Global warming gases

19 views
Skip to first unread message

Joe Blaine

unread,
Jun 7, 2002, 1:23:43 PM6/7/02
to
Could someone please identify the true global warming gases and why? Me and
a drinking buddy were arguing about which was which.


Uncle Al

unread,
Jun 7, 2002, 1:37:13 PM6/7/02
to
Joe Blaine wrote:
>
> Could someone please identify the true global warming gases and why? Me and
> a drinking buddy were arguing about which was which.

The major greenhouse effect gas is water vapor. Check out a CRC
Handbook, Seciton 14, for its atmospheric opacity to IR.
Hydrochlorofluorocarbons are huge Greenhouse Effect forcing gases,
freons are small. Then we have very minor compoents (no permanent
dipole moment in the molecule) like CO2 and SF6.

--
Uncle Al
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/
(Toxic URL! Unsafe for children and most mammals)
"Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?" The Net!

Robert Grumbine

unread,
Jun 7, 2002, 2:19:27 PM6/7/02
to
In article <z_5M8.199365$GG6.16...@news3.calgary.shaw.ca>,

Joe Blaine <an...@anon.com> wrote:
>Could someone please identify the true global warming gases and why? Me and
>a drinking buddy were arguing about which was which.

Pretty much any gas whose molecule has 3 or more atoms is a greenhouse
gas. The most common greenhouse gases are:
Water Vapor - H2O
Carbon Dioxide - CO2
Ozone - O3
Others include: N2O, CH4, ...
Chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs) are very strong greenhouse gases,

Carbon Dioxide, N2O, CH4, and CFCs are strongly influenced by
human activity. There are FAQs regarding the growth of CO2 and CH4 (methane)
at my web side (nice articles by Jan Schloerer) and a Climate Change Basics
article, also by Jan. You might also find some of the 'short notes' helpful.

http://www.radix.net/~bobg/

--
Robert Grumbine http://www.radix.net/~bobg/ Science faqs and amateur activities notes and links.
Sagredo (Galileo Galilei) "You present these recondite matters with too much
evidence and ease; this great facility makes them less appreciated than they
would be had they been presented in a more abstruse manner." Two New Sciences

Joe Blaine

unread,
Jun 7, 2002, 2:43:10 PM6/7/02
to
"Uncle Al" <Uncl...@hate.spam.net> wrote in message
news:3D00EF45...@hate.spam.net...

> Joe Blaine wrote:
> >
> > Could someone please identify the true global warming gases and why? Me
and
> > a drinking buddy were arguing about which was which.
>
> The major greenhouse effect gas is water vapor. Check out a CRC
> Handbook, Seciton 14, for its atmospheric opacity to IR.
> Hydrochlorofluorocarbons are huge Greenhouse Effect forcing gases,
> freons are small. Then we have very minor compoents (no permanent
> dipole moment in the molecule) like CO2 and SF6.

So if water vapour is the major global warming gas and CO2 a minor trouble
maker, why not solve the problem of global warming by giving huge tax
incentives to the manufacturers of dehumidifiers so they can increase
production?


Harold

unread,
Jun 7, 2002, 4:15:37 PM6/7/02
to

Primarily because there is so much water in the atmosphere that all
the dehumidifiers we could make would not put a dent in the total.

What would help the is reduction of methane (CH4). This would be
cheap and could be done fairly quickly.

Regards, Harold (Capitalist Running Dog)
-----
"...cultural relativism refuses to acknowledge the superiority of
the Western way. This refusal to admit the obvious stinks of the bad
faith of the rich man telling the bum that money doesn't matter. Most
critics of the West, after all, live in the material comfort and
political freedom of the West, and have no intention of demonstrating
with their actions their belief that all cultures are equal, that the
difference between Manhattan and Kabul is one merely of taste."
---Richard Thornton, Professor, Cal State Fresno,
Jan 31, 2002


-----------== Posted via Newsfeed.Com - Uncensored Usenet News ==----------
http://www.newsfeed.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----= Over 100,000 Newsgroups - Unlimited Fast Downloads - 19 Servers =-----

Lloyd Parker

unread,
Jun 7, 2002, 4:21:17 PM6/7/02
to
In article <3D00EF45...@hate.spam.net>,

Uncle Al <Uncl...@hate.spam.net> wrote:
>Joe Blaine wrote:
>>
>> Could someone please identify the true global warming gases and why?
Me and
>> a drinking buddy were arguing about which was which.
>
>The major greenhouse effect gas is water vapor. Check out a CRC
>Handbook, Seciton 14, for its atmospheric opacity to IR.
>Hydrochlorofluorocarbons are huge Greenhouse Effect forcing gases,
>freons are small. Then we have very minor compoents (no permanent
>dipole moment in the molecule) like CO2 and SF6.
>
You don't know what you're talking about. CO2 accounts for 1/4 or so
of the total greenhouse effect and virtually all of the added,
human-caused warming.

Uncle Al

unread,
Jun 7, 2002, 5:09:17 PM6/7/02
to

I hate to bust your bubble, but look at the respective IR spectra
through the far-IR. Carbon dioxide doesn't make much difference
compared to water. Since the entire human carbon budget is smaller
than the uncertainty in the global carbon budget, anthropogenic CO2 is
beneath consideration.

John VanSickle

unread,
Jun 7, 2002, 5:37:55 PM6/7/02
to
"Uncle Al" <Uncl...@hate.spam.net> wrote in message
news:3D0120F5...@hate.spam.net...
> Lloyd Parker wrote:

> > Uncle Al <Uncl...@hate.spam.net> wrote:
> >
> > >The major greenhouse effect gas is water vapor. Check out a CRC
> > >Handbook, Seciton 14, for its atmospheric opacity to IR.
> > >Hydrochlorofluorocarbons are huge Greenhouse Effect forcing gases,
> > >freons are small. Then we have very minor compoents (no permanent
> > >dipole moment in the molecule) like CO2 and SF6.
> > >
> > You don't know what you're talking about. CO2 accounts for 1/4 or so
> > of the total greenhouse effect and virtually all of the added,
> > human-caused warming.
>
> I hate to bust your bubble, but look at the respective IR spectra
> through the far-IR. Carbon dioxide doesn't make much difference
> compared to water. Since the entire human carbon budget is smaller
> than the uncertainty in the global carbon budget, anthropogenic CO2 is
> beneath consideration.

Ye gods, Uncle Al, are you coming down with something? I've never
seen you so forebearing with a blatherer.

Regards,
John

Ian St. John

unread,
Jun 7, 2002, 9:42:51 PM6/7/02
to
"Joe Blaine" <an...@anon.com> wrote in message news:<297M8.201087$xS2.15...@news1.calgary.shaw.ca>...

I am not sure if you are trying to be funny? A smiley would have
clarified that.

I'd like to point out to Uncle Al, that you asked for the 'Global
Warming' gases and not 'Greenhouse Effect' gases. As a percentage of
the current GHE, water vapor forms the largest single contributor. But
it is NOT a 'global warming' gas.

That is because water vapor is of very low 'persistence'. The water
that evaporated today will be rained out in short order, and the level
of GHE from water vapor is a function of the temperature, not a
contributor to it.

This is good! Otherwise, we would have a 'runaway greenhouse' and turn
into Venuslike conditions.

As can be seen at http://www.ipcc.ch/pub/spm22-01.pdf page 8, the
major *Global Warming* gas ( Greenhouse gas with long and
non-temperature dependent persistence ) is CO2.

But since CO2 increases increase the temperature, water vapor also
increases amplifying the GW from CO2 increase by about 2.5 times, so
an increase purely dependent on CO2 of .4 degrees will actually cause
a warming of 1 degree under current conditions.

This 'positive feedback response' due to changes in the hydrological
cycle is referred to as the 'climate sensitivity' in the literature.


HTH

Joe Blaine

unread,
Jun 8, 2002, 12:28:12 PM6/8/02
to
"Ian St. John" <ist...@spamcop.net> wrote in message
news:211be79f.02060...@posting.google.com...

Thanks for the clarification.

Up here in the Pacific Northwest we're having the coldest summer on record.
Mean daily temperatures are about 5 degrees below normal, but the extremes!
We had snow at sea level in May.

We could use some more of those global warming gases up here.


TellTheTruth

unread,
Jun 8, 2002, 12:49:17 PM6/8/02
to

"Joe Blaine" <an...@anon.com> wrote in message
news:wgqM8.204965$GG6.16...@news3.calgary.shaw.ca...

...sinp...

> Thanks for the clarification.
>
> Up here in the Pacific Northwest we're having the coldest summer on
record.
> Mean daily temperatures are about 5 degrees below normal, but the
extremes!
> We had snow at sea level in May.
>
> We could use some more of those global warming gases up here.

Summer begins June 21. Your post is dated June 8.

???


TellTheTruth

unread,
Jun 8, 2002, 12:53:09 PM6/8/02
to
Here are some numbers:

Nitrogen N2 78.08%
Oxygen O2 20.95%
*Water H2O 0 to 4%
Argon Ar 0.93%
*Carbon Dioxide CO2 0.0360%
Neon Ne 0.0018%
Helium He 0.0005%
*Methane CH4 0.00017%
Hydrogen H2 0.00005%
*Nitrous Oxide N2O 0.00003%
*Ozone O3 0.000004%

* variable gases


"Robert Grumbine" <bo...@radix.net> wrote in message
news:adqtff$8fq$3...@news1.Radix.Net...

