Agriculture and Agricultural Irrigation is the Primary Cause of Anthropogenic Warming of Earth’s Climate System

B22032 / Fri, 2 Mar 2007 09:11:05 / Environment
Before getting into the specifics of global warming, let’s first consider these basic atmospheric facts. The Troposphere
The troposphere’s thermal profile is largely the result of the heating of the Earth’s surface by incoming solar radiation. Heat is then transferred up through the troposphere by a combination of convective and turbulent transfer. This is in direct contrast with the stratosphere, where warming is the result of the direct absorption of solar radiation.
The troposphere is around 16 km high at the equator, with the temperature at the tropopause around –80 °C. At the poles, the troposphere reaches a height of around 8 km, with the temperature of the tropopause around –40 °C in summer and –60 °C in winter.
Therefore, despite the higher surface temperatures, the tropical tropopause is much cooler than at the poles.
The Stratosphere
“In contrast to the troposphere, temperatures in the stratosphere rise with increasing altitude. Another distinctive feature of the stratosphere is the absorption of ultraviolet radiation by ozone (O3). This is greatest around 50 km, which is where the stratopause occurs. Temperatures reach a maximum here, and according to latitude and season, they range from –30 °C over the winter pole to +20 °C over the summer pole.”:
As well as a noticeable change in temperature, the move from the troposphere into the stratosphere is also marked by an abrupt change in the concentrations of the variable trace constituents. Water vapor decreases sharply, whilst ozone concentrations increase. These strong contrasts in concentrations are a reflection of little mixing between the moist, ozone-poor troposphere and the dry, ozone-rich stratosphere.
Despite the dryness of the stratosphere, some clouds have developed in winter months over high latitudes at altitudes between 17 and 30 km, stretching into the stratosphere. They generally display iridescence and are known as nacreous clouds.
The stratosphere extends up to around 48 km above the surface, and together with the troposphere, they account for 99.9% of the Earth’s atmosphere.
And more importantly from the same page:
Because the storage of carbon and the exchange of trace gases are influenced by climate, feedbacks between climate change and atmospheric concentrations of trace gases can occur. The influence of climate on the biosphere is preserved as fossils, tree rings, pollen and other records, so that much of what is known of past climates comes from such biotic indicators.
Focus on the bold print a moment. This is kind of like Gore. Factual, but quickly glossed over.
These words explain exactly the point I’m trying to make.
CO2 levels in the atmosphere are primarily driven by climate, climate is not driven primarily by CO2 levels. Do feedbacks occur? Yes.
But if you don’t understand the basics, you can be mislead by the specifics.
Every lump of coal, every drop of oil was once a part of the biosphere.
We should use it carefully and make it last as long as possible cause it is a valuable resource. Not out of fear of a climate catastrophe.
But so long as this remains the water planet, the Earth’s climate will not become a runaway train.
The gloom and doom is not about any real impending disaster. It is about limiting growth and rationing who gets what remains of the planet’s resources for development and who remains developed.
Carbon taxes will only be paid by those who can afford to pay them, insuring the future of the wealthy and making certain that the poor will always be with us.
Some of them anyway.
That’s why even conservatives are now embracing “global warming” and climate chaos theory; not because they are convinced that the planet now needs saving, but because it dovetails with their agenda for the use of force against those not necessary to the fulfillment of their “American” dream and their goal of maintaining predatory global capitalism.
Proclaiming understanding and providing evidence of specific feedbacks portrayed as comprehension of the total issue is obtuse and lazy.
The current media hysteria about global warming isn’t just about “environmental” concern. It is about the status quo and trying to find a way to maintain it in the face of limited resources and a rapidly expanding population.
Try and consider the validity of my arguments and continue the debate to some logical conclusions.
Water and water vapor, as the principal greenhouse gas, are the critical components of controlling the amount of the Sun’s energy that warms the Earth and distribution of that energy.
It is the abundance of water on the planet and in its atmosphere that maintains the climate within the realms that life on earth has adapted itself to.
Past, present and future. That is not going to radically change, no matter what the CO2 level currently is or is projected to become.
Water and water vapor. In the absence of which this planet would be totally uninhabitable.
Two points that we can all agree upon.
Denial of human influence on the climate is ludicrous.
Water vapor is the most critical and important “green house gas.”
Show me the models that factor in the impact of 20th century agricultural practices regarding the countless billions of tons of water that formerly found their way to the oceans via rivers and streams or into underground aquifers that are now diverted to vast tracts of what used to be desert and prairie?
How many gigatons of additional water vapor are added to the atmosphere on a continuous basis throughout the growing seasons and even while fields lay fallow?
What impact is this additional water vapor having on both the weather and the overall climate.
There are reasons for the extreme weather and atmospheric instability of “tornado alley.”
The brown side of the “green” revolution.
Is your sprinkler as big a factor in anthropogenic warming as your lawn mower?
Making the deserts bloom. Not a factor in global warming? Or how big a factor in global warming?
How much of the planet’s terrestrial surface is now used for agricultural purposes?
The mighty Colorado river used to run to the sea, now it is dispersed to the sky via millions of acres of cropland.
How does crop evapotranspiration vary from the natural plants and biosystems that would otherwise inhabit this planet?
We’ve all seen photos of the house built of the thick sod that used to cover much of what used to be a vast prairie. Corn is planted in rows and sprayed with Roundup to prevent anything from growing besides the corn.
How effective can that be regarding maintaining the moisture within the soil?
Wouldn’t that be a significant factor in the equation regardless of whether the acreage used for cropland was irrigated or not?
O.K. then all we have to do to save the glaciers is stop driving, heating and lighting our homes and businesses then what? Stop eating?
