proven to be false by there own admission.

    Gerd said it was false IF the reporter was properly conveying the meaning of the GP piece.

    I’ve posted it above. You can see the reporter cherry-picked one sentence out of context, and that the entire piece is very clear that it is Arctic sea ice being talked about, not the Greenland ice sheet.

    Therefore the conditional “false if” is itself falsefied, and no, Greenpiece did not “lie” in their piece. In fact, they’re just reporting on a NASA piece and linked to it.

    And, no, there’s nothing wrong with emotionalizing issues, that’s basic politics. You lay your scientific foundation, then you try to get folks emotionally involved with what that scientific information means for their lives, in order to push action in the desired foundation.

    In this case, the scientific foundation – increasingly scientists are warning us of an sea ice free Arctic in the 2030 timeframe – isn’t wrong. Greenpeace is correctly reporting this scientific concern. Greenpeace is not lying, nor are the scientists making the claims.

  14. #14 dhogaza
    August 24, 2009

    It is amusing watching denialists like crakar (and others, elsewhere) hold on to this notion that Greenpeace lied because careful quote-mining of their piece – quote-mining being a form of lying in the first place – makes it appear that they’re talking about all of the ice in the arctic rather than sea ice in the arctic.

    It’s amusing, and telling, because it speaks to the basic dishonesty of those making such statements.

  15. #15 coby
    August 24, 2009

    crakar, I have in lined some replies to your previous comment.

  16. #16 Kate
    August 24, 2009

    I need some help.

    I am not a scientist, and have only been interested in this issue for a few years. I’m fine to point people in the right direction for broad concepts. But I don’t even know any calculus yet.

    I have a commenter who knows a heck of a lot about Steve McIntyre and the Hockey Stick controversy. He’s got a complicated chain of logic and citations which supposedly show that every 1000-year temperature graph ever used by the IPCC is flawed, when the flaws are taken out (specifically bristlecone pine data) the conclusion falls apart, and this has been suppressed by the IPCC which proves they have an agenda.

    I’ve been holding up okay until now. But now I really need someone who knows their climate science well – either to help me out or to (preferrably) take over. I’m not the right person to be taking part in this debate. I’m not a scientist.

    The thread starts here – http://climatesight.org/2009/08/13/by-your-own-logic/comment-page-1/#comment-547 – and really gets into the specifics around here – http://climatesight.org/2009/08/13/by-your-own-logic/comment-page-1/#comment-634.

    Any takers?

  17. #17 crakar14
    August 24, 2009

    Thanks for the detailed response Coby. Here is my response

    You said

    [coby here: I understand that was your point but you picked a bad instance to make it. The"scary story" was in fact scientifically accurate. NASA was saying arctic sea ice might be gone in the summer by 2030. GP said exactly the same thing in the same way.]

    Which bit is scientifically accurate? sea ice MIGHT be gone by 2030 or sea ice might be gone by 2030 or some other year?

    Or do we have to wait for the next model run to find out? Scientific accuracy and the word “might” should not be in the same sentence.

    You said

    [coby: This is either an outright lie crakar, or you have not even read any of the linked material. They made claims about arctic sea ice, the BBC reporter cherry picked a single sentence that gave the impression they were talking about the greenland ice sheet, Leipold said "if" that is what the press release said "then" it was inaccurate. Please have the integrity to admit this clear reality, crakar.]

    I have read/watched it Coby, from what i see Stephen Sackur asked a question and Gerd Leipold answered it begrudgingly. GP then back peddled like Fred Flinstone reversing his rock car.

    The problem is GP never stipulate the difference between Greenland ice and sea ice this make the scary story even scarier, when Sackur called him on it he froze like a rabbit caught in the headlights of an oncoming car. Lets not forget its ok for GP to “We as a pressure group have to emotionalise issues and we’re not ashamed of emotionalising issues.”

    This link explains the stupidity of the whole issue quite well I believe

    http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/jamesdelingpole/100007009/redfaced-greenpeace-insists-we-didnt-make-it-up-we-just-emotionalised-the-issue/

    [coby: 0.20 seconds with The Goggle puts the lie to this statement:

    Yes Coby and the internet is the number 1 source of info for the dullards isnt it? No you misunderstood or ignored what i said. Have another read ok.

    You said

    [coby: crakar, the MWP is real. What MBH98 showed, and numberous subsequent studies have shown, is that it was not global. Please provide a study of *global* temperatures that indicate more warming in the MWP than we are seeing today.]

    Here is a site which highlights the many studies that you have asked for.

    http://www.john-daly.com/hockey/hockey.htm

    Last point.

    You once again seem to have misunderstood or ignored the point entirely, Mann claims that the MWP did not exist this can be seen clearly in the hockey stick shaped temp graph he produced. See above link.

