Globally averaged atmospheric methane in 2009 was 1803 parts per billion
http://www.reportingclimatescience.com/
Wow! 1.8 ppm CH4 is causing 20% of the greenhouse effect. Those are powerful molecules.
Let’s do the math :
90% H2O and clouds
30% CO2
20% CH4
So far we have accounted for 140% of the greenhouse effect. Ain’t climate science grand?
“..is thought to..”
ie, sounds a lot like an opinion, not an observation.
and of course atmospheric methane is increasing as a product of man’s consumption of hydrocarbons….right?
it’s all your fault.
Ban Legumes!!!!
Beans Beans the musical fruit!
and of course atmospheric methane is increasing as a product of man’s consumption of hydrocarbons….right?
No, wrong. The report specifically says that the cause of the increase is unclear:
Rule of thumb: Read first, then comment.
CH4 is primarily the result of biomass decomposition. A warming world speeds op biological activity and that includes decomposition.Maybe the researchers need to better understand Biological contributions to the over biosphere before they make stupid comments.
If they do not know then it would have been wiser to not even attempt to release a paper showing their ignorance.
Mike, they know all that. What’s not clear is why the CH4 concentration was stable from 1996-2006, and then started increasing again in 2007. The report includes some possible causes but concludes that there is insufficient confidence to state a clear attribution.
Did you read the report? Do you feel that such reports should cover only things that are known with confidence and not mention observations that remain to be fully explained, as long as that is made clear (which it obviously is)?
ChrisD:
It was not stable. They just adjusted it to be stable. They use valueless averages to come to some global figure that means nothing.
Probably 95% of the methane in the atmosphere is a result of natural biological activity.
This entire report is a plea for research funds. Anything can be found using the proper statistical methods.
It is statistically significant to a greater than ninety five percentile that your post contribute to the demise of the ACC propaganda among those that read your drivel.
first, it was implied “….owing to exceptionally warm temperatures;”
second, i was being facetious. the article is still extraordinarily misleading, nothing more than CAGW scary headlines
FYI ref the maths…
Don’t shoot the messenger but this is what I think they are saying:
The WMO are referring to the total radiative forcing of greenhouse gases. So the one-fifth (the exact figure is 18.6%) is of the quarter of the forcing that is not due to clouds and water vapour rather than the total radiative forcing. (There is a NASA GISS study from Gavin Schmidt et al that reports that water vapour contributes 50 per cent, clouds 25 per cent and carbon dioxide 20 per cent with the balance coming from other gases and from aerosols. )
See the WMO report for their data – link here:
http://www.wmo.int/pages/mediacentre/press_releases/documents/GHG_bull_6_en.pdf
Here is the link to the NASA paper abstract:
http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2010/2010JD014287.shtml
You are correct. I was about to post the same thing. The percentages are the percentage contributions of the long-lived GHGs. Water vapor should not be included in Steve’s tally.
Methane is very reactive and quickly breaks down in the atmosphere. Nice try.
Remember what happened in San Bruno a few weeks ago?
You’re adding together percentages of different things, Steve. That’s all I said, and it’s as simple as that.
Of the 5% of all ghgs that are not H2O it is thought that 20% can be directly shown to be CH4 and 30% can be shown to be CO2. That leaves 50% other magic gasses.
Good call. Let’s exclude 97% of the greenhouse effect when calculating the greenhouse effect.
You would have to lower the temperature to close to absolute zero to reduce H2O concentration to 390 ppm.
Obfuscate all you want. You added together percentages of different things to arrive at your 140% total.
You won’t admit to even the most obvious of errors, will you?
The idea that you can condense out all of the water vapor in the atmosphere is idiotic. At minus 50 degrees, there is still a lot more water water vapor than CO2.
Stop spamming stupid comments
So, let’s get this straight.
You are not going to admit that you added together percentages of different things to arrive at your 140% total, and instead are trying to wriggle out by simply claiming that any comment that points out this obvious fact is “stupid spam”? Seriously?
You are an idiot and a spammer
No they are not long lived!
You like so many are determined to ignore DECADES of published papers that make the case for short residence times in the atmosphere.
Steve already pointed out the obvious error with Methane.
CO2 is readily soluble in RAIN! Is soluble in ocean waters at standard pressure.And of course plants absorb them as well.
You AGW believers are really dumb.Sucking up on trace gases with very small IR absorption ranges.All the while ignoring the dominant IR absorber with a wide range of absorption frequencies.
It is called Water Vapor.
If you sucked all of the CO2 out of the atmosphere, as a first order effect, downwelling LW radiation would only be reduced by 3% at the ground surface in the tropics.
Just the name of the lead author discredits the paper even without reading it.