The IPCC report is CO2 centric.
Evapotranspiration (ET) occurs when irrigation water:
Evaporates from the soil surface = evaporation
And is drawn up through the roots of plants and escapes into the air through pores in the leaves and stems = transpiration
Our agriculture is growing right along with the population growth.
Understanding this issue is critically important.
What impact are we having on the hydrological cycle and how is that impacting global temperature and climate?
Do you really think diverting billions of cubic meters of water from the sea to the sky, day after day, year after year, in ever increasing volumes is having a negligible impact on weather and climate?
So, next time you look at a 16 ounce steak on a plate think,
“That’s over seven cubic meters of water!”
Agricultural irrigation on average adds nearly 12 cubic kilometers of water, in the form of water vapor to the atmosphere each and every day.
This is just the tip of the agricultural climate impact iceberg.
If 12 cubic kilometers of water, in the form of water vapor doesn’t sound to you like it could possibly have an impact on the global climate, let me break it down a bit for you.
A single cubic kilometer of water contains a billion cubic meters of water.
That’s 500 million cubic meters of water/hour.
Just for agricultural irrigation.
Worldwide, but the vast majority of this water is diverted to the sky in the Northern Hemisphere.
Now, let’s do some basic physics. Temperature is a measure of the concentration of heat, or the average amount of motion per molecule.
Molecules in rapid motion have a higher temperature than those that are moving more slowly.
Adding heat to a substance makes the molecules move faster, and therefore increases the temperature.
There is an exception to this, however.
At a certain temperature, specific to each kind of matter, additional heat will change the substance from a solid to a liquid, or from a liquid to a gas, without any increase in temperature.
In the case of water, adding heat to ice at 0 degrees Celsius produces water at 0 degrees Celsius. The heat is all used in separating the molecules, and the molecules are not moving any faster as a result.
At 100 degrees Celsius, hot water can be changed into steam. It requires a lot of heat but the steam has the same temperature as the water from which it was boiled.
It takes about 80 calories to melt a gram of ice, and about 540 calories to *evaporate*or boil a gram of hot water.
We are talking about a tremendous amount of heat (energy).
Since the gram was defined as the mass of a cubic centimeter of water, water must by definition have a density of 1 gram per cubic centimeter.
It actually varies a little with changes in temperature, but its density is exactly 1 somewhere around 3 or 4 Celsius degrees above freezing.
Now some quick math: 540 calories per gram or stated in joules per cubic centimeter of water would = 2,262.2 joules of solar energy to convert one cubic centimeter of irrigation water into water vapor.
So in terms of increasing the amount of captured power, and converting the rays of the sun into “heat” and efficiently placing this heat into the very lowest layers of the earth’s atmosphere; just how much of an improvement in the biosphere’s principal heating mechanism has agricultural irrigation made?
I realize this concept is somewhat confusing and have come up with an analogy that may help one better understand the “hypothesis.”
But first let’s get through the math.
How many watts of solar energy are converted to latent heat and stored in the earth’s atmosphere by the evapotranspiration of the water used for agricultural irrigation.
12 cubic kilometers per day. 500 million cubic meters of water per hour.
Since a watt = one joule per second, it is helpful to first establish the volume of water per second.
138,888,888.88888888888888888888889 cubic meters of water per second.
To lend some scale to this tremendous volume of water; only one river on earth moves more water. The quantity of fresh water released by the Amazon to the Atlantic Ocean is enormous: up to 300,000 m³ per second in the rainy season.
But only during the rainy season. Humans divert from the sea or pump from underground aquifers more water and redirect it to the sky than the output of any river on Earth, with the exception of the mighty Amazon, empties into the sea.
Next we figure how much energy it takes to convert this additional water to water vapor. Each gram of water requires approximately 2,262.6 joules of energy to make the phase change from water to water vapor.
There are 1 million cubic centimeters in a cubic meter. Now you’ll see why I saved all the 8’s from the previous calculation. We can simply slide the decimal point six places to the right to calculate the number of cubic centimeters of water per second.
138,888,888,888,888.88888888888888889 to arrive at the number of cubic centimeters of water per second. Next we multiply the energy in joules to vaporize this water.
138,888,888,888,888.88888888888888889 × 2,262.6 = get ready for this.
314,250,000,000,000,000 watts. 314.25 terawatts.
314.25 TWt
The small t is for thermal.
Now to put this tremendous volume of heat energy into perspective.
Gretchen C. Daily University of California (Berkeley) Anne H. Ehrlich and Paul R. Ehrlich Stanford University (July 1994)
At present, (over a decade ago) world energy use amounts to about 13 terawatts, about 70% of which is being used to support somewhat over a billion people in developed countries and 30% to support more than four billion people in developing countries.
The figures are somewhat dated. Lets for fun just round off current global energy production from all nuclear, coal, oil and gas at 15 terawatts. That’s ballpark.
The increase in “stealth” heat added to the atmosphere by the introduction of water to crops that wouldn’t otherwise be available to them contains roughly 21 times the power that is currently produced by mankind globally.
This isn’t anywhere near the total impact of how agriculture and agricultural irrigation change how the biosphere converts the rays of the sun to heat.
But it does give one an idea of the scale of the issue.
Imagine every nuclear power plant, barrel of oil produced, all the natural gas and propane and the coal mined all burned to create just steam that would be released directly to the atmosphere.
Now multiply that X 21
Then you must consider that for days or even weeks afterward this additional water vapor being produced is going to absorb additional infrared energy, further forcing the increase in sensible heating of the earth’s lower atmosphere and underlying surface; be it land, open seas or ice.
The latent (stealth) heat added to the atmosphere of just one cubic meter of water that has been turned to vapor of the same temperature, holds sufficient energy to melt 7 cubic meters of ice.
Peace,

