EXXON Contradicts its Own Scientists

[_Res Ipsa]

.04% is a percentage. Now, yes or no: is the ability of a greenhouse gas to warm the atmosphere dependent only on how much of it there is in the atmosphere?

It isn't a percentage. It's a fraction of a percent. Obviously it doesn't compute for you, but the 4 major gases N2, O2, H2O, and Ar make up virtually all of the atmosphere. The remaining trace gases don't even add up together to 1% of the atmosphere.

Unless you have something meaningful to say here, I'm going to ignore what you have to say. It is obvious to anyone with a remedial education that 400 PPM is an insignificant number in comparison to 4%. The fact you can't acknowledge that means either you are r******* or simply unable to acknowledge the facts. In either event, I find any further discussion with someone like you pointless.

Of course you are running away! You are unwilling to have your precious talking points examined in a skeptical manner. You are afraid to even admit to basic facts that you agree with. And, when you feel that your talking points are being threatened, you do what you always do: you plug your ears and start throwing out the personal insults.

I'm happy to proceed without Tobin. Tobin claims that there is 100 times more water vapor than CO2 in the atmosphere. That's utterly false, which I'll get to in a minute. He also claims that this ratio, in and of itself, means that even though water vapor is a powerful greenhouse gas, CO2 cannot have a significant greenhouse effect.

But Tobin has already admitted that volume isn't the only thing that determines how strong a greenhouse gas is. He admitted upthread that methane is a more powerful greenhouse gas than CO2. If we look over a period of 100 years, it's about 20 times as strong. The concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere is about 400 parts per million. The concentration of methane is about 1.8 parts per million. So, there is more than 200 times more CO2 than there is methane, but methane is 20 times more powerful! That means that the "significance" of a greenhouse gas isn't solely determined by the amount of the gas. There is something else. And, as the case of CO2 v methane shows, the something else can be more important than the relative quantities of the gases.

Tobin doesn't want to talk about the something else. He won't even acknowledge that there is something else, even though he's already admitted it. Why not? We could ask him, but his fingers are in his ears and he's chanting "LA LA LAAA! I CAN'T HEAR YOU!!!!!!

[_Themis]

When you are talking about gases that represent mere parts per million and billion, it is very fair to state they have negligible effects on global warming. Water vapor represents often 4% of the atmosphere per volume. If there is a greenhouse gas of significance, that is the one. And as I've also pointed out, good luck getting people to rally around the cause of removing water from the atmosphere. It's a ridiculous notion.

Not sure what often is supposed to mean, but the average I believe is between 2-3% or .02-.03. The reasons is that it cannot exceed much more then .04 and in cold or dry areas it is a fraction of .04.
http://www.theweatherprediction.com/habyhints/40/

I will add this link again for those interested in learning some specifics about what is being discussed.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenhouse_gas
It has a section that talks about how much each contribute and even goes a little into their complex relationship to the environment.

[_Res Ipsa]

When you are talking about gases that represent mere parts per million and billion, it is very fair to state they have negligible effects on global warming. Water vapor represents often 4% of the atmosphere per volume. If there is a greenhouse gas of significance, that is the one. And as I've also pointed out, good luck getting people to rally around the cause of removing water from the atmosphere. It's a ridiculous notion.

Not sure what often is supposed to mean, but the average I believe is between 2-3% or .02-.03. The reasons is that it cannot exceed much more then .04 and in cold or dry areas it is a fraction of .04.
http://www.theweatherprediction.com/habyhints/40/

I'm not persuaded that the 2-3% figure he cites is correct for the entire atmosphere. The concentration of water vapor in the coldest surface temperatures is less than the concentration of CO2. To get 4% water vapor, you need a temperature of around 30C or higher (about 86F). What's the average temperature of the entire atmosphere?

[_Tobin]

The problem with religious nutjobs like Brad is they really don't know what they are talking about.