Hansen jr is making a reputation for himself.
That’s really no reason to add together percentages of different things and act like some point is being made, is it?
There is really no point in spamming stupid comments.
ChrisD:
This thread just shows the lack of understanding that went into the paper being discussed.
If they are discussing GHGs the authors of the paper should have shown that CH4 contributes 2% of the total GHE if that much!
The error was the so called researchers and Steven is just pointing it out!
You guys are just beyond hope. Steve screwed up and you still try to blame it on the scientists.
90% of all cars in the US are white, gray or green.
30% of all cars in the US are made by GM
So far we have 120% of all cars. Ain’t adding together percentages of different things grand?
(Yes, those are made-up numbers, so don’t bother with disputing them.)
There is really no point in spamming stupid comments
No, there is really no point in adding together percentages of different things, which is a really stupid thing to do.
If you continue to spam, you will be sent to the spam folder.
ChrisD;
Just to make it clear I will quote from the press release:
Methane is thought to contribute around one fifth of the greenhouse gas warming effect.
If H2O is 90 to 97% of the GHE or GHGs then the report itself is a lie.
Steven was pointing that out.
Methane can not contribute one fifth / 20% if H2O contributes 90 to 97%. It is claimed that CO2 also contributes 30%.
If all the contributes are added up we probably get 300% .
Exactly. H2O is far and away the dominant greenhouse gas
Steven:
Here I was being entertained by Chris’ version of reality! 😉
Mike, you know, I know, and Steve knows that these are percentages of different things, and that they can’t be added together. His only defense is to whine about spamming. It’s really quite comical.
So, with a hearty laugh, I am off for a good Thanksgiving with friends & family. Y’all can continue obfuscating and dancing around the issue by yourselves.
Chris,
Nowhere on Earth is it cold enough to bring water vapor down to 390 ppm. Writing off water vapor as a “condensible gas” is just plain bollocks.
ChrisD: gobble, gobble!
ChrisD:
While it is obvious they are talking about all other GHGs beside H2O, They did not make a distinction and by not deliberately separating out H2O they appear to be suffering from CAIS just like you.
CAIS= CrainalAnaIinsertionSyndrome
Maybe the glass cleaners did not stop by their office to clean their belly buttons.
Methane IR absorption rate is so small to really matter much anyway.
2009 5 PPB increase is down from 13 PPB in the early 80s. So what? Is that supposed to make those of us who haven’t crapped our pants over global warming join the ranks of those who already carry their pant filled stench with pride? Is it my imagination or are the crap panted alarmists’ scare tactics getting whimpier and whimpier. What happened to the Methane ticking time bomb mass extinction scare they used in 2004? Now that was professional quality alarmism! This 5 PPB alarmism is limp wristed in comparison.
http://www.energybulletin.net/node/3647
Quoting from the link:
“Methane is thought to contribute around one fifth of the greenhouse gas warming effect.”
That is 20%
“Carbon dioxide contributes around two thirds of the greenhouse gas warming effect.”
That is 66%
Total of those two are 86%
Then we add the others mentioned in the link:
“Other greenhouse gases: The combined radiative forcing by halocarbons is 12%, nearly double that of nitrous oxide.”
12% + 6% = 18% 86% + 18% = 104%
That alone is preposterous.
Methane has negligible IR absorption presence.Water Vapor covers that area well.Not only that,CO2 main band is partly shared with ….. Water Vapor.
Notice that the article does not discuss the most common “greenhouse” gas contribution at all?
They seem to imply that Water Vapor has no greenhouse gas action at all.
The last quote:
“Greenhouse Gases Reach Record Levels WMO Highlights Concerns about Global Warming and Methane”
Record levels? since when?
.
Certainly not in last 500 million years of geologic time.
The report is roaring stupidity!
GARBAGE!
ChrisD,
“Obfuscate all you want. You added together percentages of different things to arrive at your 140% total.
You won’t admit to even the most obvious of errors, will you?”
LOL,
meanwhile you missed the built in error in the article.
It is funny when you do that because it renders your cries in the thread as baloney.
The above article does what so many other stupid articles does.Ignore the dominant role of Water Vapor.
Pathetic.
Water Vapor is from 10,000 to 40,000 ppm.
CO2 is 390 ppm
Methane is 1.8 ppm or 1803 parts per BILLION.
Water Vapor has a large IR absorption range.
CO2 has a tiny IR absorption range.
Methane has negligible IR absorption range.
It should be obvious where this is leading to by now.
LOL
“Let’s do the math :
90% H2O and clouds”
FAIL!
Can you link to any credible science that states that H2O and clouds contribute 90%?