Related Items Related Items

R266774
3 years ago
GWHunta

Al Gore is as wrong about global warming as George Bush was about weapons of mass destruction in Iraq.
They both knew (know) better, but spread their “gospel” for their own political purposes.
I was rebuffed by my congressman and stood alone among my fellow citizens when I called for the impeachment of George Bush in late April of 2003 for lying about WMD.
I doubted their existence in Iraq initially, and had the U.S. had actual evidence to the contrary, it would have been a simple matter to direct the U.N. inspectors to their locations.
I similarly reasoned that had weapons of mass destruction been available to the Iraqis, they’d have used them to defend Iraq during the invasion.
There was little need for a year long search in the aftermath.
Now after four years of a war without true purpose or foreseeable end, I’m no longer alone or even in the minority in my opinion that the President lied, the intelligence was flawed and that the American public was mislead into this war.
Today Gore is having his hay day, with his award winning documentary the Inconvenient Truth and his CO2 centric explanation of global warming and dire predictions of catastrophic climate calamity.
Tell me truly.
Do you understand how rising CO2 levels contribute to the documented warming or do you simply believe.
Peace,
Post Modified: 03/09/07 21:30:08
R266806
3 years ago
GWHunta

NO bites?
Must all be believers.
Amen
Post Modified: 03/12/07 19:24:31
R266872
3 years ago
GWHunta

Not so much as a “yeah, you know that does make sense” must be having some kind of impact.
Sometimes no Peace.
R266884
3 years ago
Number5Toad

your theory is interesting, but – no offense – it’s basically just your theory, which appears to be supported mostly by a handful of publications, while it flies in the face of decades worth of climatological study – literally hundreds of thousands of essays and studies – which have all been carefully peer reviewed.
it’s not that your theory doesn’t raise some interesting questions, it’s just not what i’d call canon at this point.
also, you seem to be making an effort to diminish the CO2 theory of global warming down to “CO2 in the atmosphere makes it hotter” which is a pretty gross oversimplification of the actual science behind the issue.
but – i’m not a climatologist, and i’m not fooling myself into thinking i’m the one this was aimed at.
R266901
3 years ago
GWHunta

Thanks Number5Toad,
That’s the first acknowledgement that I am maybe onto something. From GNNers.
Atmospheric CO2 levels have been as high as 500,000 ppm. Or 1/2 of 1% of the total atmoshpere or .500.
They are now at .0380% up from .0278% preindustrially. Since 1960 they have risen from .0313% to .0383% in January, 2007.
This is a .007% increase as a percentage of the volume of the total atmosphere and is being attributed as a major portion of the warming that we’ve seen in the climate over the course of the past 50 years.
I don’t.
I’m not advocating ignoring this increase or not taking responsible action to mitigate it. But it is not the primary cause for the warming of the past 5 decades.
I’m also trying to point out that increasing the atmospheric CO2 level isn’t the only fundamental change we are making on the biosphere.
The impact of modern agricultural practices are huge. Tens of thousands of dams have been built in the past 50 years.
Since my Dad was born in 1938, global population has more than doubled.
Feeding twice as many people has been made possible by more intense use of the available farmland and by intensively irrigating about one fifth of that, which produces two fifths of the global food supply.
Post Modified: 03/10/07 14:37:25
R266921
3 years ago
Number5Toad

i guess i’m not really sure what point you’re trying to make. i don’t think anyone has argued that CO2 is the only cause of global climate change, and i also don’t think anyone here would argue that global overpopulation isn’t really a problem.
personally i view the whole issue as a massively complicated web of interactions between natural and man-made events, some of which we understand, some of which we don’t. but seeing as reducing CO2 emissions would have many other desireable effects on the planet as a whole, i think it’s a worthwhile, if not necessary, step to take.
R266923
3 years ago
GWHunta

Reducing CO2 emissions while the global population is expanding would doom many people to continued poverty.
While eventually we must curb the growth in CO2 emissions to preserve our resources, in the short term continued increases are an economic certainty in the face of an economically stable situation.
Only war or famine could cause immediate and lasting reduction in CO2 emissions as burning fossil fuels will otherwise remain necessary to feed, clothe and shelter the existing population and provide the energy and materials necessary to make the transition to a more sustainable system.
I believe that is the basis for the premise that we’re at some kind of CO2 tipping point, we must “fix” it now, or all is lost.
The U.S. is at a zenith in its global military and economic power.
Iraq has provided a demonstration of the limitations of that power.
The increased sophistication and technical capabilities of other regional powers, as was the case with China’s recent successful satelite intercept, has given the U.S. pause to re-think its global hegemony.
A move now into Iran could spark a global conflict from which we may not emerge unscathed or even victorious. Truly understanding the situation that we are in could be the difference between making prudent and foolish choices on which to base important policy decisions impacting both our immediate and continued future.
As for the threats to our survival, I guess my primary point is that CO2 levels should be relatively low on our list of priorities for building a consensus for political action to improve our odds of long term survival.
Militarism along with the blind, unthinking partriotism and following of our leaders, be they from the right or from the left, is surely the greatest threat we face collectively in this new millenium.
Peace,
Post Modified: 03/05/07 20:00:20
R266970
3 years ago
Chickenma1

GW, my suspicion has been that the ultimate goal of the CO2 claims is increased nuclear power. Al Gore and the scientists have been compelling, but in the background my “you are being played” alarm has been going off. Just how massively does nuclear power heat water, anyway? And don’t carbon burning power plants give off quite a bit a water vapor also? But you’re saying that we shouldn’t be afraid of the water vapor, is that right?
R266988
3 years ago
Disenchanted

How does the additional water vapour from irrigation compare to the levels of water vapour coming from the evaporation of the various bodies of water (lakes, seas, oceans)? How about the increasing rates of evaporation due to rising surface temperatures? How long does this water vapour stay in the atmosphere acting as a green house gas? If there an increase in cloud cover due to increased water vapour? if yes would this not have a cooling effect of the surface? Oh and you forgot to take into account the water that the cow would drink in order to produce a kg of beef1
R267058
3 years ago
a_pretty_rainbow

GW, my suspicion has been that the ultimate goal of the CO2 claims is increased nuclear power
I’d say roughly 75% of the fun of GNN is reading stuff like this.
R267060
3 years ago
GWHunta