Richard Henry

unread,
Jun 8, 2002, 4:41:36 PM6/8/02
to

"Joe Blaine" <an...@anon.com> wrote in message
news:wgqM8.204965$GG6.16...@news3.calgary.shaw.ca...

>
> Up here in the Pacific Northwest we're having the coldest summer on
record.

Maybe if you wait until the start of Summer, things will warm up.


Tumbleweed

unread,
Jun 8, 2002, 4:43:41 PM6/8/02
to

"Richard Henry" <rph...@home.com> wrote in message
news:4_tM8.9229$L63.5...@news1.west.cox.net...
Contrary to popular belief there is no agreed start to summer. Some have it
at June 1 , others at 21 or 22. Though even if June 1 is the start, it
seems a bit early to be calling for the records to be broken, there are
still another 3 months minus 8 days to go!
--
Tumbleweed

Remove my socks before replying (but no email reply necessary to newsgroups)

John Beardmore

unread,
Jun 8, 2002, 5:48:45 PM6/8/02
to
In article <z_5M8.199365$GG6.16...@news3.calgary.shaw.ca>, Joe Blaine
<an...@anon.com> writes

>Could someone please identify the true global warming gases and why? Me and
>a drinking buddy were arguing about which was which.

And while we are at it, what in the IPCC methodology, is the difference
between direct and indirect greenhouse gases ?


Cheers, J/.
--
John Beardmore

Ian St. John

unread,
Jun 8, 2002, 6:53:48 PM6/8/02
to
"Joe Blaine" <an...@anon.com> wrote in message news:<wgqM8.204965$GG6.16...@news3.calgary.shaw.ca>...

> "Ian St. John" <ist...@spamcop.net> wrote in message
> news:211be79f.02060...@posting.google.com...

<snip>

>
> Thanks for the clarification.
>
> Up here in the Pacific Northwest we're having the coldest summer on record.
> Mean daily temperatures are about 5 degrees below normal, but the extremes!
> We had snow at sea level in May.
>
> We could use some more of those global warming gases up here.

Again a smiley would have helped clarify if your comments are
*intended* to be humorous.

As can be easily seen by http://www.umac.org/climate/climate.html
areas which are warming *on average* can still exibit a wide variety
of warming and cooling trends, not does the weather in May count. GW
is about temperatures averaged both in time ( over the year ) and
space ( over the entire globe ).

*Global* warming is therefore about the total heat energy on the
surface. This is dependent on the influx vs outgo of energy from and
to space, not on climate processes.

The erratic climate oscillations that you seem to be thinking of are
more due to ENSO and the polar vortex oscillations that have changed
climate variability ( year to year variations )especially in the N.A.
continent.

These may eventually be linked to GW as a driving force or trigger.
Some evidence for this is available, but the science has not reached
consensus. If confirmed, it would not be the first or only example of
climate turning a general warming trend into a local cooling event.

Climate is about transportation of heat, and the processes can be
weakened ( cooling ) or strengthened ( warming ) in local regions.
There is no suggestion of GW as a 'nice warm winter'. Even if it did,
the result would not necessarily be good, as such can easily lead to
uncontrollable spring flooding followed by ummer drought in areas
dependent on winter snowpack. You should be especially aware of this.

The science may save your life or livelihood. Good predictions based
on solid science are needed, and you are not helping by promoting this
dismissive attitude.

Michelle Fulton

unread,
Jun 8, 2002, 6:55:33 PM6/8/02
to

"Tumbleweed" <from...@mysockstumbleweed.freeserve.co.uk> wrote in message
news:adtqd6$moq$1...@newsg1.svr.pol.co.uk...

>
> "Richard Henry" <rph...@home.com> wrote in message
> news:4_tM8.9229$L63.5...@news1.west.cox.net...
> >
> > "Joe Blaine" <an...@anon.com> wrote in message
> > news:wgqM8.204965$GG6.16...@news3.calgary.shaw.ca...
> > >
> > > Up here in the Pacific Northwest we're having the coldest summer on
> > record.
> >
> > Maybe if you wait until the start of Summer, things will warm up.
> >
> Contrary to popular belief there is no agreed start to summer. Some have
it
> at June 1 , others at 21 or 22. Though even if June 1 is the start, it
> seems a bit early to be calling for the records to be broken, there are
> still another 3 months minus 8 days to go!
> --
> Tumbleweed
>

Snow in May is unusual for the NW coast, isn't it. Do y'all even get much
snow in "winter"?

I don't care what anybody says.....summer starts in May and ends in
October.....here in Texas......and winter lasts from January to February.
The other seasons just kinda blend in.

Michelle

Richard Henry

unread,
Jun 8, 2002, 8:30:26 PM6/8/02
to

"Tumbleweed" <from...@mysockstumbleweed.freeserve.co.uk> wrote in message
news:adtqd6$moq$1...@newsg1.svr.pol.co.uk...
>
> "Richard Henry" <rph...@home.com> wrote in message
> news:4_tM8.9229$L63.5...@news1.west.cox.net...
> >
> > "Joe Blaine" <an...@anon.com> wrote in message
> > news:wgqM8.204965$GG6.16...@news3.calgary.shaw.ca...
> > >
> > > Up here in the Pacific Northwest we're having the coldest summer on
> > record.
> >
> > Maybe if you wait until the start of Summer, things will warm up.
> >
> Contrary to popular belief there is no agreed start to summer. Some have
it
> at June 1 , others at 21 or 22. Though even if June 1 is the start, it
> seems a bit early to be calling for the records to be broken, there are
> still another 3 months minus 8 days to go!
> --


Contrary to popular belief?

I guess if you are going to disagree, that provides proof of your statement
of "no agreed start to summer".

Just by coincidence, I posted the following to another newsgroup in a thread
discussing Godwin's Law:

I hereby propose Henry's Lemma:

For any statement of opinion made on usenet about science, law, politics,
religion or general human culture, there exists a website in support of the
opinion.

And Henry's DiLemma:

For any statement of opinion made on usenet about science, law, politics,
religion or general human culture, there exists a website in opposition to
the
opinion.


Paul Farrar

unread,
Jun 8, 2002, 10:42:46 PM6/8/02
to
In article <CkxM8.9316$L63.6...@news1.west.cox.net>,

Well, it is true that oceanographers, meteorologists, etc., often treat
June, July and August as a "climatological summer". It's usually refered
to as "JJA", though.

Paul Farrar

Ian St. John

unread,
Jun 9, 2002, 2:52:26 AM6/9/02
to
John Beardmore <woo...@wookie.demon.co.uk> wrote in message news:<Aku2PbV9unA9Ew$+@fatcat.wookie.demon.co.uk>...

http://www.ipcc.ch/pub/tar/wg1/247.htm

Direct greenhouse gas are as expected, those which have a Global
Warming Potential due to their persistence and ability to capture IR
emissions.

Indirect greenhouse gases are those gases such as NO which have no GWP
of their own, but either mediate creation of direct GW gases such as
O3, or mediate destruction of direct GW gases changing their
persistence and therefore their GW potential.

HTH

John Beardmore

unread,
Jun 9, 2002, 7:08:14 AM6/9/02
to
In article <211be79f.02060...@posting.google.com>, Ian St.
John <ist...@spamcop.net> writes

>John Beardmore <woo...@wookie.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
>news:<Aku2PbV9unA9Ew$+@fatcat.wookie.demon.co.uk>...
>> In article <z_5M8.199365$GG6.16...@news3.calgary.shaw.ca>, Joe Blaine
>> <an...@anon.com> writes

>> >Could someone please identify the true global warming gases and why? Me and
>> >a drinking buddy were arguing about which was which.
>>
>> And while we are at it, what in the IPCC methodology, is the difference
>> between direct and indirect greenhouse gases ?
>>
>>
>> Cheers, J/.
>
>http://www.ipcc.ch/pub/tar/wg1/247.htm
>
>Direct greenhouse gas are as expected, those which have a Global
>Warming Potential due to their persistence and ability to capture IR
>emissions.

OK.

Now what (in as much detail as you like !) do you mean by capture ?

Absorb ? Absorb/emit ? Reflect ? What's the physical process ?


>Indirect greenhouse gases are those gases such as NO which have no GWP
>of their own, but either mediate creation of direct GW gases such as
>O3, or mediate destruction of direct GW gases changing their
>persistence and therefore their GW potential.

So some if the indirect 'ghgs' reduce warming by removing direct
ghgs ? Seems odd to call them ghgs in these cases.

So taking the IPCC view that NOx, NMVOCs and CO are indirect ghgs, what
influence do they have and by what mechanism ?

Tumbleweed

unread,
Jun 9, 2002, 10:27:14 AM6/9/02
to

"Michelle Fulton" <mhful...@prodigy.net> wrote in message
news:FXvM8.2242$SA7.88...@newssvr15.news.prodigy.com...
<snip>


>
> I don't care what anybody says.....summer starts in May and ends in
> October.....here in Texas......and winter lasts from January to February.
> The other seasons just kinda blend in.
>
> Michelle
>

I can certainly remember ice in Dallas in about March or April one year.
Almost no one was driving, everyone stayed at home. As a British friend of
mine working there said; "Texans can only handle ice in their drinks".
:-)

--
Tumbleweed

Tumbleweed

unread,
Jun 9, 2002, 10:31:49 AM6/9/02
to

"Richard Henry" <rph...@home.com> wrote in message
news:CkxM8.9316$L63.6...@news1.west.cox.net...