Do any of your readers believe there is? Some seem to and yet would claim skepticism, proving that you really can fool some people all of the time.
That is conservative. In the tropics it is higher than that.
I’m sure you are right and any normal person should be expected to believe you just like your words came from the Messiah, but since I am actually a real skeptic (shame on me you cry) could you possible like to the credible science that supports this belief of yours – thanks in advance.
LAZ:
You have been asleep for a bit if you do not understand that.
Then of course with your condition we should not expect you to understand basic science.
Currently H2O is clearing the air of most other GHGs in my neck of the woods and those pesky particulates that are ignored except when needed to explain what the theory does not explain. With it being past growing season for plants, the ground is cold to reduce decomposition, and it is raining, H2O today will be at a maximum near 97% or better.
LAZ:
You are right about one thing! Nobody knows for sure the exact percentage that H2O in its various forms contributes to the GHE. Commonly the range is somewhere between 90 and 97%. It is possible that in locations with extremely dry air the percentage may be a bit lower and in locations with a lot of Geothermal activity other gases will displace H2O concentrations such as in Long Valley, California or even some areas of Yellowstone. Mount Lassen in California is also a good example of this.
Hmm. Looks to me like the guy asked for links to “credible science,” not the standard RS response, i.e., a repetition of the claim with a soupçon of ad hom.
I printed lots of articles about this. Sorry you are too lazy to do your homework
http://pielkeclimatesci.wordpress.com/2006/05/05/co2h2o/
ChrisD:
If you need links to credible science regarding H2O as a GHG, you have no business being on a site discussing climate and the same for Laz.
Ah, two more ad homs and still no real links (sorry, blogs don’t count). What a shock!
And, by the way, regarding the ad homs, let me note that I didn’t ask for the links. I didn’t even say that the number is wrong. I just pointed out that Mike’s comment didn’t respond to Lazarus’s request, as usual.
What a shock. ChrisD doesn’t get it.
Awesome response!!
So basically you have made a claim of 90%, and when ask to justify it you said it was actually a conservative figure since it is higher than 90% in the tropics. You have now given a link to another blog that doesn’t actually mention your conservative figure anyway.
But we seee so called ‘skeptics’ uncritically defending your use of a made up figure to claim something that isn’t supported by any science you can produce.
Is that about right?
So a simple question remains unanswered, can you show any credible science to support that 90% of the greenhouse effect is caused by H2O and clouds?
It’s just that the credibility of your own Maths completely rests on this.
LAZ:
You seem confused. How can you separate H2O and clouds. I realize that are a combination of chemicals in the atmosphere so would include all GHGs. Your statement of H2O AND clouds does not make any sense! WTF does H2O do in the atmosphere when it condenses? H2O appears in the atmosphere in every form it can take, gas, liquid, and solid. If it was not for H2O we would not have the types of clouds we have!
“You seem confused. How can you separate H2O and clouds.”
I think it is you that is confused. H2O and clouds are vastly different if the H2O isn’t clouds. H2O as water vapour (not clouds) is a strong green house gas. That is still true for clouds at altitude. But clouds at low levels reflect some heat during the day but block some of it at night. That is why night time temperatures were predicted by models to warm more than daytime ones – now confirmed.
But I’m still waiting for the research supporting the 90%+ figure.
I realize that are a combination of chemicals in the atmosphere so would include all GHGs. Your statement of H2O AND clouds does not make any sense! WTF does H2O do in the atmosphere when it condenses? H2O appears in the atmosphere in every form it can take, gas, liquid, and solid. If it was not for H2O we would not have the types of clouds we have!
LAZ:
If you believe that H2O and clouds are different things there is no need to continue attempting to discuss any other of your false claims.
Can you at least provide a reference that shows clouds are not composed of H2O so every one can see why H2O and clouds can be different.
H2O comes in a variety of forms in nature. Gas, Liquid, and Solid along with the transitional phases where H2O is not quite one or the other but in the process of changing state such as a cloud where it is still part gas and part liquid or even part solid depending on temperatures.
@Lazarus: It’s hopeless. My head is sore from banging it on my desk after reading responses like the one above here.
ChrisD:
I thought with the insertion thingy your head is well cushioned and you would need to do hip bumping to bang your head against anything!
Maybe you need to gain a bit more weight for additional padding in the hip region!
Mike Davis says:
“If you believe that H2O and clouds are different things there is no need to continue attempting to discuss any other of your false claims.”
I had to read this through several times and I’ve even stared at it for a while and you know what? I have eventually come to the conclusion that this isn’t a joke – you must be serious.
Yet you state that water comes in different forms but seem incapable of realising that these forms exert completely different influences in the real world.