But you’re saying that we shouldn’t be afraid of the water vapor, is that right?
I’m not saying anything regarding the fear factor, other than the CO2 disaster scenarios are totally farfetched and out of the question.
Agriculture has changed the climate and will continue to do so. These changes will cause further change in the natural environment. These changes are going to be most extreme in the Artic and Russia, Northern Europe and Canada will bear the brunt of this man made climate change.
It will not all be for the worse though. More forests, more agricultural production and longer growing seasons will increase the availability of materials and resources, and if improvements are made in the global reallocation of these resources it may take the pressure of the forests of the third world and stem the loss of valuable habitat.
All in all a much better scenario than slipping into another period of a globally cooling climate where the ice caps would be growing progressively larger and growing seasons becoming progressively shorter.
Peace,
R267075
3 years ago
Chickenma1

I hope you’re right, GW. 🙂
R267110
3 years ago
GWHunta

Thanks Chickenma1.
Question remains though; what is the drive behind trying to convince the public that it’s CO2 and not agriculture that is impacting the climate?
By the way, though my case could and will be presented more clearly and understandably in the near future.
I am right as rain.
Which incidentally is one of the primary mechanisms (rain) that scrubs by dissolution CO2 and other trace gases from the atmosphere.
Peace,
Post Modified: 07/23/09 02:59:29
R267114
3 years ago
Number5Toad

yeah, i hope you’re right too. but forgive me for holding on to my doubts. can’t help being a little distrustful of anyone who says “i’m right, listen to me!”
R267161
3 years ago
Snark

Are you familiar with sensible heating and its relationship to latent heat, global warming hunta?
Since you refused to read this paper before you dismissed its conclusions as incorrect, I will re-cite it below, with highlights from the article copied and pasted for your convenience. Please do us all the favor of actually reading it, instead of dogmatically rejecting it and refusing to read it, as you did before and with the other 20 papers I posted that establish that CO2 drives global warming.
Note that this paper incorporates an actual model, not just arithmetic. You may wish to consider it.
Also, please be aware that most scientists – all the respectable ones, in any case – do not bring your level of messianic certainty and arrogance to the table, and that the language of all scientific papers incorporates a certain amount of what you might think is uncertain, waffling language. For example, a paper might say, “our data support the conclusion that…” rather than “this is the truth.” This is not a reflection of uncertainty or lack of confidence, but merely a nod to Popper’s concept of falsifiability, which underpins most modern scientific philosophy. I will charitably attribute your rejection of the papers I have posted as “weak sauce conclusions” to your unfamiliarity with the language and conventions of scientific discourse, rather than to disingenuous motives or to cognitive dissonance.
Cheers.
Kueppers, L. M., M. A. Snyder, and L. C. Sloan (2007), Irrigation cooling effect: Regional climate forcing by land-use change, Geophys. Res. Lett., 34, L03703, doi:10.1029/2006GL028679.
Abstract:
Regional detection of a greenhouse warming signal relies on extensive, long-term measurements of temperature. The potentially confounding impact of land-cover and land-use change on trends in temperature records has mostly focused on the influence of urban heat islands. Here we use a regional climate model to show that a regional irrigation cooling effect (ICE) exists, opposite in sign to urban heat island effects. The magnitude of the ICE has strong seasonal variability, causing large dry-season decreases in monthly mean and maximum temperatures, but little change in rainy-season temperatures. Our model produced a negligible effect on monthly minimum temperature. In California, the modeled regional ICE is of similar magnitude, but opposite sign, to predictions for future regional warming from greenhouse gases. Given our results for California and the global importance of irrigated agriculture, past expansion of irrigated land has likely affected observations of surface temperature, potentially masking the full warming signal caused by greenhouse gas increases.
Excerpts from that paper:
from Results:
Over the 20-year time period of the RCM sensitivity experiment, August mean and maximum temperatures were, on average, 3.7 ± 0.2 and 7.5 ± 0.3°C lower, respectively, where natural vegetation was converted to irrigated agriculture (Figure 1 and Table 1). August minimum temperatures were 0.9 ± 0.2°C lower, although this effect was less geographically consistent; in most grid cells, minimum temperature did not change significantly (Figure 1 and Table 1). There was a latitudinal trend in the size of the effect; southern irrigated areas generally had larger temperature decreases, relative to northern areas (Figure 1). This trend corresponds with general trends in temperature and precipitation, with southern areas being warmer and drier than northern areas. The modeled decreases in temperature were accompanied by large increases in relative humidity (25 ± 1%, absolute change), as well as a shift away from sensible and toward latent heat fluxes.
The irrigation cooling effect (ICE) was not confined to the near-surface atmosphere in irrigated grid cells, but spread to adjacent grid cells and the lower troposphere via advection of the relatively cooler, moister air (note statistically significant differences in unmodified grid cells in Figures 1 and 2) . For California as a whole, the model produced a net decrease of 0.38 ± 0.05°C in August mean temperature due to land-use change.
The ICE also led to changes in regional circulation. During the warm summer months in California’s Central Valley, daytime heating of the surface typically results in unstable conditions; the rising air draws in cooler air from western coastal areas. The decrease in surface temperatures stabilized the atmosphere, reducing the strength of the westerly land-sea breeze by 25 to 75 cm/s (©20 to ©40%) along the western margin of the Central Valley. The presence of irrigation in the Central Valley also generated inland breezes [Seth and Giorgi, 1996] due to the contrast between the relatively cool, moist irrigated areas and adjacent warm, dry natural vegetation. Inland airflow of up to 50 cm/s (+10 to +20%) appeared in the southern part of the Central Valley, where the temperature and humidity effects of irrigated agriculture were most pronounced (Figure 2). No significant changes in precipitation or clouds were detected.
While the RCM produced the most widespread climate changes in the month of August, statistically significant changes occurred year round for maximum temperature, relative humidity, and sensible and latent heat flux, primarily in southern California’s Imperial Valley. The temporal pattern of the ICE in this Mediterranean-like region is most pronounced in the warm, dry summer months, minimal in the cool, wet winter months, and intermediate, but still significant in many areas, in spring and fall (Table 1). From year to year, variation in large-scale atmospheric flow can influence the magnitude of cooling produced by the model, since the size of the ICE is partially dependent on the difference in soil moisture available for evapotranspiration between the two cases. Summers following relatively wet winters (defined as total Dec–Mar precipitation >1© above mean 1981–2000 levels) tend to have less pronounced cooling from irrigation than other summers (i.e., the maximum drop in temperature from NAT to MOD model cases is smaller following wetter winters) (Figure 3). Over all years, the maximum cooling is positively related to Dec–Mar precipitation (r = 0.77), with drier years having a larger cooling effect. Thus, the ICE is most pronounced during warm, dry times of the year, and during relatively warm, dry years, and vice versa.
From the discussion:
As with the urban heat island effect, understanding the spatial and temporal “fingerprint” of the ICE may be critical for detecting greenhouse gas-driven climate change. In California, 626 (76%) of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Cooperate Observer Program climate stations (73% of total stations) are located in areas with some irrigated agriculture [Siebert et al., 2005] (Figure 4, inset). A recent analysis across multiple observational datasets detected consistent positive trends (1950–2000) in winter through summer minimum temperatures, and in winter mean and maximum temperatures in California (C. Bonfils et al., Identification of external influences on temperatures in California, submitted to Climatic Change, 2007). Consistent trends in mean and maximum temperature were absent spring through autumn. We found mean and maximum temperatures between the months of May and October to be most influenced by the ICE in irrigated areas, and found few significant changes in minimum temperatures at any time of year. Based on our findings, one interpretation of Bonfils et al. is that over the 50 year period of their study, and where irrigation extent was increasing concurrently with greenhouse gas concentrations, land-use change provided a seasonally variable regional climate forcing opposite to greenhouse forcing.
Post Modified: 03/06/07 15:22:50
R267163
3 years ago
Snark