>
> "Tumbleweed" <from...@mysockstumbleweed.freeserve.co.uk> wrote in message
> news:adtqd6$moq$1...@newsg1.svr.pol.co.uk...
> >
> > "Richard Henry" <rph...@home.com> wrote in message
> > news:4_tM8.9229$L63.5...@news1.west.cox.net...
> > >
> > > "Joe Blaine" <an...@anon.com> wrote in message
> > > news:wgqM8.204965$GG6.16...@news3.calgary.shaw.ca...
> > > >
> > > > Up here in the Pacific Northwest we're having the coldest summer on
> > > record.
> > >
> > > Maybe if you wait until the start of Summer, things will warm up.
> > >
> > Contrary to popular belief there is no agreed start to summer. Some
have
> it
> > at June 1 , others at 21 or 22. Though even if June 1 is the start, it
> > seems a bit early to be calling for the records to be broken, there are
> > still another 3 months minus 8 days to go!
> > --
>
>
> Contrary to popular belief?
>
> I guess if you are going to disagree, that provides proof of your
statement
> of "no agreed start to summer".
>

yep, most people believe there is an official start to Summer, but not
everyone knows what that is, and for those that do 'know', they disagree
what it is :-)

I always used to think 21st or 22nd but the BBC meteorologists say no, they
use JJA for convenience but there isnt an actual definition that is agreed.

This comes up at this time of year on the BBC radio stations, every year.
Just like the first cuckoo, there is also the first letter arguing with a
weather forecaster who used 'summer' in early June.

Michael Moroney

unread,
Jun 9, 2002, 4:07:48 PM6/9/02
to
"Richard Henry" <rph...@home.com> writes:

>> Contrary to popular belief there is no agreed start to summer. Some have


>Contrary to popular belief?

Yes. Despite what the TV weathermen state every three months, 1) There
is no "official" start of any season ("Official"? According to whom? God?)
and 2) The "start" of, e.g. summer on the summer solstice is based on
bad interpretation of astronomy. The summer solstice, or longest day, is
actually the astronomical peak or middle of summer, it is in the middle
of the period of the longest days. Of course on Earth it takes a while
for things to heat up and cool off again so Jun 21 isn't the middle of
the period of warmest temperatures. But even the Brits call the day of
Jun 21 Midsummer's Day.

In most areas "June July August" are a more accurate definition of summer
than Jun 21-Sep 21, but of course every year is different. Which day,
in your experience, do you expect to be warmer, Jun 21 (first day of summer
accordiing to the TV weathermen) or Sep 20 (last day) ?

-Mike

Richard Henry

unread,
Jun 9, 2002, 4:26:42 PM6/9/02
to

"Michael Moroney" <mor...@world.std.spaamtrap.com> wrote in message
news:GxGFx...@world.std.com...

I live near San Diego. Sep 20. Maybe even hotter in Oct.


Michael Moroney

unread,
Jun 9, 2002, 8:17:07 PM6/9/02
to
"Richard Henry" <rph...@home.com> writes:


>"Michael Moroney" <mor...@world.std.spaamtrap.com> wrote in message
>news:GxGFx...@world.std.com...

>> In most areas "June July August" are a more accurate definition of summer


>> than Jun 21-Sep 21, but of course every year is different. Which day,
>> in your experience, do you expect to be warmer, Jun 21 (first day of
>summer
>> accordiing to the TV weathermen) or Sep 20 (last day) ?

>I live near San Diego. Sep 20. Maybe even hotter in Oct.

Yes, but Santa Ana winds are the exception, not the rule.

-Mike


Michelle Fulton

unread,
Jun 9, 2002, 9:38:57 PM6/9/02
to

"Tumbleweed" <from...@mysockstumbleweed.freeserve.co.uk> wrote in message
news:advook$oq3$1...@news7.svr.pol.co.uk...

>
>
> "Michelle Fulton" <mhful...@prodigy.net> wrote in message
> news:FXvM8.2242$SA7.88...@newssvr15.news.prodigy.com...
> <snip>
> >
> > I don't care what anybody says.....summer starts in May and ends in
> > October.....here in Texas......and winter lasts from January to
February.
> > The other seasons just kinda blend in.
> >
> > Michelle
> >
> I can certainly remember ice in Dallas in about March or April one year.
> Almost no one was driving, everyone stayed at home. As a British friend of
> mine working there said; "Texans can only handle ice in their drinks".
> :-)
>

Yes, mostly true, but unfortunately it's the most prevailent "winter"
precipitation we get here. I guess because of humidity, I'm not sure. I
like snow a lot better; it's more fun and easier to drive on.

You must have been on earth longer than I. At the very extreme, and I've
never seen it, it might freeze in early March, but it would be something
like hell freezing for Texas to freeze in April ;-)

M

Richard Henry

unread,
Jun 9, 2002, 10:15:41 PM6/9/02
to

"Michael Moroney" <mor...@world.std.spaamtrap.com> wrote in message
news:GxGrG...@world.std.com...
Don't forget the June gloom. I ran a 4-mile race with my sons today in a
light drizzle. We got a couple of hours of breezy sunlight in the afternoon
before the overcast returned. Pretty typical for June around here.

September, on the other hand, tends to be either hot and dry, or if a Santa
Ana day, windy, dry and very hot.

Ian St. John

unread,
Jun 10, 2002, 12:41:34 AM6/10/02
to
John Beardmore <woo...@wookie.demon.co.uk> wrote in message news:<ADmGGRaeczA9Ew9$@fatcat.wookie.demon.co.uk>...

> In article <211be79f.02060...@posting.google.com>, Ian St.
> John <ist...@spamcop.net> writes
> >John Beardmore <woo...@wookie.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
> >news:<Aku2PbV9unA9Ew$+@fatcat.wookie.demon.co.uk>...
> >> In article <z_5M8.199365$GG6.16...@news3.calgary.shaw.ca>, Joe Blaine
> >> <an...@anon.com> writes
>
> >> >Could someone please identify the true global warming gases and why? Me and
> >> >a drinking buddy were arguing about which was which.
> >>
> >> And while we are at it, what in the IPCC methodology, is the difference
> >> between direct and indirect greenhouse gases ?
> >>
> >>
> >> Cheers, J/.
> >
> >http://www.ipcc.ch/pub/tar/wg1/247.htm
> >
> >Direct greenhouse gas are as expected, those which have a Global
> >Warming Potential due to their persistence and ability to capture IR
> >emissions.
>
> OK.
>
> Now what (in as much detail as you like !) do you mean by capture ?
>
> Absorb ? Absorb/emit ? Reflect ? What's the physical process ?

My understanding of the process is that they absorb IR photons, and
then reemit them in a random direction. This reduces the rate at which
IR radiation from the Earth can get out into space and be free at
last...

But I suggest reading the reference I gave which has an authoritative
scientific review of the basics. Since I myself am not an 'atuhority'
on the issue, you should read any references I supply.

>
> >Indirect greenhouse gases are those gases such as NO which have no GWP
> >of their own, but either mediate creation of direct GW gases such as
> >O3, or mediate destruction of direct GW gases changing their
> >persistence and therefore their GW potential.
>
> So some if the indirect 'ghgs' reduce warming by removing direct
> ghgs ? Seems odd to call them ghgs in these cases.

There is no reference ( that I see, but maybe you do ) to reductions
in persistence. In the case of NO, it makes a GHG ( ozone ), so it
contributes in that way. In other cases, the persistence may be
enhanced or decreased, and both may happen at different altitudes so
as to give a balance of..

>
> So taking the IPCC view that NOx, NMVOCs and CO are indirect ghgs, what
> influence do they have and by what mechanism ?

If you were paying attention ( and I suggest you do some reading ) NO2
( which is NOx where x = 2, is the third most prominent GHG, so you
seem to be a bit wrong here. As others have pointed out, any molecule
of three or more atoms is probably? certainkly? a GHG. Only NO itself
is an 'indirect ghg'.

Please read the reference before further comments, as I feel that you
need to get an authoritative view from the source science material.

Joe Blaine

unread,
Jun 10, 2002, 1:46:16 AM6/10/02
to
"Ian St. John" <ist...@spamcop.net> wrote

> My understanding of the process is that they absorb IR photons, and


> then reemit them in a random direction. This reduces the rate at which
> IR radiation from the Earth can get out into space and be free at
> last...

I think you (and the whole greenhouse crowd) are focusing incorrectly on
radiation effects. The absorption IR photons is part of a process known as
'thermal equilibration'. Thermal equilibration involves the exchange of
energy between radiation and the kinetic energy of gases. Radiation of
thermal energy only becomes dominant in a near vacuum. In the lower
atmosphere, radiant thermal energy is quickly absorbed and heats up the air.
Hot air rises. When hot air rises in the atmosphere it is cooled by a
process called adiabatic expansion. This process of adiabatic cooling is
responsible for the well known temperature lapse rate of 6.5 C per Km
altitude. Try to explain the 'temperature lapse rate' in terms of the
'greenhouse effect'. You can't.

The problem with the greenhouse crowd is an almost religious attachment to a
false metaphor. The atmosphere is not like a greenhouse. The atmosphere is a
fluid.

You may think you have done humanity a favour by using your belief in a
false metaphor to predict disaster in one hundred years. But who can believe
you if you haven't got the science right? Why should anybody believe the
predictions of your computer programs when you don't have the science right?