So I’m a bit dumbfounded, I’m still not sure if you are intentionally acting stupid as a wind up or not, because you have up to this point come across as a moderately intelligent person. Can you just confirm that you do realise that air can contain moisture (H2O) but not always look cloudy?
LAZ:
Simple thing you are looking at it backwards. Air can not contain clouds if there is no H2O in the atmosphere.
The different states of H2O affect the weather in different ways depending on other factors that are happening at the time. H2O as all other GHGs are passive and other conditions determine their effectiveness and whether they are an enhancing, a neutral or a restrictive influence on weather patterns.
Average effects do not mean Squat in a dynamic system because all factors need to be taken into account and none are stable. Overemphasizing one factor only leads to wrong answers.
Percentage of H2O in the atmosphere even without clouds dramatically affects regional weather conditions but a person would have to be observant of their surrounding environment to be aware of such things.
Mike I pretty much agree with what you have said in your last post but that seems at odds with some of your other statements;
“Commonly the range is somewhere between 90 and 97%. ”
Still no citation to support this and it was my original query, so still waiting.
“How can you separate H2O and clouds. ” and “If you believe that H2O and clouds are different”
You seem to have above with “The different states of H2O affect the weather in different ways depending on other factors that are happening at the time.”
I did not separate clouds from H2O!
The statement that H2Ois between 90 and 95% is only showing that no other GHG can be greater than 10% of the GHGs in the atmosphere and the average contribution of any one of the minor gasses is more than 2 or 3%.
There is a pie chart laying around somewhere that I saw the contributions of each GHG but as I recently lost a hard drive I no longer have the references I once had. Of course with the state of the settled science regarding climatology there is no agreed upon percentage for any one GHG. Also the science is so settled that they admit they do not understand the contribution of clouds so they can not accurately model what they do not understand. They will make a wild a## guess any way!
Mike says:
“I did not separate clouds from H2O!”
You said “The different states of H2O affect the weather in different ways “.
Are you now saying that even with this being true, H2O should not be treated differently in research?
Are you really saying that clear water vapour (or just water or ice for that matter) be treated the same as clouds even though they have separate and very different properties?
Are you truly saying they should not be separated?
“There is a pie chart laying around somewhere”
And is that all the evidence you need to believe that between 90 and 97% of the green house effect is created by H2O and Clouds?
Is that the level of evidence you expect a skeptic like myself to accept?
Do you (or Steve) have an credible research supporting the figures you keep flinging around?
If not do the right thing and stop using them since you have failed to justify them.
Awesome that ChrisD completely ignores my last post.
I wonder why?
Snicker
Well, perhaps it was because it didn’t in any way address my comment about this post.
ChrisD says:
November 30, 2010 at 2:53 pm
Well, perhaps it was because it didn’t in any way address my comment about this post.
————–
Translation: Your post wouldn’t feed into my attempt at derailing the thread as is my usual MO.
ChrisD:
Seeing how this thread is about GHG concentrations your comments do not address the contents of this thread.
The only time the extent of H2O as a GHG is contested is when members of the CLB do not include it in their calculations as if H2O either does not exist or is a minor player.
Maybe some day in a saner world the real contributions each GHG plays can be debated in a Mature manner by REAL Scientists. That is not currently possible as the CLB shrieks louder than the real scientists.
I was addressing the actual topic.
It must be painful for you to be that stupid ignoring the obvious.That Water Vapor is the dominant gas and dwarfs anything that CO2 does in the atmosphere.
Not only that Water Vapor shares most of the one main frequency band that CO2 can brag about.While Methane barely absorbs anything since it’s one weeny weeny spot is being overshadowed by ….. Water Vapor.
This chart certainly show how feeble Methane is as a IR absorber.
http://www.globalwarmingskeptics.info/forums/thread-188-post-3342.html#pid3342
Here is a study by Hansen before he became an activist. The Journal of Atmospheric Sciences, 1973.
http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/pdf/10.1175/1520-0469%281974%29031%3C0118%3AAPFTAO%3E2.0.CO%3B2
The best part is:
“Absorption by water is the major source of solar radiative heating in the atmosphere.”
Gman:
Is that the one where he talked about the coming “Ice Age”? 😉
No its the one where he didn’t even consider CO2 because it was such a minor player.
You guys are hysterical. Seriously. Not a single one of you gives a crap that your esteemed and all-knowing blog owner added together percentages of different things to arrive at his 140% total. I started laughing at this on Thanksgiving, and I’m still laughing about it today. In fact, I find it even funnier now than I did then.
I mean, God forbid one of you should say, “Steve, I love ya, big guy, but hang on a sec…” That’d be against the “skeptic” code, wouldn’t it?