I further encourage those interested in this topic to peruse the following papers; they are a collection of the best and most influential of the past five years’ papers on global warming. If you are unable to obtain them, I am happy to email anybody PDF’s, as I have access to most journals through my university account.
Gillett et al 2002)015%3C0326%3ARTATTD%3E2.0.CO%3B2
Hegerl et al 2004)017%3C3683:DOACIA%3E2.0.CO%3B2
Post Modified: 03/06/07 15:15:22
R267167
3 years ago
Snark

Also, some questions from the other thread which you have thus far refused to answer, plus a few new ones….
Do you have data showing that humidity has increased globally?
Can you statistically correlate the temperature and humidity?
Why does that prediction perfectly account for the warming that is also perfectly accounted for by CO2? Why would two very different molecules, part of very different biogeochemical processes, added in different proportions, act exactly the same way – to the point that the effect of one would be mistaken (by thousands of educated, expert scientists) for the effect of the other?
What happens to sensible heating when evapotranspiration increases?
R267183
3 years ago
Chickenma1

Snark, your reply is much appreciated. I have often wondered about some of the effects of evaporation. For instance, the speed of evaporation is what chills the air when a swamp cooler cools – Does the heat actually convert to cool (how?) or is it convected rapidly somewhere else?
R267197
3 years ago
Chickenma1

Bump. GW, I notice you’re on, maybe you could answer my question.
R267199
3 years ago
GWHunta

For instance, the speed of evaporation is what chills the air when a swamp cooler cools – Does the heat actually convert to cool (how?) or is it convected rapidly somewhere else?
That is an excellent analogy Chickenma1,
The heat doesn’t actually go somewhere else, it takes a different form. It is transformed from sensible to latent heat.
The heat in the relatively drier air going into the cooler is taken from the air and taken up by the water and wicking material in the swamp cooler, this heat is used to evaporate some of the water in the wicking material into the air that exits.
Because this energy, the latent heat of vaporization, has to come from somewhere it is given up by the incoming air to the water and wicking material and the airstream leaving the swamp cooler is of a lower temperature, but in fact contains slightly more net heat energy when it exits than when it entered the swamp cooler.
The slightly more is heat that is radiated into the swamp cooler as it would generally be cooler inside than the ambient temperature of its surroundings.
Though this exiting airstream is of lower temperature, because it now has this additional water vapor content its total heat capacity is marginally greater than it was entering the swamp cooler.
The swamp cooler doesn’t make cold.
Cold is the absence of sensible heat.
This is exactly the point I’m trying to make about the irrigated farmland. It is cooler to the thermometer or the remote sensor, but these millions of acres of irrigated cropland aren’t cooling the biosphere they are adding vast quantities of additional heat energy, albeit at a lower temperature, to the atmosphere as well as adding vast quantities of the most potent of greenhouse gases, water vapor.
Thanks again, I told you your outlook proves many times invaluable on this site.
Great questions, great points.
Peace,
OK Snark,
How does a swamp cooler make cold?
Ask a climate scientist, farmers know squat? (Humor)
Sometimes no Peace.
Post Modified: 03/07/07 00:04:11
R267200
3 years ago
GWHunta

Plants use water to cool their leaves to prevent them from overheating and burning up in the rays of the sun.
The swamp cooler is a good analogy for what happens and why an irrigated field of crops is cooler and appears cooler than the surrounding vegetation or bare ground when sensed remotely or actual ambient air temperatures are taken.
That doesn’t mean less solar energy is converted to heat, it is just in a form that doesn’t raise the temperature of the surrounding soil and atmosphere as much.
Lower temperatures mean reduced radiation of this energy back to space, hence more energy is retained in the form of latent heat, contibuting to an increase in global average temperatures and the relative humidity.
I apologize for the repetition, I just can’t “believe” this isn’t obviously factual.
Peace,
Post Modified: 03/07/07 00:06:10
R267201
3 years ago
GWHunta

yeah, i hope you’re right too. but forgive me for holding on to my doubts. can’t help being a little distrustful of anyone who says …….
I’M RIGHT LISTEN TO ME
Thanks for hearing me out and considering the fact that I’m right.
Reserve your doubts, or better yet test them.
You can’t do that with the CO2 theory cause it is theory, and a radically abstract one.
If you’ve a calculator and a link to a physics page, you can put what I say here to the test.
Thanks and Peace,
R267202
3 years ago
Chickenma1