Thomas Palm

unread,
Jun 10, 2002, 3:53:41 AM6/10/02
to
Joe Blaine wrote:
>
> "Ian St. John" <ist...@spamcop.net> wrote
>
> > My understanding of the process is that they absorb IR photons, and
> > then reemit them in a random direction. This reduces the rate at which
> > IR radiation from the Earth can get out into space and be free at
> > last...
>
> I think you (and the whole greenhouse crowd) are focusing incorrectly on
> radiation effects. The absorption IR photons is part of a process known as
> 'thermal equilibration'. Thermal equilibration involves the exchange of
> energy between radiation and the kinetic energy of gases. Radiation of
> thermal energy only becomes dominant in a near vacuum. In the lower
> atmosphere, radiant thermal energy is quickly absorbed and heats up the air.
> Hot air rises. When hot air rises in the atmosphere it is cooled by a
> process called adiabatic expansion. This process of adiabatic cooling is
> responsible for the well known temperature lapse rate of 6.5 C per Km
> altitude. Try to explain the 'temperature lapse rate' in terms of the
> 'greenhouse effect'. You can't.

Of course you can't! That's because there are several processes for
removing heat from the surface of the Earth. You can't explain the
lapse rate using only adiabatic expansion either. This process by itself
would give a rate of 10 C/km. Only when you include the effect of
the condensation of water vapor do you get the 6.5 degree figure.

This doesn't mean that radiation is unipmortant. There are windows
where IR can radiate directly into space, unless there are clouds.
That's why clear nights are so much colder than cloudy ones. By
adding more greenhouse gasses we slowly close those windows.
Another effect is that the effective altitude at which heat can
be directly radiated into space rises. Since Earth has to be in
thermal equilibrium the temperature of this layer is constant,
and due to the lapse rate if this layer rises the temperature
near the surface increases.



> The problem with the greenhouse crowd is an almost religious attachment to a
> false metaphor. The atmosphere is not like a greenhouse. The atmosphere is a
> fluid.

Again, it is well known that the greenhouse metaphor is scientifically
dubious, because greenhouses work to a large extend by preventing
convection, not by trapping radiation. Nevertheless, the end result is
the same, and no one has come up with a better term.

The problems with the contrarian crowd is that they assume that
everyone involved in climate research is a moron who despite
years of study hasn't realized what a clever guy like you can
find out over a beer or two.



> You may think you have done humanity a favour by using your belief in a
> false metaphor to predict disaster in one hundred years. But who can believe
> you if you haven't got the science right? Why should anybody believe the
> predictions of your computer programs when you don't have the science right?

Then show that people haven't done the science right! All you've
done is pointed out stuff that has been well known far longer than
there has even been computers and that as far as I know has been
included in every model made.

Tumbleweed

unread,
Jun 10, 2002, 3:47:52 AM6/10/02
to

"Michelle Fulton" <mhful...@prodigy.net> wrote in message
news:RqTM8.4588$KS1.14...@newssvr17.news.prodigy.com...

Was one of those 'ice storms' when it rains and then freezes. Was gone by
the afternoon.And it was some time ago, so I could well be wrong about it
being APril.

Joshua Halpern

unread,
Jun 8, 2002, 8:24:23 PM6/8/02
to

Uncle Al wrote:
>
> Lloyd Parker wrote:
> >
> > In article <3D00EF45...@hate.spam.net>,
> > Uncle Al <Uncl...@hate.spam.net> wrote:


> > >Joe Blaine wrote:
> > >>
> > >> Could someone please identify the true global warming gases and why?
> > Me and
> > >> a drinking buddy were arguing about which was which.
> > >

> > >The major greenhouse effect gas is water vapor. Check out a CRC
> > >Handbook, Seciton 14, for its atmospheric opacity to IR.
> > >Hydrochlorofluorocarbons are huge Greenhouse Effect forcing gases,
> > >freons are small. Then we have very minor compoents (no permanent
> > >dipole moment in the molecule) like CO2 and SF6.
> > >

> > You don't know what you're talking about. CO2 accounts for 1/4 or so
> > of the total greenhouse effect and virtually all of the added,
> > human-caused warming.
>
> I hate to bust your bubble, but look at the respective IR spectra
> through the far-IR. Carbon dioxide doesn't make much difference
> compared to water. Since the entire human carbon budget is smaller
> than the uncertainty in the global carbon budget, anthropogenic CO2 is
> beneath consideration.

1. The CO2 bend is conveniently placed at the IR emission maximum
from the earth. Water vapor absorption lines are not. While you
are looking at those spectra also look at a picture of the emission
from the earth.

One place you can find such a picture and other useful information
is Figure 4-7 in:
www.chem.ualberta.ca/Undergrad%20Studies/ Courses/Chem303/notes/green.pdf

Which is also relevant to the points below.

2. CO2 does make a differece, and that has been measured by
any number of experiments

3. Water vapor concentrations are controlled by liquid vapor
equilibrium. Water vapor concentration increases exponentially
with temperature. A small increase in temperature due to increased
greenhouse gas concentrations, will be amplified by this mechanism.

4. The amount of CO2 in the atmosphere has increased from a
pre-industrial 280 parts per million to about 370 parts per million
(you would, on average, find 370 molecules of CO2 in every million
that you sampled from the atmosphere).

5. The fractions of C atom isotopes identified the increase as
being due to human emissions. See, for example Jan Schloerer's
faq. References are attached to the end of the FAQ.

http://www.radix.net/~bobg/faqs/scq.CO2rise.html
************************************
1. Why does atmospheric CO2 rise ?

Time and again, some people claim that human activities are only
a minor source of atmospheric carbon dioxide (CO2) which is swamped
by natural sources. Compared to natural sources, our contribution is
small indeed. Yet, the seemingly small human-made or `anthropogenic'
input is enough to disturb the delicate balance. "Anthropogenic CO2
is a biogeochemical perturbation of truly geologic proportions"
[Sundquist] and has caused a steep rise of atmospheric CO2.

The vexing thing is that, in the global carbon cycle, the rising level
of atmospheric CO2 and the human origin of this rise are about the only
two things that are known with high certainty. Natural CO2 fluxes
into and out of the atmosphere exceed the human contribution by more
than an order of magnitude. The sizes of the natural carbon fluxes
are only approximately known, because they are much harder to measure
than atmospheric CO2 and than the features pointing to a human origin
of the CO2 rise.

>From its preindustrial level of about 280 ppmv (parts per million
by volume) around the year 1800, atmospheric carbon dioxide rose to
315 ppmv in 1958 and to about 358 ppmv in 1994 [Battle] [C.Keeling]
[Schimel 94, p 43-44]. All the signs are that the CO2 rise is
human-made:

* Ice cores show that during the past 1000 years until about the year
1800, atmospheric CO2 was fairly stable at levels between 270 and
290 ppmv. The 1994 value of 358 ppmv is higher than any CO2 level
observed over the past 220,000 years. In the Vostok and Byrd ice
cores, CO2 does not exceed 300 ppmv. A more detailed record from
peat suggests a temporary peak of ~315 ppmv about 4,700 years ago,
but this needs further confirmation. [Figge, figure 3] [Schimel 94,
p 44-45] [White]

* The rise of atmospheric CO2 closely parallels the emissions history
from fossil fuels and land use changes [Schimel 94, p 46-47].

* The rise of airborne CO2 falls short of the human-made CO2 emissions.
Taken together, the ocean and the terrestrial vegetation and soils
must currently be a net sink of CO2 rather than a source [Melillo,
p 454] [Schimel 94, p 47, 55] [Schimel 95, p 79] [Siegenthaler].

* Most "new" CO2 comes from the Northern Hemisphere. Measurements
in Antarctica show that Southern Hemisphere CO2 level lags behind
by 1 to 2 years, which reflects the interhemispheric mixing time.
The ppmv-amount of the lag at a given time has increased according
to increasing anthropogenic CO2 emissions. [Schimel 94, p 43]
[Siegenthaler]

* Fossil fuels contain practically no carbon 14 (14C) and less carbon
13 (13C) than air. CO2 coming from fossil fuels should show up in
the trends of 13C and 14C. Indeed, the observed isotopic trends
fit CO2 emissions from fossil fuels. The trends are not compatible
with a dominant CO2 source in the terrestrial biosphere or in the
ocean. If you shun details, please skip the next two paragraphs.

* The unstable carbon isotope 14C or radiocarbon makes up for roughly
1 in 10**12 carbon atoms in earth's atmosphere. 14C has a half-life
of about 5700 years. The stock is replenished in the upper atmosphere
by a nuclear reaction involving cosmic rays and 14N [Butcher,
p 240-241]. Fossil fuels contain no 14C, as it decayed long ago.
Burning fossil fuels should lower the atmospheric 14C fraction (the
`Suess effect'). Indeed, atmospheric 14C, measured on tree rings,
dropped by 2 to 2.5 % from about 1850 to 1954, when nuclear bomb
tests started to inject 14C into the atmosphere [Butcher, p 256-257]
[Schimel 95, p 82]. This 14C decline cannot be explained by a CO2
source in the terrestrial vegetation or soils.

