The Anthropocene

[Crick]

CO2 is .03% to maybe .04%.

Human activity added to that trace amount, based on some estimates, by as little as 3% or as much as 33% since 1850.

Let’s go with the higher percentage. That would mean that human activity has increased the entire planet’s atmospheric CO2 by a bit over .0133% in around 175 years.

I’m not sure water vapor isn’t more responsible for any global warming than anything humans are doing relative to CO2.

As Abu pointed, the actual numbers, that have been posted here DOZENS of times is 280 ppm pre-industrial up to a current 420 ppm, a 50% increase.

Water vapor, being a precipitable component, is purely temperature dependent. It IS the biggest greenhouse gas - responsible for the largest part of the warming that has raised the planet from it's SB iceball status. BUT, as I said, it's a precipitable component. We cannot increase its level in the atmosphere simply by putting it there, as we can CO2 and CH4 and NOx. It acts SOLELY as a positive feedback to warming from other causes. Please tell me you follow what I'm saying.

 

[abu afak]

As Abu pointed, the actual numbers, that have been posted here DOZENS of times is 280 ppm pre-industrial up to a current 420 ppm, a 50% increase.

Water vapor, being a precipitable component, is purely temperature dependent. It IS the biggest greenhouse gas - responsible for the largest part of the warming that has raised the planet from it's SB iceball status. BUT, as I said, it's a precipitable component. We cannot increase its level in the atmosphere simply by putting it there, as we can CO2 and CH4 and NOx. It acts SOLELY as a positive feedback to warming from other causes. Please tell me you follow what I'm saying.

Water Vapor, CO2, and Global Warming​

MYTH: Water vapor is the most important, abundant greenhouse gas. So if we’re going to control a greenhouse gas, why don’t we control it instead of carbon dioxide (CO2)?

This is a common Misconception in the debate over greenhouse gases and the causes of global warming. Both water vapor and carbon dioxide are important greenhouse gases that play a crucial role in atmospheric warming. A greenhouse gas is a gas that absorbs and re-emits infrared radiation in Earth’s atmosphere, thereby increasing temperatures. Which gas then is to blame for global warming and should be controlled?

Water vapor accounts for 60-70% of the greenhouse effect while CO2 accounts for 25% —a notable difference when numbers alone are compared. It would seem then that water vapor should be climatologists’ primary focus. However, water vapor cannot be controlled by human intervention; it is simply a Product of its environment.

The amount of water vapor the atmosphere can hold is dependent on temperature. Under normal conditions, most of the heat emitted from Earth’s surface in the form of long wave radiation goes into the atmosphere and out into space. However, the presence of increased greenhouse gases traps more long-wave radiation, which means there is more energy in the atmosphere to warm the Earth’s surface.

As the atmospheric temperature rises, more water is evaporated from ground storage, such as that found in our rivers, oceans, soils, and reservoirs. The released water vapor becomes a greenhouse gas where it then absorbs more energy radiated from the Earth and thus warms the atmosphere. The warmer atmosphere results in further water evaporation and the cycle continues. This mechanism is known as a Positive Feedback Loop.

Scientists then need to focus on what is causing air temperatures to rise in the first place. Heat from Other Greenhouse Gases is Causing atmospheric Warming, Leading to an increase in water evaporation and compounding the greenhouse effect. Anthropogenic, or human-derived, CO2 serves as the Primary source of Warming with water vapor playing a Secondary role.
While CO2 occurs naturally in the atmosphere, human interference has interrupted the carbon cycle through activities, such as burning forests, mining, and burning coal. These activities artificially release more carbon from their solid storage to its gaseous state in the lower atmosphere. The rapid increase in CO2 volume has exceeded the amount oceans and vegetation are able to re-absorb. Furthermore, as deforestation continues around the world, there is less vegetation every year available to sequester the carbon. Thus, excess CO2 remains in the atmosphere where it traps heat and stimulates water evaporation."...."

Water Vapor, CO2, and Global Warming | IEDRO​

`

 

[ding]

Water Vapor, CO2, and Global Warming​

MYTH: Water vapor is the most important, abundant greenhouse gas. So if we’re going to control a greenhouse gas, why don’t we control it instead of carbon dioxide (CO2)?

This is a common Misconception in the debate over greenhouse gases and the causes of global warming. Both water vapor and carbon dioxide are important greenhouse gases that play a crucial role in atmospheric warming. A greenhouse gas is a gas that absorbs and re-emits infrared radiation in Earth’s atmosphere, thereby increasing temperatures. Which gas then is to blame for global warming and should be controlled?

Water vapor accounts for 60-70% of the greenhouse effect while CO2 accounts for 25% —a notable difference when numbers alone are compared. It would seem then that water vapor should be climatologists’ primary focus. However, water vapor cannot be controlled by human intervention; it is simply a Product of its environment.

