Quote from jem:
piezoe... first of all you seem to be taken this seriously and we can therefore have a real conversation.
secondly I suspect what you have said is correct.
Roy Spencer and some other scientists who question the effect of agw... seem to agree with what you say.
But, there are others who argue... the warming and cooling properties CO2 has cancel each other out in our environment.
But lets go with the other argument.
Arguendo , lets say CO2 does some warming in the troposphere.
The recent science is seems to be showing water vapor and clouds actually have the vast majority of the effect on temps.
And the net effect co2 might have is theoretical and small. again no proof.
And of that potential net effect therefore of man made co2 would most likely have an insignificant effect since it is a small part of the co2 in the atmosphere.
Any science you have showing the above is incorrect will be reviewed.
Jem. I have no science for you. The conjecture that man made CO2 doesn't have a very significant effect may be right. Who knows really? The only thing I would say is that we should let the meteorologists sort this out and not jump to conclusions based on articles in the popular press.
Jem, it has long been known that water vapor is the most important greenhouse gas, as you suggest. Taking into account both abundance and absorptivities of both CO2 and water vapor, most meteorologists estimate that water vapor is about 3 times more important than CO2. But that ratio can only be given to one significant figure. Without error limits, one assumes there is an uncertainty in that ratio of at least 33%. The absorptivities as a function of wavelength are known accurately, but the abundance for water vapor varies widely with location, so you are looking at the mean of very scattered data. CO2 content is of course more uniform.
It is extremely difficult to accurately model the atmosphere because of all the feed back loops and interactions.
Here are some complicating factors that I'm sure you have thought of since you seem very interested in this topic. All gases are less soluble in liquids as temperature rises, thus the carbonic acid CO2 equilibrium position shifts to the right (more CO2) as the oceans temperature rises. This may have some effect on ocean pH depending on the oceans buffer capacity. The oceanographers will know that. I don't.
The liq- vapor equilibrium point for water shifts to the right with rising. temperature. Water has anomalously large heat of fusion and heat of vaporization. So for example, water evaporation has a very large cooling effect on its surrounding.
The growth of plants that use chlorophyll is accelerated by rising CO2 concentration. Plants absorb sunlight, convert CO2 to carbohydrates and oxygen.
Snow reflects sunlight. Dark surfaces absorb more sunlight than light colored surfaces. Black surfaces are the best absorbers. (Asphalt) Is paving over the surface of the Earth with asphalt and cutting down the forests causing the Earth to warm?
Many natural phenomena can effect ocean temperature and atmospheric CO2. Rotting of vegetation, respiration of ants and termites, ocean currents, volcanoes, deep sea and on land.
Many of mans activities produce CO2 and/or water (both are greenhouse gases.) Respiration, burning of fossil fuels, the space shuttle, manufacture of Portland cement --the latter is not as important as often portrayed because the equilibrium reverses when concrete cures.
And there are other factors. I have probably left out some major ones, in fact. Cow flatulence perhaps?
So good luck, Jem, in trying to sort it all out. Personally I think we should just leave all this to the meteorologists. I don't think there is anything to be gained by lay people discussing the issue of anthropomorphic CO2. And, as a matter of fact, it is a problem so complicated that even the meteorologists haven't figured it out.
But one thing we can be certain of, and that is if there is money to be made, Goldman Sachs will figure out how.