    His recent study on Hurricanes shows that hurricane activity peaked during the medieval period he also goes on to claim that GW is causing more hurricanes. So to explain it down to the finer detail so you can understand either his hockey stick was wrong and the MWP was warmer than today (as per mainstream scientific opinion) and there is a correlation between warmer weather and hurricane frequency as he espouses.

    Or, the MWP was not warm at all as per the hockey stick which shows that hurricanes peaked during a period cooler than today which means there is no correlation between hurricane frequency and warmer weather like today and a much cooler period in time like the Medieval period.

    Which one is it?

    You asked two questions

    1. do you now find Mann’s research to be reliable, now that it seemingly lends support to your view of the MWP? If so, why?
    2. if Michael Mann is the fraud you continually claim, why is he publishing results that are possibly at odds with his earlier studies?]

    Answer to 1, No I do not find Manns research to be reliable, he has produced two items of research which appear to be in contradiction how could this be considered reliable?

    Answer to 2, Mann publishes results that are possibly at odds with his earlier studies, therefore he is either incompetent or is purely promoting himself and his own agenda.

  18. #18 crakar14
    August 25, 2009

    Sorry Coby i did forget to answer one of your questions,

    You said

    [coby: crakar, you are the one lying here. Now either back up your assertion about the IPCC and fewer storms or retract this crap.]

    Here is the link for you to read

    http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar4/wg1/ar4-wg1-chapter10.pdf Please refer to page 751

    Actually i will quote it here for all to see, the first section is titled Tropical Cyclones (Hurricanes and Typhoons)

    Which reads

    “Results from embedded high-resolution models and
    global models, ranging in grid spacing from 100 km to 9 km,
    project a likely increase of peak wind intensities and notably, where analysed, increased near-storm precipitation
    in future tropical cyclones. Most recent published modelling studies investigating tropical storm frequency simulate a decrease in the overall number of storms, though
    there is less confidence in these projections and in the projected decrease of relatively weak storms in most basins, with an increase in the numbers of the most intense tropical cyclones.”

    And then we have this on the same page

    Mid-latitude Storms

    Which reads

    “Model projections show fewer mid-latitude storms averaged
    over each hemisphere, associated with the poleward shift of
    the storm tracks that is particularly notable in the Southern Hemisphere, with lower central pressures for these
    polewardshifted storms. The increased wind speeds result
    in more extreme wave heights in those regions.”

    Page 786 goes into more detail but the end result is that there is no evidence (model evidence that is) that the frequency of storms/hurricanes will increase.

    So in summary the IPCC predicts the frequency of hurricanes and storms to decrease which is exactly what i said, mind you the paragraphs are worded very badly like everything the IPCC writes.

    Now at this point i could ask for an appology from you Coby but i doubt i will get one so i wont bother.

  19. #19 MikeL54
    August 25, 2009

    It’s simple. CO2 is less than 1% of the air. Water is greater than 50% of the “green house gasses”. Man contributes less than 5% of CO2 at worst. Conclude warming is NOT man made at least not with CO2. Thank You Mike L.

  20. #20 dhogaza
    August 25, 2009

    The problem is GP never stipulate the difference between Greenland ice and sea ice …

    Please keep lying, crakar. It helps our cause. Anyone can read the excerpt I posted above and can see that you’re lying.

  21. #22 Jim Eager
    August 25, 2009

    Not nearly as simple as you apparently think, Mike L, and some of what you think is just plain wrong.

    *All* greenhouse gasses combined, including water vapour, comprise less than 0.5% of the atmosphere.

    Yet that less than 0.5% of the atmosphere makes Earth’s average surface temperature some 33C warmer than it would be if those greenhouse gases were not present.

    Water vapour accounts for aprox 80% of that 33C, CO2 aprox 20%. Now, humans are not directly increasing the amount of water vapour in the atmosphere — we couldn’t even if we wanted to, but we *are* increasing the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere, and not by a paultry 5%, but by around 37% so far (280 ppm to 387 ppm). And then there are methane (up over 150%), nitrous oxide (up 16%), and CFCs, which didn’t even exist before the 1920s.

    Given that humans have directly increased the gas that accounts for aprox 20% of the greenhouse effect by over a third, to conclude that humans have not caused a major portion of the observed warming — unintentionally, mind you — makes one question your grasp of reality.

  22. #23 crakar14
    August 25, 2009

    Dhogaza,

    This is a religion to you not a cause, and yes GP often blurr the line when it comes to sea ice and just ice, which is why their fearless leader mumbled and fumbled his way through the questions asked of him.