* The stable isotope 13C amounts to a bit over 1 % of earth's carbon,
almost 99 % is ordinary 12C [Butcher, p 240]. Fossil fuels contain
less 13C than air, because plants, which once produced the precursors
of the fossilized organic carbon compounds, prefer 12C over 13C in
photosynthesis (rather, they prefer CO2 which contains a 12C atom)
[Butcher, p 86]. Indeed, the 13C fractions in the atmosphere and
ocean surface waters declined over the past decades [Butcher, p 257]
[C.Keeling] [Quay] [Schimel 94, p 42]. This fits a fossil fuel CO2
source and argues against a dominant oceanic CO2 source. Oceanic
carbon has a trifle more 13C than atmospheric carbon, but 13CO2 is
heavier and less volatile than 12CO2, thus CO2 degassed from the
ocean has a 13C fraction close to that of atmospheric CO2 [Butcher,
p 86] [Heimann]. How then should an oceanic CO2 source cause
a simultaneous drop of 13C in both the atmosphere and ocean ?

Overall, a natural disturbance causing the recent CO2 rise is
extremely unlikely.


***************************************

josh halpern

Joshua Halpern

unread,
Jun 9, 2002, 7:25:12 AM6/9/02
to

I'm not sure that I would say NO (nitric oxide) has NO (none) GWP. It
does have a relatively strong IR absorption, but at fairly high
frequency
where there is little thermal emission from the atmosphere and earth,
and, as a diatomic, of course there is only one vibrational frequency.
This would make the GWP very small, but not zero.

josh halpern

Joshua Halpern

unread,
Jun 9, 2002, 9:39:18 AM6/9/02
to

John Beardmore wrote:
>
> In article <211be79f.02060...@posting.google.com>, Ian St.
> John <ist...@spamcop.net> writes
> >John Beardmore <woo...@wookie.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
> >news:<Aku2PbV9unA9Ew$+@fatcat.wookie.demon.co.uk>...
> >> In article <z_5M8.199365$GG6.16...@news3.calgary.shaw.ca>, Joe Blaine
> >> <an...@anon.com> writes
> >> >Could someone please identify the true global warming gases and why? Me and
> >> >a drinking buddy were arguing about which was which.
> >> And while we are at it, what in the IPCC methodology, is the difference
> >> between direct and indirect greenhouse gases ?

> >http://www.ipcc.ch/pub/tar/wg1/247.htm


> >
> >Direct greenhouse gas are as expected, those which have a Global
> >Warming Potential due to their persistence and ability to capture IR
> >emissions.
>
> OK.
> Now what (in as much detail as you like !) do you mean by capture ?
>
> Absorb ?

The photon is absorbed. Its energy is transformed into vibrational
energy in the molecule. This can be distributed over vibrational
modes either by collisional or intramolecular processes. Eventually
the molecule sheds the energy either by emitting an IR photon, or
in a collision transfers the energy to kinetic energy. The
collisional rates are such that the distribution of energy
may be treated as occuring in a local thermodynamic equilibrium.

josh halpern

Joshua Halpern

unread,
Jun 9, 2002, 1:00:16 PM6/9/02
to

Tumbleweed wrote:
>
> "Richard Henry" <rph...@home.com> wrote
> > "Tumbleweed" <from...@mysockstumbleweed.freeserve.co.uk> wrote

> > > "Richard Henry" <rph...@home.com> wrote in message

SNIP....


> > Contrary to popular belief?
> > I guess if you are going to disagree, that provides proof of your

> > statementof "no agreed start to summer".


> >
> yep, most people believe there is an official start to Summer, but not
> everyone knows what that is, and for those that do 'know', they disagree
> what it is :-)
>
> I always used to think 21st or 22nd but the BBC meteorologists say no, they
> use JJA for convenience but there isnt an actual definition that is agreed.

Actually English summer is scheduled for August 4 this year, at
least that has been my experience.

josh halpern

Torsten Brinch

unread,
Jun 10, 2002, 5:20:56 AM6/10/02
to
On Mon, 10 Jun 2002 08:47:52 +0100, "Tumbleweed"
<from...@mysockstumbleweed.freeserve.co.uk> wrote:


>"Michelle Fulton" <mhful...@prodigy.net> wrote in message
>news:RqTM8.4588$KS1.14...@newssvr17.news.prodigy.com...
>>
>> "Tumbleweed" <from...@mysockstumbleweed.freeserve.co.uk> wrote in message
>> news:advook$oq3$1...@news7.svr.pol.co.uk...
>> >
>> >
>> > "Michelle Fulton" <mhful...@prodigy.net> wrote in message
>> > news:FXvM8.2242$SA7.88...@newssvr15.news.prodigy.com...

>> > > I don't care what anybody says.....summer starts in May and ends in
>> > > October.....here in Texas......and winter lasts from January to
>> > > February. The other seasons just kinda blend in.
>> > > Michelle

>> > I can certainly remember ice in Dallas in about March or April one year.
>> > Almost no one was driving, everyone stayed at home. As a British friend
>> > of mine working there said; "Texans can only handle ice in their drinks".
>> > :-)

>> Yes, mostly true, but unfortunately it's the most prevailent "winter"
>> precipitation we get here. I guess because of humidity, I'm not sure. I
>> like snow a lot better; it's more fun and easier to drive on.
>> You must have been on earth longer than I. At the very extreme, and I've
>> never seen it, it might freeze in early March, but it would be something
>> like hell freezing for Texas to freeze in April ;-)
>> M

>Was one of those 'ice storms' when it rains and then freezes. Was gone by
>the afternoon.And it was some time ago, so I could well be wrong about it
>being APril.

Could it be the 4-5 March 2002 event you are thinking of?

Best regards,

Torsten Brinch

Tumbleweed

unread,
Jun 10, 2002, 11:13:03 AM6/10/02
to

"Joshua Halpern" <jhal...@neteze.com> wrote in message
news:3D03899F...@neteze.com...

Unlikely. I am having a new fence put in that week, so I can guarantee it
will piss down the entire week.

Ian St. John

unread,
Jun 10, 2002, 12:15:31 PM6/10/02
to
"Joe Blaine" <an...@anon.com> wrote in message news:<I2XM8.120345$Ka.85...@news2.calgary.shaw.ca>...

> "Ian St. John" <ist...@spamcop.net> wrote
>
> > My understanding of the process is that they absorb IR photons, and
> > then reemit them in a random direction. This reduces the rate at which
> > IR radiation from the Earth can get out into space and be free at
> > last...
>
> I think you (and the whole greenhouse crowd) are focusing incorrectly on
> radiation effects. The absorption IR photons is part of a process known as
> 'thermal equilibration'. Thermal equilibration involves the exchange of
> energy between radiation and the kinetic energy of gases. Radiation of
> thermal energy only becomes dominant in a near vacuum. In the lower
> atmosphere, radiant thermal energy is quickly absorbed and heats up the air.
> Hot air rises. When hot air rises in the atmosphere it is cooled by a
> process called adiabatic expansion. This process of adiabatic cooling is
> responsible for the well known temperature lapse rate of 6.5 C per Km
> altitude. Try to explain the 'temperature lapse rate' in terms of the
> 'greenhouse effect'. You can't.

The temperature lapse rate is a function of the *equilibrium* of the
thermal processes of conduction, convection, and radiation. Conduction
is too slow to matter much. Convection is determined somewhat by
terrain and weather processes. For example, an inversion layer stops
convection, while a thunderstorm can force it to higher altitude. As
Thomas points out, there are windows in the IR band which are
relatively open and allow that frequency of IR to escape relatively
unimpeded.

Adiabatic expansion changes the temperature for a volume of gas when
it *changes* altitude. It is not the same as the equilibrium at that
altitude. It is consistent with but not exactly the same as the lapse
rate since there are changes to moisture content as well. It *must* be
consistent with lapse rate to the degree that represents forces in
equilibrium, but every severe storm is an example of the fact that the
lapse rate and adiabatic expansion are not the same thing.

The lapse rate stays pretty much the same under GW conditions, as it
must in order to keep equilibrium between the layers of the
atmosphere. But the radiative equilibrium point moves upward. This is
not significantly affected by convection or conduction. We thus get a
longer path with the same lapse rate and thus a higher endpoint (
surface ).

>
> The problem with the greenhouse crowd is an almost religious attachment to a
> false metaphor. The atmosphere is not like a greenhouse. The atmosphere is a
> fluid.

The problem is the religious vigor by which the anti-science crowd try
their hand at denial of the science. You have presented a high school
level view of a mixed bag of partial understandings. I suggest a
remedial course at www.ipcc.ch and especially look into the scientific
basis.

>
> You may think you have done humanity a favour by using your belief in a
> false metaphor to predict disaster in one hundred years.

You use false logic. A metaphor does not predict GW or ACC. A
scientist predicts GW or ACC. The use of a metaphor in simplifying the
science to the layman is irrelevant.

> But who can believe
> you if you haven't got the science right?

Who can believe you when you cannot even make logical sense?

> Why should anybody believe the
> predictions of your computer programs when you don't have the science right?

And who says the science is not right? You???? BTW, your emphasis on
'predictions of computer programs' indicates another level of error.
The basis of GW is the weather station data, and some well established
physics.

Joshua Halpern

unread,
Jun 10, 2002, 4:26:43 PM6/10/02
to

Joe Blaine wrote:
> "Ian St. John" <ist...@spamcop.net> wrote
> > My understanding of the process is that they absorb IR photons, and
> > then reemit them in a random direction. This reduces the rate at which
> > IR radiation from the Earth can get out into space and be free at
> > last...
>
> I think you (and the whole greenhouse crowd) are focusing incorrectly on
> radiation effects. The absorption IR photons is part of a process known as
> 'thermal equilibration'. Thermal equilibration involves the exchange of
> energy between radiation and the kinetic energy of gases. Radiation of
> thermal energy only becomes dominant in a near vacuum.