Well, GW, it does seem a little counter-intuitive that cooler temperatures contain more latent heat, just as the swamp cooler seems counter-intuitive that evaporation could make things cold. But it does. Thanks, I’m trying to wrap my mind around it, and you do explain things in a way that I can attempt to grasp. Al Gore’s movie seemed to make sense until you realize that CO2 is such a small percentage of the overall atmosphere that having it rise is kinda like having the highest rate of population increase go from one to two. Big percentage but really small numbers.
R267203
3 years ago
Chickenma1

The modeled decreases in temperature were accompanied by large increases in relative humidity (25 ± 1%, absolute change), as well as a shift away from sensible and toward latent heat fluxes.
Snark, isn’t that what GW is trying to say? That the increased water vapor contains more latent heat?
R267243
3 years ago
GWHunta

Snark, isn’t that what GW is trying to say? That the increased water vapor contains more latent heat?
Again Chickenma1,
You make the connection and the point. As for the counter-intuitive aspect, that is exactly how this elephant hides in the room.
Climate scientists are searching for heat and warming, not net energy.
Heavy dependence upon satellite imagery, vast amounts of data and computer models skews the process of taking into account that which isn’t immediately obvious.
In spite of the fact this increased energy doesn’t register as an increase in sensible heat, the increase in latent heat becomes a bigger overall factor in the warming of the climate, because latent heat isn’t as readily radiated back into space.
The moisture laden atmosphere must cool to the vapor saturation point before the condensation process can begin. Until that happens, the additional water vapor is a very potent greenhouse gas in and of itself and the increased amounts of water vapor in the atmosphere slow the cooling of the earth’s surface. The reduction in convection of this cooler, more moisture laden air is also a factor.
The formation of clouds is many times due to the rising of air and the accompanying drop in temperature as the pressure decreases with elevation.
Lower temperatures raise the relative humidity of the air mass until the vapor reaches the saturation point, then condensation begins.
Atmospheric CO2 is basically a bit player in the overall process.
300 ppm, 500 ppm or even 700 ppm is going to have a negligible impact on the overall climate and the hydrological cycle in comparison to the impact of humans damming rivers to form huge reservoirs and pumping underground aquifers for the intensive irrigation of millions upon millions of acres of farmland.
The greatest impact that all the additional CO2 added to the atmosphere by burning fossil fuels is likely to impart on the changing climate may well be from the ability of increased atmospheric CO2 levels to further increase the rate of plant growth.
More abundant plant life will further increase evapotranspiration rates in both the agricultural and natural environment.
It could truly become a jungle out there.
Peace,
Post Modified: 07/23/09 02:52:48
R267255
3 years ago
egalitarian77

Wow. Great discussion. I had this stuff almost 20 years ago, but was usually too hungover, or the presentation didn’t encourage me to make the connections for a deeper understanding of the energy transformations/movements involved. Me wants a swamp cooler now. But, then again, maybe running a refrigerant based compressor driven by a coal fired electrical plant is the more environmentally friendly way to stay cool? Also has me second guessing my prior criticisms of my states (Montana) current plans to build coal to liquids (CTL) plants.
Why do I have the sinking feeling that this concept-water vapor driven climate change might go the way of whatever the truth is of 9/11? Reflections on comments about Gore and CO2 are driving me to make this analogy.
Cheers,
R267271
3 years ago
GWHunta

Why do I have the sinking feeling that this concept-water vapor driven climate change might go the way of whatever the truth is of 9/11? Reflections on comments about Gore and CO2 are driving me to make this analogy.
Because the bad CO2 from fossil fuels analogy used by Gore is largely responsible for the press for biofuels, widely embraced by environmentalists because if your emissions of carbon are based on “renewables” even in part, it is viewed as progress towards sustainability and maintaining the climate balance.
It’s also win-win situation for both the big energy companies and agribusiness because it involves a blend of both fossil fuels and agricultural products to produce gasoline with 10% ethanol or even the new gold standard E-85.
Same with most biodiesel on the market, a blend of agricultural oils and diesel fuel derived from crude oil.
For the politicians and the global elite it is a roundabout way of redirecting the resources available and being used to feed the third world into the alleged “saving of the planet” from climate disaster; because it allows Joe Six Pack and Susy Soccer Mom to feel good about saving the environment when in reality they are increasing their negative impact while driving around on an agricultural product somebody else could have used to eat.
Sometimes no Peace,
Post Modified: 03/10/07 09:01:43
R267272
3 years ago
Snark

Lower temperatures mean reduced radiation of this energy back to space, hence more energy is retained in the form of latent heat, contibuting to an increase in global average temperatures and the relative humidity.
You still haven’t established that relative humidity has increased.
I apologize for the repetition, I just can’t “believe” this isn’t obviously factual.
Because you’ve got back-of-the-envelope arithmetic, not evidence.
Plants use water to cool their leaves to prevent them from overheating and burning up in the rays of the sun.
Actually, no, compounds like zeaxanthans fulfill that role.
For the politicians and the global elite it is a roundabout way of redirecting the resources available and being used to feed the third world into the alleged “saving of the planet” from climate disaster; because it allows Joe-Sixpack and Soccer Mom to feel good about saving the environment when in reality they are increasing their negative impact while driving around on an agricultural product somebody else could have used to eat.
Psst. Your bias is showing.
Also, as I keep saying, the onus is on you to answer these questions.
Do you have data showing that humidity has increased globally?
Can you statistically correlate the temperature and humidity?
Why does that prediction perfectly account for the warming that is also perfectly accounted for by CO2? Why would two very different molecules, part of very different biogeochemical processes, added in different proportions, act exactly the same way – to the point that the effect of one would be mistaken (by thousands of educated, expert scientists) for the effect of the other?
What happens to sensible heating when evapotranspiration increases? (Actually, I suppose you’ve sorta come close on this one, but the point is that sensible heating decreases as latent heating increases. )
Post Modified: 03/07/07 08:12:09
R267273
3 years ago
Truthcansuk