Deny, deny, deny. Obfuscate, obfuscate, obfuscate.
End of spam (spam: n. anything that disagrees with Steve’s pronouncements.)
Good to see you are back and havn’t changed a bit. Do you agree that methane contributes 20% to heat absorption in the atmosphere?
ChrisD;
You still seem to be confused. GHGS can only combine to equal 100% of all the GHGs in the atmosphere. If H2O accounts for up to 97% or 90% all other GHGs can only be at most 10%. Using the mid point of 5% Methane would be 1% if that much of the GHE. By my math 1% is a lot less than 20%
You must still be laughing at your ignorance.
It seems that in 1974 CO2 was considered so minor that it was not taken into account in the GISS model as it and the other gasses only accounted for 2.5% at most!
I know! I broke down and read the report!!!! 🙂
Let me pre-empt the answer – Hansen later figured out it was a major player.
Well, was he wrong then, or wrong now?
Gman:
It has to be a major player for funding requests. Without CO2 being a major player ACC does not exist and funding would have dried up over 30 years ago.
ChrisD writes:
“You are correct. I was about to post the same thing. The percentages are the percentage contributions of the long-lived GHGs. Water vapor should not be included in Steve’s tally.”
He make the excuse for leaving out Water Vapor on the grounds that it is NOT a “long- lived GHGs”.
This is called moving the goal posts.
Strike One.
SteveGoddard replies:
“Methane is very reactive and quickly breaks down in the atmosphere. Nice try.
Remember what happened in San Bruno a few weeks ago?”
ChrisD feeble reply:
“You’re adding together percentages of different things, Steve. That’s all I said, and it’s as simple as that.”
Meaning that you could not counter Steve’s statement that Methane is NOT one of those “Long-lived GHGs”.
Meaning that you quickly fold and go back to your dumb original position.The one where Water Vapor is included.The one YOU want to exclude.
LOL.
There are 6 decades of published science papers attesting that CO2 by molecule has residence times of less than 12 years.That means it is a short lived greenhouse gas.Just as CH4 is well known to be short lived in the atmosphere.
Strike two.
He later hangs on to something that only shows that he is missing a few cells:
“Obfuscate all you want. You added together percentages of different things to arrive at your 140% total.
You won’t admit to even the most obvious of errors, will you?”
Right back to the standard bullshit and repeat as the dishonest person you are.
The article left Water Vapor out as a GHG and also that it even seems to imply it does not behave like a GHG at all.
Quoting from the link:
“Methane (CH4) contributes 18.1% to the overall global radiative forcing and is the second most important greenhouse gas after carbon dioxide.”
To sum up the totals of all the GHG’s from the link,
CO2 63.5%
CH4 18.24%
N2O 6.24%
Halocarbons 12%
———————
100%
Where O where is Water Vapor?
bwahahahahahahahaha!!!
No you know why I will call that article misleading dishonest crap.The very fact that you moan and groan over the 140% stuff is because that is all you can muster mentally.You missed a lot of errors and omissions in the article,that was written dishonestly for propaganda purposes.
That you miss so much,is because you are just another stuck up AGW apologist.
Strike three.
SST:
I must correct you and defend Chris at this time! Chris does not believe in AGW, ChrisD believes in ACC! Those are two completely different things.
AGW can only be believed in when enough proof has been fabricated to show a warming trend. ACC can be believed in any time because there is evidence that humans contribute to climate change on a minor scale. I changed the climate on 1600 sq ft of my property when I built my house and an additional 400 sq ft when I built the Chicken Coop. There is an additional human caused climate change with my 4000 sq ft barn and I cut down some trees that changed the climate where those were located.
ACC exists, maybe not to the extent ChrisD wants it to . You should not be so harsh on ChrisD due to the condition Crainialanalinsertion Chris is suffering from! 😉
Good God, but you are blind. “Moving the goalposts”? The ONLY thing I said was that Steve added percentages of different things, which is frowned upon by mathemeticians, as well as most fourth graders. Not a single word of your comment is relevant to the one and only thing I said.
Talk about “moving the goalposts”. Wow.
This entire thread is about what is wrong with the report. The report leaves out the main GHG!
You continue to attempt to claim pointing out the primary problem with the report is wrong.
Steven added percentages of some GHGs to show how wrong the report is.
You can not make a Cherry pie if you only use a table spoon of butter. You left out 95% of the ingredients
Steven added percentages of some GHGs to show how wrong the report is.
Wrong. Steve added together percentages of different things, and doing that can’t “show” anything, ever. YOU CAN’T ADD PERCENTAGES OF DIFFERENT THINGS. Period. Ever.