Look up the term "local thermodynamnic equilibrium. Note that this
means that the average population of an excited vibrational state is
given by N(v)= N exp(-Ev/kT) where N(v) is the total number of such
molecules, Ev is the energy of the vibrationally excited state and
T the temperature. k is Boltzmann's constant. In useful units, the
CO2 bend is about 600 cm-1, kT is about 200 cm-1 at the surface of
the earth. Work out the average vibrational population of CO2. Oh
yes, the bend is two fold degenerate, so multiply that by 2.

> In the lower
> atmosphere, radiant thermal energy is quickly absorbed and heats up the air.
> Hot air rises. When hot air rises in the atmosphere it is cooled by a
> process called adiabatic expansion. This process of adiabatic cooling is
> responsible for the well known temperature lapse rate of 6.5 C per Km
> altitude. Try to explain the 'temperature lapse rate' in terms of the
> 'greenhouse effect'. You can't.

Wrong. You have the order wrong. To recycle an old post.
(Google is SO useful)

Convection accounts for about 24 W/m2 from the surface, evaporation
about 78, and thermal radiation about 390 W/m2.

http://irina.colorado.edu/Lec_5560_Pdf/Lecture-24.pdf

On page 3, you will see an illustration of the Earth's
radiation balance. From that, you can see that the balance is

From sun: 342 W/m2
Reflected by clouds 77 W/M2 leaving 265 W/m2
Reflected by surface 30 W/M2 leaving 235 W/m2

Absorbed in atomsphere 67 W/m2
Absorbed by surface 168 W/m2
Total absorbed 235 W/m2

Now since there is a radiative balance, 235 W/m2 have to leave
the earth, and they have to leave the earth as longwave, IR,
radiation (convection and conduction don't work in the vacuum
of space). So we need to have 235 W/m2 leaving the top of the
atmosphere. Of that 235 W/m2, about 40 sneaks through all
of the atmospheric absorptions, scatterings, etc, directly
from the surface to space.

(New Note: This is not quite true. The Earth is currently
NOT in radiative balance, the difference is going to heat
the ocean).

The surface emits 390 W/m2, of which the 40 make it to space
directly, so 350 W/m2 are absorbed in the atmosphere by
greenhouse gases, principally water vapor and CO2, but
including such things as CH4, CFCs, etc.

Convection carries 24 W/m2 from the surface, and latent
heat from the condensation of water vapor in clouds removes
about 78 W/m2 from the surface. The mechanism is as
Blaine describes, but he neglects the role of radiation.
Sorry, you can't do that.

324 W/m2 of energy are radiated back to the surface from thermally
excited greenhouse molecules. BTW they get a (small) part of their
thermal energy from convection and latent heat

All of this too and fro of energy, heats the top of the atmosphere,
until it is at a temperature hot enough that it can radiate 195 W/m2

Obviously, that much energy is not transferred by convection,
even including the latent heat contribution.

Another amusing thing that Joe neglected to mention, is that
as air rises by convection it cools because of expansion
(atmospheric pressure decreases with altitude) This limits
the amount of energy that can be transferred by convection
from the hotter regions low down to colder high altitude
volumes.

When all about you are running around,
Screaming and shouting,
Any you are calm and cool.
Maybe there is something you don't know?
\
josh halpern

Fred Kasner

unread,
Jun 10, 2002, 5:30:00 PM6/10/02
to Joe Blaine
Joe Blaine wrote:

I am not a believer in the global warming hypothesis. I generally
believe that the forces of nature are so large that man's puny attempts
do not significantly affect the natural forces.

However I find you appear to base your opposition on the most specious
of claims. The atmosphere whether contained or free is a fluid. Why?
Because a fluid is either of the two non-condensed phases: a gas or a
liquid. Perhaps even a plasma might be properly considered a fluid.
Even a supercritical phase is really a fluid.

Also ( post that was returned to me concerning you earlier claim) the
water in the atmosphere is not something impermanent. Just consider the
photos taken from space of the surface of the Earth. It is almost
completely covered with all that white stuff. That white stuff is clouds
and that is condensed phase of water it is liquid water in fine droplet
condition. It is NOT a gas and most of the Earth is covered by it
according to pictures I have seen. It is one of the reasons that we
sometimes refer to the Earth as the water planet.

FK

j...@watson.ibm.com

unread,
Jun 10, 2002, 6:11:36 PM6/10/02
to
In article <3D050B61...@neteze.com>,
on Mon, 10 Jun 2002 22:26:43 +0200,
Joshua Halpern <jhal...@neteze.com> writes:

<snip>

>Convection accounts for about 24 W/m2 from the surface, evaporation
>about 78, and thermal radiation about 390 W/m2.

You are giving the gross figures. Net thermal radiation
accounts for 66 W/m2 which is less impressive.

<snip>

>Another amusing thing that Joe neglected to mention, is that
>as air rises by convection it cools because of expansion
>(atmospheric pressure decreases with altitude) This limits
>the amount of energy that can be transferred by convection
>from the hotter regions low down to colder high altitude
>volumes.

I don't what you are trying to say here. Convection does
not start until the temperature gradient in the atmosphere exceeds
the rate at which rising air cools because of expansion. However
once this point is reached convection can move an effectively
unlimited amount of heat, enough to prevent the atmosphere from ever
sustaining a significantly greater temperature gradient.
James B. Shearer

Michelle Fulton

unread,
Jun 10, 2002, 7:55:04 PM6/10/02
to

"Torsten Brinch" <ia...@inet.uni2.dk> wrote in message
news:3mr8gusnrmf8apmgu...@4ax.com...

Did we have ice in March of this year? How quickly we forget...once the
heat has set in...

M


> Best regards,
>
> Torsten Brinch


Michelle Fulton

unread,
Jun 10, 2002, 7:56:05 PM6/10/02
to

"Tumbleweed" <from...@mysockstumbleweed.freeserve.co.uk> wrote in message
news:ae2ft5$ve0$1...@news5.svr.pol.co.uk...

Isn't that the way it always is????!!!

M ;-)

Daniel B. Wheeler

unread,
Jun 11, 2002, 2:31:11 AM6/11/02
to
"Joe Blaine" <an...@anon.com> wrote in message news:<wgqM8.204965$GG6.16...@news3.calgary.shaw.ca>...
> "Ian St. John" <ist...@spamcop.net> wrote in message
> news:211be79f.02060...@posting.google.com...

> > "Joe Blaine" <an...@anon.com> wrote in message
> news:<297M8.201087$xS2.15...@news1.calgary.shaw.ca>...
> > > "Uncle Al" <Uncl...@hate.spam.net> wrote in message
> > > news:3D00EF45...@hate.spam.net...

> > > > Joe Blaine wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > Could someone please identify the true global warming gases and
> > > > > why? Me and a drinking buddy were arguing about which was which.
> > > >
> > > > The major greenhouse effect gas is water vapor. Check out a CRC
> > > > Handbook, Seciton 14, for its atmospheric opacity to IR.
> > > > Hydrochlorofluorocarbons are huge Greenhouse Effect forcing gases,
> > > > freons are small. Then we have very minor compoents (no permanent
> > > > dipole moment in the molecule) like CO2 and SF6.
> > >
> > > So if water vapour is the major global warming gas and CO2 a minor
> trouble
> > > maker, why not solve the problem of global warming by giving huge tax
> > > incentives to the manufacturers of dehumidifiers so they can increase
> > > production?
> >
> > I am not sure if you are trying to be funny? A smiley would have
> > clarified that.
> >
> > I'd like to point out to Uncle Al, that you asked for the 'Global
> > Warming' gases and not 'Greenhouse Effect' gases. As a percentage of
> > the current GHE, water vapor forms the largest single contributor. But
> > it is NOT a 'global warming' gas.
> >
> > That is because water vapor is of very low 'persistence'. The water
> > that evaporated today will be rained out in short order, and the level
> > of GHE from water vapor is a function of the temperature, not a
> > contributor to it.
> >
> > This is good! Otherwise, we would have a 'runaway greenhouse' and turn
> > into Venuslike conditions.
> >
> > As can be seen at http://www.ipcc.ch/pub/spm22-01.pdf page 8, the
> > major *Global Warming* gas ( Greenhouse gas with long and
> > non-temperature dependent persistence ) is CO2.
> >
> > But since CO2 increases increase the temperature, water vapor also
> > increases amplifying the GW from CO2 increase by about 2.5 times, so
> > an increase purely dependent on CO2 of .4 degrees will actually cause
> > a warming of 1 degree under current conditions.
> >
> > This 'positive feedback response' due to changes in the hydrological
> > cycle is referred to as the 'climate sensitivity' in the literature.
>
> Thanks for the clarification.

>
> Up here in the Pacific Northwest we're having the coldest summer on record.
> Mean daily temperatures are about 5 degrees below normal, but the extremes!
> We had snow at sea level in May.
>
> We could use some more of those global warming gases up here.
I'd _much rather_ have the cooler temperatures (we haven't reached
summer yet, btw) than the extreme warm temperatures the PNW had in
1987-89.