Do I get to be the first person to honestly admit I have absolutely no clue as to the underlying logic of either this or the C02 argument, mainly owing to my lack of scientific learning?
That being said, I’m gonna go with the doomsday C02 scenario… far sexier…
R267277
3 years ago
GWHunta

Do I get to be the first person to honestly admit I have absolutely no clue as to the underlying logic of either this or the C02 argument, mainly owing to my lack of scientific learning?
That is absolutely the response I was hoping to get to this. The admission, a very brave one at that, that most don’t begin to understand this topic at all, but simply choose to believe, they don’t know.
That is why I began many months ago poking holes in the CO2 centric explanation and trying to impart some facts and physics prior to announcing that the CO2 centric explanation is flat out wrong and the expansion and changes in the intensity of agricultural practices are the primary human influence on the climate.
I applaud your honesty.
I hope the two billion advocates to the CO2 centric doomsday scenario that Al Gore hopes to raise four short months from today with his worldwide SOS concert on 07/07/07 can be as intellectually honest with themselves.
Al Gore is the Pied Piper of this New Millennium.
Post Modified: 03/07/07 08:40:48
R267278
3 years ago
Snark

This is my final post on the topic today. I’ve got a lot going on right now, and as much as I’d like to spend time discussing this, I’ve got an exam to write.
That said, I’ll offer a final criticism.
GW offers nothing but an alternate hypothesis. He seems to be convinced that merely offering that alternate hypothesis is sufficiently convincing, but he lacks several crucial elements – data and analysis. I’m not talking about the sort of arithmetic he’s been throwing out. He doesn’t definitively establish anything. He doesn’t explain how his theory accounts for the observed data, or why latent heat mimics CO2 so well. He doesn’t even establish that global humidity has risen to explain the global increases in temperature. So, at best, he’s got an unproven and frankly unconvincing alternate hypothesis. That’s not sufficient for his idea to be taken seriously as a valid alternative to the CO2 theory- especially when he lacks the research experience, credentials, and publications to be granted automatic credibility.
In any case, to be blunt, I think it’s pretty irrelevant.
R267282
3 years ago
Szamko

Personally I’m going to believe the least apocalyptic theory of the two and go with my CO2-centric guts. I mean if Prof. Hunta is right, then we can’t water our flowers. We’re totally buggered. At least with Albert’s PR plan to take over the world we stand a chance of solving our ecological problems.
R267246
3 years ago
GWHunta

Globally most people spend far more on food than on transportation fuel. Even in a automobile centric society most spend more on groceries than gas, so yes agribusiness is by far a larger industry.
As individual corporations, the oil and automotive majors are huge in comparison to the average agribusiness.
But names like Pillsbury and Cargill should be immediately recognizable to most folks as well. The links between agribusiness and oil can’t be overlooked either as corporations like Monsanto get much of their chemical feedstocks from the energy sector.
I’m not insuating that there is a conspiracy afoot to prevent this aspect from becoming known.
I was simply responding to hera who questioned my motives for not “believing” in the CO2 centric explanation for the warming of the climate.
It is simply a matter of investigation of the science supporting the CO2 theory and finding it flawed and lacking and searching out the actual primary causes for the increase in the greenhouse effect and average global temperatures of the past 50 years.
It had to be something bigger than a relatively small increase of trace gases.
Changes to the hydrological cycle are simply a much more sound and reasonable explanation and are readily quantifiable. This isn’t theory, it is science.
Peace,
Post Modified: 03/07/07 00:41:56
R267247
3 years ago
NewWorldOdor

I don’t know enough to refute or even comment further. There aren’t enough hours in the day, and with my time spent primarily on other subjects, my only option is to assume that what the experts are saying is accurate(that’s not to say I always take that option).
With that in mind, I’m just curious of your qualifications.
R267248
3 years ago
GWHunta

I’ve spent thousands of hours studying and pondering the issues of energy, environment and climate over the course of the last 30 years.
I began in the libraries of the University of Minnesota in 1977 and now do most of my research via the internet.
If in terms of qualifications you mean degrees in fields relative or related to climate science, I’ve none.
I’m fundamentally a scholar , not a student in search of employment.
Peace,
Post Modified: 03/08/07 11:56:29
R267249
3 years ago
NewWorldOdor

I’m fundamentally a scholar
What do you mean by “fundamentally a scholar?” What field(s) did you concentrate on for your PhD(s)?
R267253
3 years ago
zephid

I do not concur in that regard.
On what grounds? It seems to me that, although misguided, the CO2 theory still has credibility given that increases in CO2 drastically increase levels of water vapor in the atmosphere, which in turn increases heat retained, ad infinitum. It’s those little nudges and pushes that are the trick in the end.
If you’re trying to convince the lay man, I’m here, and the site you link to, which you disagree with, seems more authoritative right now.
This isn’t theory, it is science.
Either your scholarship was not incredibly thorough, as you would know by your study of the empirical method that most of science is theory, or you’re lacking a fitting word. Hell, most of the paper you linked to was about a theory which had its own detractors.
Did you use the figure of volume (12 cubic kilometers) versus the average use of weight or mass (tons) used by people measuring carbon dioxide on purpose? I can’t find that figure cited anywhere else on the Internet, and it’s hard to compare volume to mass in an atmospheric theater when you’re dealing with gasses.
R267265
3 years ago
hera

“I began in the libraries of the University of Minnesota in 1977 and now do most of my research via the internet.
I’m convinced.
R267274
3 years ago
GWHunta