    Jim,

    Yes Jim it is not nearly as simple as you apparently think, I am not sure of the accuracy of the 80% figure but lets assume it is correct a majority of this 80% comes from the hydrologic cycle, the rest via the process of slowing IR as it travels through the atmosphere. You seem to have forgotten that Oxygen and Nitrogen make up over 90% of the atmosphere both these elements slow the IR as well and of course how could we forget about Methane and Ozone, so 0.0385% of the atmosphere of which CO2 resides in is very little as MikeL54 suggests.

    Coby,

    The next time you jump in boots and all i suggest you take the time to check your facts first, this way you dont have to suddenly go quite when you are proved wrong.

  23. #24 crakar14
    August 25, 2009

    Coby,

    Here is an additional (in fact better) site which finally puts to rest the fallacy that the MWP was a regional phenomenom and shows the hockey stick to be a complete and utter fabrication.

    http://www.co2science.org/data/mwp/mwpp.php

  24. #25 Jim Eager
    August 26, 2009

    Oh, Craker, are you really that ignorant, or are you just playing dumb for sympathy?

    The hydrologic cycle transports heat *within* the atmosphere, it transmits none of it to space.
    Fully 100% of water vapour’s contribution to the greenhouse effect is through radiation of infrared energy.
    Of course, airborne liquid water has both positive (warming) and negative (cooling effects) quite apart from the greenhouse effect.

    Oxygen (O2) and Nitrogen (N2)in fact make up over 98% of the atmosphere, but neither gas is capable of absorbing infrared energy under Earth conditions of temperature and pressure, so neither of them have anything to do with the greenhouse effect, at least not until it comes to converting absorbed infrared energy into kinetic energy through collision with excited greenhouse gas molecules, thereby warming the atmosphere.

    Ozone (O3) is both a strong absorber of UV and a minor absorber of infrared. In any case it’s concentration in the atmosphere is measured in parts per billion, while CO2 is measured in parts per million, or .070 ppmv vs 387 ppmv.

    Mehtane (CH4), while a much stronger IR absorber than CO2, also makes up a much smaller portion of the atmosphere than CO2 at 1.745 ppmv. Moreover, it oxidizes in the atmosphere fairly rapidly to CO2 and water vapour, making it the greenhouse gift that keeps on giving.

    What Mile L and you are using is the “dilution” argument, and it is one of the easiest in the denier lexicon to debunk.

  25. #26 coby
    August 26, 2009

    crakar, score one for you and thanks for providing the IPCC reference. Current, very uncertain projections are for fewer cyclones. But they are also for stronger, more intense cyclones. I was aware of that but mistated things in my reply to you, my apologies.

    As for the co2 science citation, I did not see more than one or two of the 33 references there that were global studies. Please find a specific paper and let’s see what it really says. CO2 science is well know for cherry picking findings and misrepresenting conclusions of the papers they cite.

    As for the GP issue, you continue to be obtuse and I don’t know what else to tell you. But for one thing watching the interview is not how to understand the point. The interview was about the press release and the press release was not a lie. Ergo GP did not lie even if the interviewer tricked Liepold into saying that they might have been wrong in what it said (something he said not knowing what exactly they were talking about.)

  26. #27 crakar14
    August 26, 2009

    Thats exactly right Jim, the hydrologic cycle transports heat from the surface to the atmosphere and then to all parts as rain this process plays a major role in the so called greenhouse effect.

    Here is a good simple explanation of how it works

    http://ww2010.atmos.uiuc.edu/(Gh)/guides/mtr/hyd/home.rxml

    Now this has nothing to do with IR or CO2 of course

    Here is a more detailed explanation of the climatic effects of Water Vapor in regards to IR absorption

    http://physicsworld.com/cws/article/print/17402

    Now after reading the above document you can clearly see how important water vapor is to the whole process, now lets look at the atmospheric makeup of GHG’s and how big a role they play

    First and foremost the most important GHG is water vapor which contributes about 95% to the temp, then CO2 comes in a distant second at about 3.6% then Methane at 0.36% then NO2 at 0.95%.

    Now if we look at the absorption spectra in the IR bandwidth it is easy to see why WV is the dominant GHG.

    Also you will note that one of the 3 peaks in which CO2 absorbs IR falls within the same region as H2O. Now this would suggest that this peak at least is saturated or close to it which of course reduces even more CO2′s effectiveness. Especially pertaining to the idea that adding more CO2 will cause more warming.

  27. #28 coby
    August 26, 2009

    crakar, your numbers (95, 3.6, .36%)are fabrications. Did you get them from a scientific paper or text book, or from some random unsourced denier website?

    Please see this article: http://scienceblogs.com/illconsidered/2006/01/water-vapor-is-almost-all-of.php

  28. #29 crakar14
    August 26, 2009

    I will do you a deal when big Jim here comes up with a scientific source for his figures (80/20)i will produce mine hows that sound.