85% of Chevy drivers are right handed
90% of all drivers are right handed
So far I have 175% of drivers. According to Bizarro Skeptic World logic, I have just “shown” how wrong that stupid scientist’s report on the handedness of Chevy drivers is.
The 20% and 30% are percentages of the total greenhouse warming contributed by the specific gases listed in the report. The 90% is a percentage of total greenhouse warming (according to Steve, anyway). They are percentages of different things. THEY CANNOT BE ADDED TOGETHER.
How you very strange people can argue with this is baffling. It’s tunnel vision or something.
Write this on the blackboard 500 times
H2O H2O H2O
I will not add together percentages of different things.
I will not add together percentages of different things.
I will not add together percentages of different things.
Chris will never pretend to be interested in science Chris will never pretend to be interested in science Chris will never pretend to be interested in science
I think you have some genetic thing, a mutation perhaps, that prevents you from admitting that you made a mistake. But you should fight it. Screw up your courage and just try it sometime. You might be surprised. It actually makes you feel better.
I think you have a genetic thing which keeps you from ever understanding what we are talking about.
Hehe, no. Make no mistake, I understand precisely what it is that you are doing.
Meanwhile, permit me to suggest a refresher course in fourth grade arithmetic.
Chris,
Everything flies right over your head. wooosh …
ChrisD:
I know this is hard for you but quote:
Methane is thought to contribute around one fifth of the greenhouse gas warming effect. Globally averaged atmospheric methane in 2009 was 1803 parts per billion (ppb), an increase of 5 ppb from the previous year.The report states that the growth rate of atmospheric methane decreased from around 13 ppb per year during the early 1980s to near zero from 1999 to 2006. Since 2007, atmospheric methane has been increasing again, rising 13 ppb between 2006 to 2008, followed by a 5 ppb rise in 2009, according to the report. It speculates that likely drivers of these increases include greater than average wetland methane emissions at high northern latitudes during 2007 owing to exceptionally warm temperatures; and tropical emissions during 2007 and 2008 related to greater than normal precipitation in wetland regions during a La Niña Pacific Ocean cooling episode.
Carbon dioxide contributes around two thirds of the greenhouse gas warming effect. Globally averaged atmospheric carbon dioxide levels in 2009 were 386.8 ppm (parts per million) and the increase from the year before was 1.6 ppm. This growth rate is higher than the average for the 1990s (around 1.5 ppm/yr), but lower than the average for the past decade. A paper in Nature Geoscience published earlier this month suggested that the growth of carbon dioxide in 2009 was constrained by the recession but was still larger than expected and predicted that growth in 2010 would be significantly higher.
The article specifically states Green House Gas.
Steve was using their figures for two green house gasses and added H2O the the equation which is a green house gas. This resulted in a figure higher than 100%.
Steven did not add different things together but Green House gasses.
Take your head out of your A## and start learning how to read. A 6 year old has a better understanding of math than yo do.
I have not had this much entertainment since Climate Realist shut the forum down! 🙂
The article specifically states Green House Gas. Steve was using their figures for two green house gasses and added H2O the the equation which is a green house gas.
Yes, dear, just as the numbers I added together here were both figures for dextrous drivers.
Are you really so clueless as to try to exclude water vapour from a list of greenhouse gasses?
No, but you can pretend that’s what I said if it makes you feel better.
Calling H2O condensible and CO2 non-condensible is just plain stupid.
Even in Antarctica in mid-winter you couldn’t condense enough water out of the atmosphere to get concentration down to CO2 levels.
ChrisD,
You are a confused guy.
I am basing my comments on the ARTICLE and at the same time exposing your bullshit in doing so.
You whine about what Steve writes and ignore almost totally the article itself.While you think you are being brilliant in doing it.But actually Steve is correct because the Article completely leaves out the vast majority of the so called greenhouse effect.Water Vapor and Clouds.
He adds the dominant GHG with those two mentioned in the article.The 90% may not be the correct one.But even at 80%,he still exposes the baloney of the article effectively.That significance has zoomed right over your head.
Remember that several times I added up the other gases mentioned in the article? They added up to 104%.You never dispute it and yet you continue your attack on Steve’s number.
Here are the actual numbers:
12% + 6% = 18% 86% + 18% = 104%
This is without Water Vapor and Clouds effect.They have 70,80,95% of the total greenhouse effect?
That is why we are laughing at YOU.Because the article has it at 104% and that is MINUS the Water Vapor and Clouds effects.You missed the obvious errors.
But You rant on and on over what Steve wrote,never realizing that the article Steve attacked is dishonest crap.Far worse than anything Steve wrote,that you troll so much over.
You are so bad at this.You are lucky this is not a forum set up because I would have used your words in other places to expose your shallow thoughts effectively.