As for snow at sea level in May...read some more about the Vanport,
Oregon Flood of Memorial Day, 1948 (I believe). Snow pack was
tremendous in the Cascades until May 31, when a Chinook wind took the
average air temperature from 40's and low 50's with a lot of snow
still on the ground to the upper 80's, unleashing a sudden melt of
water that inundated the second largest city in Oregon and
obliterating it in a few hours.

Getting back to gw and temperature changes, it is to be expected that
warm weather in some parts of the globe will mean cooler weather in
others. The key is that *average* temperatures have risen over the
past 20 years. That means not just in Washington, but in Washington DC
and Calcutta, India.

Daniel B. Wheeler
www.oregonwhitetruffles.com

Torsten Brinch

unread,
Jun 11, 2002, 6:19:11 AM6/11/02
to

Yes, that's true. We remember cold and warm events distinctly,
but when... that gets quickly in the blur.

"March 4, 2002 — A deadly Arctic blast dropped temperatures over the
weekend to the teens in southern Texas <..> according to NOAA's
National Weather Service. The Arctic air plunged south across the
central states to the Gulf of Mexico and combined with moisture to
cover the area with ice and snow. The storm was blamed for 23 deaths.
Local National Weather Service forecast offices had warned early last
week of impending ice and snow storms across much of the central
United States.<..> Early Saturday, the storm covered Texas with a
layer of sleet, snow and freezing rain and dropped temperatures into
the single digits in southern states. Low temperatures in northern
states plunged below zero and snowfall amounts of six-12 inches were
common. Snow and freezing rain forced cancellation of about 100
flights Saturday at Dallas-Fort Worth Airport.<snip>"


Best regards,

Torsten Brinch

David Ball

unread,
Jun 11, 2002, 1:12:46 PM6/11/02
to
On Sat, 08 Jun 2002 16:28:12 GMT, "Joe Blaine" <an...@anon.com> wrote:


>
>Up here in the Pacific Northwest we're having the coldest summer on record.
>Mean daily temperatures are about 5 degrees below normal, but the extremes!
>We had snow at sea level in May.

As someone has already pointed out, summer hasn't started yet.
For the past 90 days, temperatures trends are...

Quillayute: -0.91C
Seattle: -0.28C
Yakima: -0.31C
Spokane: -1.28C

Cooler than normal, but certainly not 5C cooler.

Joshua Halpern

unread,
Jun 11, 2002, 7:50:27 PM6/11/02
to

j...@watson.ibm.com wrote:
>
> In article <3D050B61...@neteze.com>,
> on Mon, 10 Jun 2002 22:26:43 +0200,
> Joshua Halpern <jhal...@neteze.com> writes:
>
> <snip>
>
> > Convection accounts for about 24 W/m2 from the surface,
> > evaporation about 78, and thermal radiation about 390 W/m2.
>
> You are giving the gross figures. Net thermal radiation
> accounts for 66 W/m2 which is less impressive.

I'm giving the gross figures for ALL of the relevant
processes, including solar input. Thermal radiation
moves energy both upwards and downwards, and sideways
as well. The original claim was that convection
explains it all. Even if you net out the thermal
radiation, it is still about 2.5 times larger than
convection. On the other hand, to be consistant,
if you want to look at nets, then you should
balance convection and evaporation which is the
primary driver for convection.

> <snip>
> >Another amusing thing that Joe neglected to mention, is that
> >as air rises by convection it cools because of expansion
> >(atmospheric pressure decreases with altitude) This limits
> >the amount of energy that can be transferred by convection
> >from the hotter regions low down to colder high altitude
> >volumes.
>
> I don't what you are trying to say here. Convection does
> not start until the temperature gradient in the atmosphere exceeds
> the rate at which rising air cools because of expansion. However
> once this point is reached convection can move an effectively
> unlimited amount of heat, enough to prevent the atmosphere from ever
> sustaining a significantly greater temperature gradient.

The connection is that evaporation is the primary
driving force for convection. Convection cannot
move unlimited amounts of energy, it can only move
enough energy to partially compensate for temperature
differences induced by other processes beyond the
normal lapse rate.

josh halpern

Gordon Couger

unread,
Jun 12, 2002, 12:27:35 AM6/12/02
to

"Torsten Brinch" <ia...@inet.uni2.dk> wrote in message
news:ptibgus1r735h8tca...@4ax.com...

> On Mon, 10 Jun 2002 23:55:04 GMT, "Michelle Fulton"
> <mhful...@prodigy.net> wrote:
>
> >
> >"Torsten Brinch" <ia...@inet.uni2.dk> wrote in message
> >news:3mr8gusnrmf8apmgu...@4ax.com...
> >> On Mon, 10 Jun 2002 08:47:52 +0100, "Tumbleweed"
> >> <from...@mysockstumbleweed.freeserve.co.uk> wrote:
>
> >> >Was one of those 'ice storms' when it rains and then freezes. Was gone
by
> >> >the afternoon.And it was some time ago, so I could well be wrong about
it
> >> >being APril.
> >>
> >> Could it be the 4-5 March 2002 event you are thinking of?
> >>
> >
> >Did we have ice in March of this year? How quickly we forget...once the
> >heat has set in...
>
> Yes, that's true. We remember cold and warm events distinctly,
> but when... that gets quickly in the blur.
>
> "March 4, 2002 - A deadly Arctic blast dropped temperatures over the

> weekend to the teens in southern Texas <..> according to NOAA's
> National Weather Service. The Arctic air plunged south across the
> central states to the Gulf of Mexico and combined with moisture to
> cover the area with ice and snow. The storm was blamed for 23 deaths.
> Local National Weather Service forecast offices had warned early last
> week of impending ice and snow storms across much of the central
> United States.<..> Early Saturday, the storm covered Texas with a
> layer of sleet, snow and freezing rain and dropped temperatures into
> the single digits in southern states. Low temperatures in northern
> states plunged below zero and snowfall amounts of six-12 inches were
> common. Snow and freezing rain forced cancellation of about 100
> flights Saturday at Dallas-Fort Worth Airport.<snip>"
>
>
That's what we call a blue norther. The last few years they have not been as
bad as usual. In fact I don't even remeber this one when it came through
here since it was dry when it came through here. They cause trouble when the
cold air and moisture come togeater as they did in Texas. Ice storms are
infrequent in south Texas and people aren't prepared for them and don't know
how to drive on ice. Ice storms in Dallas happen about once every 5 to 10
years.

Most of the deaths were in the northern part of the country and are a common
happening with any really cold spell. Fires, carbon monoxide, exposure, and
auto acidents make up most of the deaths. The elderly are the most common
victims.

That wasn't near as bad here as the ice storm
http://www.srh.noaa.gov/oun/storms/20020129/ a month earlier that left parts
of Oklahoma out of electricity for as much as 6 weeks. That was caused by
Pacific moisture and an Artic front all coiming togeater and just staying in
place for a couple of days with moisture from the jet stream falling through
the relitivly thin layer of artic air over Oklahoma.


http://www.srh.noaa.gov/oun/storms/index.html is list of Oklahoma storms. I
was involed with the 1979, October 4, 1998, April 5 1999, May 3, 1999 storms
in the storm spotting network. This year has had a great deal less tornadoes
than usual. I am an amatuer radio operator and involved with the storm watch
nets. It gives a very up close view of the storms.

The weather on and near the Great Plains that run up and down the center of
the Unitied States can be very violent and extreem. It is triggered by large
temperture differeces and moisture that can be drawn up from the Gulf of
Mexico, or ride the jet stream in from the Pacific. I have seen winter
storms in May, thunder storms that dropped hail and snow and tornados in
every month of the year. That is one of the reasons that the headquarters
for the national weather service is in Norman Oklahoma so they can get to
storms to observe them as they are building and validate their radar images
with real world sightings. They do an excelent job of forcasting a warning
of adverse weather events.

Observations from one place, season or year don't have any meaning to the
trend of the climate. Extreme weather either cold, hot, more or less storms
could all be the result of global warming.
The weather is a chaotic system and a single observation has very little
relation to the whole or the ability to predict the future. The weather
appears to be bound by upper and lower bounds and stay with in those bounds.

One plausible out come of global warming is a sudden change in those bounds
either broadening or jumping to a new range. Global change may not be a
linear path.
--
Gordon

Gordon Couger
Stillwater, OK
www.couger.com/gcouger


Scott Douglas

unread,
Jun 12, 2002, 5:55:08 AM6/12/02
to
"Joe Blaine" <an...@anon.com> wrote in
> So if water vapour is the major global warming gas and CO2 a minor
> trouble maker, why not solve the problem of global warming by giving
> huge tax incentives to the manufacturers of dehumidifiers so they can
> increase production?

That would be an acceptable solution if water could be removed fast enough.
Unfortunately you need to compete against the combined surface area of all
of the worlds oceans in order to do that. And they constitute 2/3rds of
the earth's surface.

So if you have a design for an efficient dehumidifier that can extract
water from the air as rapidly as it can evaporate from the oceans, and do
so without consuming bagillions of gigawatts of power, you have a plan.

But unless you can extract water much faster than it can evaporate, you are
going to need to build enough dehumidifier surface that it is larger than
the combined surface area of the worlds oceans.

How do you plan to do that Mr. Blaine?

The simple fact of the matter, is that water vapour represents the primary
feedback mechanism of the warming atmosphere.

By adding more Co2, you get a small increase in temperature. That increase
allows the atmosphere to hold more water, which in turn causes a greater
increase in temperature and still more heating, and so on.