The amount of water vapor the atmosphere can hold is dependent on temperature. Under normal conditions, most of the heat emitted from Earth’s surface in the form of long wave radiation goes into the atmosphere and out into space. However, the presence of increased greenhouse gases traps more long-wave radiation, which means there is more energy in the atmosphere to warm the Earth’s surface.

As the atmospheric temperature rises, more water is evaporated from ground storage, such as that found in our rivers, oceans, soils, and reservoirs. The released water vapor becomes a greenhouse gas where it then absorbs more energy radiated from the Earth and thus warms the atmosphere. The warmer atmosphere results in further water evaporation and the cycle continues. This mechanism is known as a Positive Feedback Loop.

Scientists then need to focus on what is causing air temperatures to rise in the first place. Heat from Other Greenhouse Gases is Causing atmospheric Warming, Leading to an increase in water evaporation and compounding the greenhouse effect. Anthropogenic, or human-derived, CO2 serves as the Primary source of Warming with water vapor playing a Secondary role.
While CO2 occurs naturally in the atmosphere, human interference has interrupted the carbon cycle through activities, such as burning forests, mining, and burning coal. These activities artificially release more carbon from their solid storage to its gaseous state in the lower atmosphere. The rapid increase in CO2 volume has exceeded the amount oceans and vegetation are able to re-absorb. Furthermore, as deforestation continues around the world, there is less vegetation every year available to sequester the carbon. Thus, excess CO2 remains in the atmosphere where it traps heat and stimulates water evaporation."...."

Water Vapor, CO2, and Global Warming | IEDRO​

`

That's ironic since it is predominantly water vapor that accounts for the 3.5C of feedback in the IPCC's models.

 

[Crick]

Still waiting for any denier to explain why water vapor does NOT act as a positive feedback to any other warming.

 

[ding]

Still waiting for any denier to explain why water vapor does NOT act as a positive feedback to any other warming.

Because it might be a net negative feedback. No one actually knows. But it would be odd if a 1C radiative forcing from CO2 resulted in a 3.5C feedback from water vapor. All GHG combined in the total atmosphere are only 44% efficient at trapping their theoretical associated heat because of convective currents. So why would RF of CO2 be 450% efficient at it?

 

[Crick]

Still waiting for an explanation WHY water vapor doesn't provide a positive feedback to any form of warming.

 

[BackAgain]

No you are wasting Bandwidth. (I wasn't going to but for your LYING/fudging and then calling me out)
Crick's post Immediately above yours pre-refuted your Idiotic fudgery.
Everyone really/seriously in this debate knows (as Crick said) CO2 is up 50%. From 280PPM to 420PPM.
And then you wasted all that space Lying about/Juggling/Minimizing Idiotic ballpark estimates when we have the Actual well known numbers.
You Low IQ DISHONEST @sshole.

Last word away YOU bandwidth wasting @sshole
`

Except I don’t fudge anything.

And unlike you, i don’t lie.

CO2 is roughly only .03 to .04 percent of our atmosphere. And human activity since roughly 1850 did add to that total only about 33%. For you, ya fuckin’ idiot, I even did the math. For a period of about 175 years now we — at most — have added only a fraction of a small fraction of our planetary atmospheric CO2.

Them’s the facts.

You don’t like it. Too fuckin’ bad. It is what it is despite your jackass braying and caterwauling.

 

[toobfreak]

What do you mean by "CO2 budget? Humans have increased CO2 in the atmosphere by more than 50%.

Yet CO2 remains a trace gas of a very weak IR modifier, far less of and much weaker than water vapor.

When do you idiots declare water vapor in our atmosphere part of the climate emergency?

 

[Crick]

Except I don’t fudge anything.

And unlike you, i don’t lie.

CO2 is roughly only .03 to .04 percent of our atmosphere. And human activity since roughly 1850 did add to that total only about 33%. For you, ya fuckin’ idiot, I even did the math. For a period of about 175 years now we — at most — have added only a fraction of a small fraction of our planetary atmospheric CO2.

Them’s the facts.

You don’t like it. Too fuckin’ bad. It is what it is despite your jackass braying and caterwauling.

Those are NOT the facts.

CURRENT

Daily CO2

Continual updates of daily CO2 levels recorded at the Mauna Loa Observatory in Hawaii. The page features NOAA MLO data and charts with charts and links for Scripps MLO data.

www.co2.earth

PAST

Climate Change: Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide

In the past 60 years, carbon dioxide in the atmosphere has increased 100 times faster than it did during the end of the last ice age.

www.climate.gov

---

 

[Crick]

Except I don’t fudge anything.

And unlike you, i don’t lie.

CO2 is roughly only .03 to .04 percent of our atmosphere. And human activity since roughly 1850 did add to that total only about 33%. For you, ya fuckin’ idiot, I even did the math. For a period of about 175 years now we — at most — have added only a fraction of a small fraction of our planetary atmospheric CO2.