I mentioned already that CH4 is combustible. What the means is it naturally breaks down either through direct combustion or because of radiation. So all the CH4 in the atmosphere right now will be gone in 10 years unless it is replaced. Also, even though CH4 is 20 times more powerful of a greenhouse gas than CO2, there is a slight problem religious zealots like Brad fail to mention. It's a narrow band absorber which overlaps with another greenhouse gas H2O. And since there is vastly more H2O in the atmosphere that already absorbs the same spectrum as CH4, there really isn't any contribution made by CH4 to global warming.

[_Themis]

I'm not persuaded that the 2-3% figure he cites is correct for the entire atmosphere. The concentration of water vapor in the coldest surface temperatures is less than the concentration of CO2. To get 4% water vapor, you need a temperature of around 30C or higher (about 86F). What's the average temperature of the entire atmosphere?

I would agree that it may be less then 2-3%. Since you need such a high temperature(30C) to get to 4.24% most of the planet will be much less. Funny to think CO2 could have similar amounts to Water vapor in some areas of the world.

[_Themis]

The problem with religious nutjobs like Brad is they really don't know what they are talking about.

I am not aware where Brad has shown major religious tendencies or thinking, so in what way is he a religious nut-job?

I mentioned already that CH4 is combustible. What the means is it naturally breaks down either through direct combustion or because of radiation. So all the CH4 in the atmosphere right now will be gone in 10 years unless it is replaced. Also, even though CH4 is 20 times more powerful of a greenhouse gas than CO2, there is a slight problem religious zealots like Brad fail to mention. It's a narrow band absorber which overlaps with another greenhouse gas H2O. And since there is vastly more H2O in the atmosphere that already absorbs the same spectrum as CH4, there really isn't any contribution made by CH4 to global warming.

I gave a link that goes into more detail and talks about how much each can contribute to greenhouse warming. Here it is again.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenhouse_gas

[_Res Ipsa]

I gave a link that goes into more detail and talks about how much each can contribute to greenhouse warming. Here it is again.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenhouse_gas

Yes, and that's where got the basic information on CO2 and methane. It's a very comprehensive article.

Now, take a look at the following graph from this webpage: http://web.gccaz.edu/~lnewman/gph111/to ... prec2.html It shows the relationship between temperature and the saturation percentage of water vapor. Both the values and the shape (exponential) are important.



You can read the X axis as percentages if you move the decimal point one space to the left. So, at a temperature of 40F, the air will be fully saturated with water vapor at about .8%. Notice also that the function is exponential. At Tobin's 4%, even a slight reduction in temperature changes the saturation percentage dramatically.

Now, I don't know the average temperature of the atmosphere. I don't know if that's anything anyone measures. But we do measure temperature at the earth's surface. The average surface temperature for the earth (land and sea) for the commonly used baseline period of 1969-1991 is about 14C. Using the graph, that gives a maximum saturation of around 1.2%. But that's not the actual percentage: it's the maximum percentage assuming 100% relative humidity. To the extent relative humidity is less than 100% across the entire surface of the earth, the actual percentage will be even lower.

Now that's just at the earth's surface. That's not even close to the entire atmosphere. What happens to the concentrations of water vapor and CO2 as we go up into the atmosphere?

[_The CCC]

While CH4 stays in the atmosphere for about 12 years, and it is combustible at concentrations of about 15% in air. The by-products of that combustion are water vapor and CO2.

As far as effect goes that tiny amount of CO2 in the atmosphere is responsible for all life on this planet.

[_Tobin]

Earth to the religious lunatics in this thread, namely Brad. I know science isn't your thing because your assumptions are divorced from reality. I want you to think about something very carefully though. The vast majority of the world is covered by something? Your assumptions about humidity fails to take into account the actual geography of the planet Earth and something special that happens in those areas. Given that fact, 4% is actually a very good number. But again, you have to have an IQ higher than 60 to figure out why.

[_The CCC]

Earth to the religious lunatics in this thread, namely Brad. I know science isn't your thing because your assumptions are divorced from reality. I want you to think about something very carefully though. The vast majority of the world is covered by something? Your assumptions about humidity fails to take into account the actual geography of the planet Earth and something special that happens in those areas. Given that fact, 4% is actually a very good number. But again, you have to have an IQ higher than 60 to figure out why.

Nice Ad Hominem.