  29. #30 crakar14
    August 27, 2009

    Whilst on the subject of sources it is interesting to see how the alarmist websites bend the truth to support their own ideas, take this site for example it goes to all the trouble to tell you that water vapor is a GHG but yet when they do their nice little graph telling you what has the most effect on climate they tell you CO2 contributes 76% of the 100% to global warming poor old water vapor does not get a mention.

    Well somebody better tell the IPCC about this discovery because if WV does not contribute to GW then they need to re jig all their models and predictions.

    In other words this site is a joke just another bunch of scary story tellers.

    http://www.co2-research.ca/index.php?id=27

    Here is another really good site i found

    http://www.ucsusa.org/global_warming/science_and_impacts/science/CO2-and-global-warming-faq.html#What_about_water_vapor

    This one tells you that CO2 is the cause of most GW and even shows you the IPCC 2007 graph, once again minus water vapor? Are they inferring that WV does not trap heat? and yet they then say this

    “What about water vapor? Water vapor is the most abundant heat-trapping gas, but rarely discussed when considering human-induced climate change. The principal reason is that water vapor has a short cycle in the atmosphere (a few days) before it is incorporated into weather events and falls to Earth, so it cannot build up in the atmosphere in the same way as carbon dioxide does.[1, 2]”

    (But WV has such a short cycle and cannot build up in the atmosphere in the same way that CO2 does, then how can the IPCC claim that WV is a very strong +ve feedback? Maybe you can enlighten me on this Coby with your own theory of how AGW works.)

    Ok so WV does trap heat so why is it not shown in the above graph? It is not shown because no matter what happens with CO2 and global warming the amount of WV in the atmosphere will not increase therefore it will not contribute to GW and so it does not appear on the graph.

    But then they say this

    “If all of the energy emitted from the Earth’s surface escaped into space, the planet would be too cold to sustain human life. Fortunately, as depicted in Figure 2, some of this energy does stay in the atmosphere, where it is sent back toward Earth by clouds, released by clouds as they condense to form rain or snow, or absorbed by atmospheric gases composed of three or more atoms, such as water vapor (H2O), carbon dioxide (CO2), nitrous oxide (N2O), and methane (CH4).”

    and this

    “Long-wave radiation absorbed by these gases in turn is re-emitted in all directions, including back toward Earth, and some of this re-emitted energy is absorbed again by these gases and re-emitted in all directions. The net effect is that most of the outgoing radiation is kept within the atmosphere instead of escaping into space. Heat-trapping gases, in balanced proportions, act like a blanket surrounding Earth, keeping temperatures within a range that enables life to thrive on a planet with liquid water. Unfortunately, these gases—especially carbon dioxide—are accumulating in the atmosphere at increasing concentrations due to human activities such as the burning of fossil fuel in cars and power plants, the clearing of forests for agriculture or development, and agricultural practices.[4] As a result, the insulating blanket is getting too thick and overheating the Earth as less energy (heat) escapes into space.”

    So WV does play a part in increasing the global temp (GW) so why does it not appear in the graph?

    Link: http://www.ucsusa.org/global_warming/science_and_impacts/science/CO2-and-global-warming-faq.html#What_about_water_vapor

    Anyway you will notice that none of these sites not even the IPCC can produce a graph with any validity with regards to showing which gas contributes what to the green house effect.

  30. #31 dhogaza
    August 27, 2009

    Crakar’s highjacking this thread, which is supposed to be about the GP press release, not the CO2-spectrum-saturation denialist lie.

  31. #32 Jim Eager
    August 27, 2009

    Well, duh, Craker. That’s why radiative-convective models are used to describe the atmosphere. But the question was specifically about the relative effectiveness of H2O vs CO2 as greenhouse gases.

    Here are my sources for the roughly 80/20 split:

    See Table 3, Kiehl & Trenberth, “Earth’s Annual Global Mean Energy Budget,” Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society 78, 1997 http://www.atmo.arizona.edu/students/courselinks/spring04/atmo451b/pdf/RadiationBudget.pdf

    Also see the table from NASA GISS at “Water vapour: feedback or forcing?”
    http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2005/04/water-vapour-feedback-or-forcing/

    As Coby said, your 95/3.6 figures are pure fantasy. As is your saturation argument, because of pressure broadening and the fact that water vapour is not evenly distributed within the atmosphere while CO2 is.

    I repeat: humans are not directly increasing the amount of water vapour in the atmosphere–we can’t, but we are directly increasing CO2 in the atmosphere. At our peril.

  32. #33 coby
    August 27, 2009

    Please use the new open thread for continued digressions about GHG absorption etc.

    I am packing for a move and for a 2 month trip at the same time, so I won’t be watching very much…

    Thanks.

  33. #34 crakar14
    August 27, 2009

    Hijacking? Dhogaza, GP lied through their teeth and got caught, plain and simple.

The site is undergoing maintenance presently. Commenting has been disabled. Please check back later!