Here you are lucky that your drivel can be only partially exposed for what it is.A knuckledragging,drooling bullshitting troll.
Gawad ChrisD,
What are you smoking?
Your very recent words:
“The 20% and 30% are percentages of the total greenhouse warming contributed by the specific gases listed in the report. The 90% is a percentage of total greenhouse warming (according to Steve, anyway). They are percentages of different things. THEY CANNOT BE ADDED TOGETHER. ”
From the article:
“Methane is thought to contribute around one fifth of the greenhouse gas warming effect.”
About 20%
“Carbon dioxide contributes around two thirds of the greenhouse gas warming effect.”
About 66%
It is NOT 30%.The article SPECIFICALLY states; “Carbon dioxide (CO2) is the single most important anthropogenic greenhouse gas in the atmosphere and contributes 63.5% to the overall global radiative forcing by long-lived greenhouse gases.”
66+20=86
Thus only 14% left for a few more GHG’s to add on.
But Water Vapor is never mentioned.
It appears that you are a basket case.
You are correct, the 30% did not come from the article, only the 20% did. It’s been a while since I read it, and that was wrong (note to Steve: see how that works? The whole “acknowledging an error” thing? It’s actually not all that hard.).
Doesn’t change the fundamental point, of course. We don’t add percentages of apples and percentages of oranges and expect that to mean anything.
As usual you missed something so big that I really wonder about you.
The article adds up the GHG’s effect in the article,that came to 104% or by real numbers 100%.
But that was without Water Vapor,a known GHG.
The article is ignoring the most common GHG and the the one with the largest IR absorption range.
You missed that and more in your absurd pursuit over a single number Steve wrote.
The article is ignoring the most common GHG and the the one with the largest IR absorption range.
You missed that and more ….
Well, that would be an assumption on your part, and you know what they say “assume” means. I’m quite well aware of what the article and the underlying WMO report did and did not do.
But, as usual, you’d rather ignore what I said and fixate on refuting what I didn’t say, or even imply. Must be very, very satisfying.
ChrisD, fixated on his warp-power microscope focused on the warm mystery of the atomic structure of cells in the upper and lower intestine, seemingly doesn’t notice the swift transition that deposits him in a startlingly cool, refreshing bath.
Ahhhh…why it’s H2O……
Ah, yes, that is completely relevant to whether or not Steve is playing games with his numbers.
Y’all are expending a whole lot of effort in pointing out that water vapor is an important GHG. It would be so much more interesting if you could find someplace where I said that it wasn’t. But, of course, you can’t, since I didn’t.
But you never realized that the article itself was misleading and dishonest.
He he…
They completely leave out Water Vapor and Clouds.
In the article they state:
“Carbon dioxide (CO2) is the single most important anthropogenic greenhouse gas in the atmosphere and contributes 63.5% to the overall global radiative forcing by long-lived greenhouse gases. Global radiative forcing is the balance between radiation coming into the atmosphere and radiation going out. Positive radiative forcing tends to warm the surface of the Earth and negative forcing tends to cool it.”
Yet that TRACE gas with a very small IR absorption range,is called the SINGLE most important GHG in the atmosphere.ERROR
A long-lived GHG.ERROR
Positive radiative forcing tends to warm the surface of the earth.ERROR
The article is misleading and dishonest.It contains numerous errors in it and written for purpose of advancing propaganda.
They completely leave out the most common GHG of all.
The whole thing stinks!
Oh, my!…… Sounds like a waterfall!!
This spinning is making me a bit dizzy….
Gasp….glub…..gasp…..glub…glub….glub……
(phooooosssshhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh………..)
ChrisD,
“Well, that would be an assumption on your part, and you know what they say “assume” means. I’m quite well aware of what the article and the underlying WMO report did and did not do.”
No it is by your OMISSION of that fact.
You spent a lot of time complaining about a single number,Steve wrote,while you never seem to notice the many dishonest and misleading crap in the article.
You claim that you are aware of what the article states.But you never bothered to point out some obvious errors so big,all because you have this trolling mentality in making a big freaking deal over a single number.That was never part of the article he posted.
You are a proven bullshitter by doing what you do here.
“But, as usual, you’d rather ignore what I said and fixate on refuting what I didn’t say, or even imply. Must be very, very satisfying.”
bwahahahahahahahaha!!!
Your two faced crap has been exposed.You ignore the articles overt dishonesty by their completely leaving out the dominant GHG.To make the claim that CO2 is the dominant GHG.Because you want to argue over a number Steve wrote as sarcasm.
Thank you for admitting that you have been trolling.