The process is self limiting. The IPCC places the self limiting limit of a
doubling of the content of the Co2 content of the atmosphere to be several
to around 10'C warming.

Scott Douglas

unread,
Jun 12, 2002, 5:56:43 AM6/12/02
to
"Tumbleweed" <from...@mysockstumbleweed.freeserve.co.uk> wrote in
> Contrary to popular belief there is no agreed start to summer. Some
> have it at June 1 , others at 21 or 22. Though even if June 1 is the
> start, it seems a bit early to be calling for the records to be
> broken, there are still another 3 months minus 8 days to go!

The official definition of the first point of summer is the time when the
sun reaches it's maximum distance north of the equator.


Fred Kasner

unread,
Jun 12, 2002, 6:36:16 PM6/12/02
to Scott Douglas
Scott Douglas wrote:

The vernal equinox and the summer solstice etc. are well defined
astronomical terms. The calendar choice of beginning of summer is the
astronomically defined summer solstice. However for weather purposes the
meteorological summer beginning is June 1. Most of the confusions are
the result of localized conditions of when the greatest heating occurs.
That will also depend on the locale. There is a considerable lag
between the date of the greatest elevation of Sun above the southern
horizon (northern for the southern hemisphere). In regions of
continental climate the hottest time tends to be about a month later.
Above the oceans that time tends to be about two months later. Local
weather effects like monsoons tend to confuse irrevocably when summer
really begins. The astronomers find no confusion in such matters.
FK

j...@watson.ibm.com

unread,
Jun 12, 2002, 8:56:40 PM6/12/02
to
In article <3D068CB6...@neteze.com>,
on Wed, 12 Jun 2002 01:50:27 +0200,

Joshua Halpern <jhal...@neteze.com> writes:
>
>
>j...@watson.ibm.com wrote:
>>
>> In article <3D050B61...@neteze.com>,
>> on Mon, 10 Jun 2002 22:26:43 +0200,
>> Joshua Halpern <jhal...@neteze.com> writes:
>>
>> <snip>
>>
>> > Convection accounts for about 24 W/m2 from the surface,
>> > evaporation about 78, and thermal radiation about 390 W/m2.
>>
>> You are giving the gross figures. Net thermal radiation
>> accounts for 66 W/m2 which is less impressive.
>
>I'm giving the gross figures for ALL of the relevant
>processes, including solar input. Thermal radiation
>moves energy both upwards and downwards, and sideways
>as well. The original claim was that convection
>explains it all. Even if you net out the thermal
>radiation, it is still about 2.5 times larger than
>convection. On the other hand, to be consistant,
>if you want to look at nets, then you should
>balance convection and evaporation which is the
>primary driver for convection.

Evaporation should be included in convection since it is the
convection of moist air which moves the energy away from the surface.
It is true that convection starts in moist (saturated) air at a lower
temperature gradient than in dry air. This is because as a rising
parcel of air cools water condenses out releasing heat slowing the
cooling. So moist air becomes unstable with respect to convection
at a lower temperature gradient than dry air.

>> <snip>
>> >Another amusing thing that Joe neglected to mention, is that
>> >as air rises by convection it cools because of expansion
>> >(atmospheric pressure decreases with altitude) This limits
>> >the amount of energy that can be transferred by convection
>> >from the hotter regions low down to colder high altitude
>> >volumes.
>>
>> I don't what you are trying to say here. Convection does
>> not start until the temperature gradient in the atmosphere exceeds
>> the rate at which rising air cools because of expansion. However
>> once this point is reached convection can move an effectively
>> unlimited amount of heat, enough to prevent the atmosphere from ever
>> sustaining a significantly greater temperature gradient.
>
>The connection is that evaporation is the primary
>driving force for convection. Convection cannot
>move unlimited amounts of energy, it can only move
>enough energy to partially compensate for temperature
>differences induced by other processes beyond the
>normal lapse rate.

What is the limit on the energy that convection can move?
A limit much larger than the solar input is effectively infinite.
James B. Shearer

Joshua Halpern

unread,
Jun 13, 2002, 4:29:39 AM6/13/02
to

Where
j...@watson.ibm.com wrote:
and
> Joshua Halpern <jhal...@neteze.com> writes:
furiously agree

> >j...@watson.ibm.com wrote:
> >> Joshua Halpern <jhal...@neteze.com> writes:
> >> <snip>
> >> > Convection accounts for about 24 W/m2 from the surface,
> >> > evaporation about 78, and thermal radiation about 390 W/m2.
> >>
> >> You are giving the gross figures. Net thermal radiation
> >> accounts for 66 W/m2 which is less impressive.
> >
> >I'm giving the gross figures for ALL of the relevant
> >processes, including solar input. Thermal radiation
> >moves energy both upwards and downwards, and sideways
> >as well. The original claim was that convection
> >explains it all. Even if you net out the thermal
> >radiation, it is still about 2.5 times larger than
> >convection. On the other hand, to be consistant,
> >if you want to look at nets, then you should
> >balance convection and evaporation which is the
> >primary driver for convection.
>
> Evaporation should be included in convection since it is the
> convection of moist air which moves the energy away from the surface.

Which is also why the role of convection decreases with altitude
as the atmosphere drys. This thought, however, opens up the
idea that as the stratosphere gets wetter through methane
photolysis, convection may play a greater role, ie a new
mechanism of climate disruption.

For convection it is a LOT smaller than that and nowhere near
infinite, even on your definition. Convection (and evaporation)
move heat away from the surface.

josh halpern

Scott Douglas

unread,
Jun 15, 2002, 7:49:13 AM6/15/02
to
Fred Kasner <fka...@enteract.com> wrote in
> The astronomers find no confusion in such matters.>

Perhaps that's why I'm not confused.

Scott Douglas

unread,
Jun 15, 2002, 7:54:47 AM6/15/02
to
"Joe Blaine" <an...@anon.com> wrote in
> The problem with the greenhouse crowd is an almost religious
> attachment to a false metaphor. The atmosphere is not like a
> greenhouse. The atmosphere is a fluid.

Yup, the atmosphere is a fluid - but then again, so is the glass that
makes up a greenhouse.

The fact is, adding Co2 to the atmosphere further closes the radiative
"window" that the earth employs to radiate away surface heat.

The term "window" by the way, is the scientifically correct term to use.

Window.... Greenhouse???? Do I see another similarity?

"Joe Blaine" <an...@anon.com> wrote in

> You may think you have done humanity a favour by using your belief in
> a false metaphor to predict disaster in one hundred years. But who can
> believe you if you haven't got the science right?

What does metaphor have to do with science Joe?

The metaphor is for the benefit of the scientifically illiterate. A means
of explaining science to unthinking apes who don't know the difference
between science and metaphor.

Daniel B. Wheeler

unread,
Jun 15, 2002, 2:41:55 PM6/15/02
to
wra...@mb.sympatico.ca (David Ball) wrote in message news:<3d062edd...@news.escape.ca>...

And, of course, the original post was before the latest heatwave which
included 2 new warmest temperatures ever in Portland, Oregon during
the last 4 days. Personally, I'm glad clouds rolled back in yesterday
and today. And I'm _very_ grateful we haven't had the heat responsible
for over 100 fatalities in India during the last month.

Sometimes cooler than expected temperatures can be nice...

Daniel B. Wheeler
www.oregonwhitetruffles.com

B

unread,
Jun 19, 2002, 12:00:14 AM6/19/02
to
aaa
"TellTheTruth" <tellth...@every.turn> wrote in message
news:VDqM8.29965$UT.20...@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
> Here are some numbers:
>
> Nitrogen N2 78.08%
> Oxygen O2 20.95%
> *Water H2O 0 to 4%
> Argon Ar 0.93%
> *Carbon Dioxide CO2 0.0360%
> Neon Ne 0.0018%
> Helium He 0.0005%
> *Methane CH4 0.00017%
> Hydrogen H2 0.00005%
> *Nitrous Oxide N2O 0.00003%
> *Ozone O3 0.000004%
>
> * variable gases
>
>
>
>
> "Robert Grumbine" <bo...@radix.net> wrote in message
> news:adqtff$8fq$3...@news1.Radix.Net...
> > In article <z_5M8.199365$GG6.16...@news3.calgary.shaw.ca>,

> > Joe Blaine <an...@anon.com> wrote:
> > >Could someone please identify the true global warming gases and why? Me
> and
> > >a drinking buddy were arguing about which was which.
> >
> > Pretty much any gas whose molecule has 3 or more atoms is a greenhouse
> > gas. The most common greenhouse gases are:
> > Water Vapor - H2O
> > Carbon Dioxide - CO2
> > Ozone - O3
> > Others include: N2O, CH4, ...
> > Chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs) are very strong greenhouse gases,
> >
> > Carbon Dioxide, N2O, CH4, and CFCs are strongly influenced by
> > human activity. There are FAQs regarding the growth of CO2 and CH4
> (methane)
> > at my web side (nice articles by Jan Schloerer) and a Climate Change
> Basics
> > article, also by Jan. You might also find some of the 'short notes'
> helpful.
> >
> > http://www.radix.net/~bobg/
> >
> > --
> > Robert Grumbine http://www.radix.net/~bobg/ Science faqs and amateur
> activities notes and links.
> > Sagredo (Galileo Galilei) "You present these recondite matters with too
> much
> > evidence and ease; this great facility makes them less appreciated than
> they
> > would be had they been presented in a more abstruse manner." Two New
> Sciences
>
>