Them’s the facts.

You don’t like it. Too fuckin’ bad. It is what it is despite your jackass braying and caterwauling.

420 / 280 = 1.5.

A 50% increase.

 

[BackAgain]

420 / 280 = 1.5.

A 50% increase.

Let’s say those numbers are established and accurate. (I call bullshit, but for the sake of the discussion, no need to quibble.)

If that’s the case, then, over the course of approximately 175 years, humankind has increased a very tiny trace gas in our atmosphere by about a half of a small fraction.

And?

 

[Crick]

Let’s say those numbers are established and accurate. (I call bullshit, but for the sake of the discussion, no need to quibble.)

If that’s the case, then, over the course of approximately 175 years, humankind has increased a very tiny trace gas in our atmosphere by about a half of a small fraction.

And?

That increase is the largest factor involved in producing the warming observed over that period.

 

[BackAgain]

That increase is the largest factor involved in producing the warming observed over that period.

Nonsense.

Warming itself may have released some trapped CO2.

When pressed on why our average global temperature is higher than it used to be (and is still rising), you guys always point out that we have a slightly increased amount of a very trace gas in our atmosphere. And you derive, from that factoid, that the increased level of co2 causes higher temperatures.

It could be that you are looking at an effect instead of a cause. It could be that you are looking at a spurious correlation. And the truth is that you simply don’t know.

Granted, you and several of your ilk claim to know. But you don’t.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

It's not supporting you.

Lie.

Not that you have any idea whatsoever what is in it.

 

[Crick]

Nonsense.

Have you ever looked at the science?

Warming itself may have released some trapped CO2.

Oh, it will.

When pressed on why our average global temperature is higher than it used to be (and is still rising), you guys always point out that we have a slightly increased amount of a very trace gas in our atmosphere.

There's no "press"ing required. That has been the core of the process since the beginning.

And you derive, from that factoid, that the increased level of co2 causes higher temperatures.

No. Scientists have come to that conclusion by calculating the radiative forcing of that much of an increase AND looking high and low for other potential causes.

It could be that you are looking at an effect instead of a cause.

Doesn't it ever bother you that your argument requires several thousand PhDs be less knowledgeable then a 9th grader?

It could be that you are looking at a spurious correlation. And the truth is that you don’t know.

I'm quite certain that scientists have studied the correlations involved.

Granted, you and several of your ilk claim to know. But you don’t.

You really ought to read the SPM so you at least have some ideas of the actual state of the science. Because at the moment you do not.

 

[BackAgain]

Have you ever looked at the science?

Oh, it will.

There's no "press"ing required. That has been the core of the process since the beginning.

No. Scientists have come to that conclusion by calculating the radiative forcing of that much of an increase AND looking high and low for other potential causes.

Doesn't it ever bother you that your argument requires several thousand PhDs be less knowledgeable then a 9th grader?

I'm quite certain that scientists have studied the correlations involved.

You really ought to read the SPM so you at least have some ideas of the actual state of the science. Because at the moment you do not.

You are a true believer. You are a credit to your faith.

 

[BackAgain]

Have you ever looked at the science?

Oh, it will.

There's no "press"ing required. That has been the core of the process since the beginning.

No. Scientists have come to that conclusion by calculating the radiative forcing of that much of an increase AND looking high and low for other potential causes.

Doesn't it ever bother you that your argument requires several thousand PhDs be less knowledgeable then a 9th grader?

I'm quite certain that scientists have studied the correlations involved.

You really ought to read the SPM so you at least have some ideas of the actual state of the science. Because at the moment you do not.

Humans are responsible for a significant amount of CO2 in the atmosphere | Fact check

The atmosphere is roughly 0.04% CO2, but humans have contributed about one-third of that since 1850.

www.usatoday.com

 

[abu afak]

Humans are responsible for a significant amount of CO2 in the atmosphere | Fact check

The atmosphere is roughly 0.04% CO2, but humans have contributed about one-third of that since 1850.

www.usatoday.com

Your link Disagrees with you and your minimalization attempts you Stupid @sshole.
That's it's whole point in fact.

`

 

[Crick]

Allow me to point out some math explaining two numbers that might be confusing some folks.

Going from 280 ppm to 420 ppm, as we have done with human CO2 emissions, is an increase of 140 ppm.

140 ppm is half of 280 ppm, so it is a 50% increase from preindustrial levels.

140 ppm is one third of 420 ppm, so it represents 33% of the current total.

 

[Crick]

Humans are responsible for a significant amount of CO2 in the atmosphere | Fact check

The atmosphere is roughly 0.04% CO2, but humans have contributed about one-third of that since 1850.

www.usatoday.com

Did you realize you were posting a fact check correcting your own claims?