So, your position is that if one comments, one must comment on everything possible? Or on everything YOU deem important? Or what? It’s not legal to comment on an aspect of the post that’s different from what YOU think should be commented on? How pompous can you get?
You are a proven bullshitter by doing what you do here
Uh, the point is that Steve is the bullshitter. You “skeptics” still have not admitted that adding percentages of different totals is both stupid and meaningless. You’re like slot cars. There’s a track you have to follow, no deviations allowed. And Steve lays down the track for you.
Thank you for admitting that you have been trolling.
If I may be permitted to borrow a phrase from Steve, you’re an idiot.
And, by the way, your repetitious “bwahahahaetc.” is both boring and juvenile.
ChrisD:
If an article wants to discuss GHGs they need to include all GHGs. You claim the article was discussing specific types of GHGs but it did not say that it claimed GHGs.
As I said before the entire article is a lie by omission and you are also lying to defend something that should never got off the desk it started on. Whoever wrote it should be run out of their profession.
You sound like a defense attorney.
Your honor some one placed the weapon in my clients hand after the incident to make him look guilty and those 20 people misunderstood my client as he was asking directions to a store which they misinterpreted to be “Give me all your money”. The money in my clients possession was money he wanted to put in the bank and the marked bills must have gotten in there accidentally.
If you state GHGs you need to include all GHGs
ChrisD writes:
“So, your position is that if one comments, one must comment on everything possible? Or on everything YOU deem important? Or what? It’s not legal to comment on an aspect of the post that’s different from what YOU think should be commented on? How pompous can you get?”
No it is your hypocritical dishonesty that compels me to respond.Since you still do not see it despite being told more than once what your hypocrisy is.It is plain that YOU have a one track mind.
Steve wrote his 140% stuff out of sarcasm.He was mocking what that link was spewing out.I never took his mockery seriously.But YOU did…..
Personally I knew his error from the start,the one you had to learn from me.But you were too busy being in a huff over a SINGLE number.To figure it out on your own.
Meanwhile this person made a comment that actually gave some support for Steve’s 90% number:
“Leon Clifford says:
November 25, 2010 at 11:23 am ”
There he referred to Gavin Schmidt GISS paper that pegs the number at 75%.Since that is the LOW end of the scale coming from a long known suck up warmist.It is probably higher.I have seen them to be around the 90% mark many times.
“Uh, the point is that Steve is the bullshitter. You “skeptics” still have not admitted that adding percentages of different totals is both stupid and meaningless. You’re like slot cars. There’s a track you have to follow, no deviations allowed. And Steve lays down the track for you.”
No since I know that Steve was being sarcastic and that he made an error,that you had to learn from me about it.
It has been pointed out to YOU SEVERAL times now that what YOU failed to notice is the links dishonest and misleading omission of THE largest GHG.Yet you have the gall to complain that Steve is being misleading with his open sarcasm that is out in the open.
The article by omitting Water Vapor from the list CREATED misleading numbers by adding them up to 100% all the rest of the GHG’s,they listed.
It was DELIBERATE that they leave out the largest GHG with its 10,000-40,000 ppm GH effect.They do it because they are busy making CO2 and CH4 the arch villain.Despite their minimal IR absorption capabilities.
That part YOU never notice and acknowledge,despite being told about it more than once.This makes YOU the scumbag hypocrite of the first order.
The whole premise of this argument and Schmidt’s paper is absurd. At concentrations below 1000 ppm, H2O is not a condensible gas any more than CO2 is.
There is no error in my argument.
StevenG says:
“The whole premise of this argument and Schmidt’s paper is absurd.”
The trolls here are not interested in discussing the premise of paper, a post, or anything else. Just diversion.
Steve wrote his 140% stuff out of sarcasm
It’s funny, every time someone notes one of Steve’s (many) errors, the odds approach certainty that someone will eventually say “It was sarcastic.”
Sarcasm does not excuse arithmetic that would make a fourth grader cringe.
I see that you have nothing left to sell.
Chris. You are an idiot.
Yes, anyone who disagrees with you is, ipso facto, an idiot. You’ve made this quite clear.
No, really just you.
SteveG writes:
“There is no error in my argument.”
The error I am talking about is the 30% you gave for CO2.You correctly used the articles statement that CH4 is about 20% of the total GHG effect.But the article states specifically that for CO2 it is about two thirds (66%).You have it as 30%.
ChrisD and a few others have no ability to know what sarcasm is and that you like to use it a lot in your blog post headlines.They make a mountain out of a molehill and ignore the hypocrisy they make behind it.
I have now pointed out several time to ChrisD about his selective indignation and that he is willing to ignore the article dishonest and misleading claims.
He is a hypocrite and I wonder why you continue to tolerate his obvious trolling B.S?