Try following both threads on the topic and letting this stand on its own accord absent the dogma you believe but don’t fully understand about CO2.
My PhD was a gift from a Wizard. It is in Thinkology.
Most of my atmospheric data was gathered by crows and whispered into my ears as I observed over the fields from my position on a stick.
Now, what possible motivation might I have for misleading anyone on this matter.
Every CO2 centric theory is totally dependent upon increased water vapor.
If you can’t grasp the fact that if continental runoff is prevented by contour plowing and other soil and water conservation measures implemented by farmers worldwide, coupled with the impact of industrialists who have constructed tens of thousands of large dams worldwide to provide flood control and water for the production of electricity and agricultural irrigation and this huge volume of water that is daily redirected to the sky, instead of flowing to the sea couldn’t be the cause of the warming and the climate change; but CO2 increasing from .0313 % of the total atmosphere to .0383 % over the past fifty years or so, a .007 % increase, is definitely the cause because Al Gore told you so, then I suggest you tap the heels of your ruby slippers and repeat after me….
There’s no place like home…..there’s no place like home.
Post Modified: 03/12/07 17:58:20
R267292
3 years ago
Chickenma1

GW, initially your theory gave me hope. Now it seems that we have even more to worry about. The CO2 levels really do seem to interfere with the ability of water to balance the temperatures naturally. And that cirrus cloud cover of increased humidity traps all the combustion heat that Blackpacker mentioned. Also scary is the release of methane from melting permafrost. Help!!!
R267296
3 years ago
GWHunta

Chickenma1,
Maintain that hope. CO2 is a bit player. So is the methane. The combustion heat is just a fraction of the percentage of the total energy that is cast upon the earth in the form of sunshine.
89 PW warms the suface of the earth. That is a tremendous amount of energy.
In comparison all of mankind produces 15 TW globally.
The sensible heat converted to latent heat by virtue of agricultural irrigation is 21 times greater than that of all the energy used by mankind at roughly 315 TWt.
Relax, so long as the sun shines and the rain falls, life will flourish.
Nothing human kind is currently capable of doing to the biosphere will prevent either of these blessings (sunshine and rainfall) from continuing on, albeit not exactly in the same patterns or with the same impact as they have had in the past.
Peace,
Post Modified: 03/12/07 18:00:54
R267298
3 years ago
GWHunta

And speaking of BlackPacker
You know, on average, every calorie you eat took 10 calories to get it on your table. If you are eating multi-national food; Chilean grapes, Morrocan mangos, etc, each calorie is costing about 600 calories to get to you.
The calories commonly referred to in our food products are actually kilocalories, so when figuring in the energy used to create this food this factor must be taken into account.
Peace,
R267317
3 years ago
deadender

“…each calorie is costing about 600 calories to get to you.”
AHA, the problem with the American Diet. They were told to burn more calories… et voila!
R267326
3 years ago
NewWorldOdor

My PhD was a gift from a Wizard. It is in Thinkology.
So if I understand this correctly, you’re a layman who uses the internet a lot and came up with an alternative theory that attempts to contradict qualified scientists? If I’m wrong please let me know.
R267334
3 years ago
a_pretty_rainbow

a layman who uses the internet a lot and came up with an alternative theory that attempts to contradict qualified scientists
I think this should be the abstract for GW Hunta’s “global warming paper”
R267335
3 years ago
deadender

global warming paper?
R267344
3 years ago
GWHunta

Define layman? And do try to remember that George W. Bush has a Masters Degree in Business Administration from Harvard and is a Yale graduate.
Peace,
R267359
3 years ago
Draconis

a layman who uses the internet a lot and came up with an alternative theory that attempts to contradict qualified scientists
Ha… Assholes. This is why scientists are hated. Your egos exceed your actual intellect. It’s pretty hard to turn people on to your theories and data when you are so busy trying to first prove how much smarter you are than them.
You guys say the word “scientist” like a fundie would say “God”. It’s shit like this that makes me believe that 90% of so-called “science” is about self-aggrandizement and ego masturbation. Oh, but I guess I only think that because I’m an uneducated “layman”, utterly incapable of reading, studying, and experimenting myself… Please, my lord Scientists… Do all my thinking for me? Fucking joke.
R267360
3 years ago
hera

Inferiority complex much?
R267362
3 years ago
Draconis

}=-]
Nope. Just a loooove for science!
R267366
3 years ago
GWHunta

Ditto that.
Read this article and you’ll get some idea just how ignorant some of these scientists can really be.
These people, though capable of running sophisticated computer climate models can’t explain the operation and impact of evaporative cooling or fathom how a reduction of convection while simultaneously creating radically higher levels of relative humidity in spite of lower levels of sensible heat will serve to warm, not cool the surface and lower levels of the atmosphere.
Their conclusions and assertions are exactly 180 degrees off the mark and as the title implies, they act as though they are onto something as the title indicates.
Good thing all that cropland cool is there to offset the urban heat island effect or CO2 would be cooking us off the planet.
I am going to write the editors of Science and author of the article. When I went to the page for instruction as to how to make this connection this icon was at the top.
Kind of says it all.
Peace,
Post Modified: 03/07/07 17:52:00
R267371
3 years ago
GWHunta

The data reported in the article and others that note this decrease in sensible heat all report conditions that support the conclusions I am reporting.
They all also fail to appreciate the impact and model into the larger climate the impact of this additional water vapor and the latent heat it contains.
Better computer models are on the horizon. Maybe with some critical thinking to replace tweaking data imput till it mirrors the observed results we will get a model that actually mimics what is happening in the actual environment and will help guide us towards policies that will actually have a positive, not negative impact on the changing climate.
R267372
3 years ago
Snark

Oh, but I guess I only think that because I’m an uneducated “layman”, utterly incapable of reading, studying, and experimenting myself
Well, do you read the literature? More importantly, do you have the expertise to understand what’s being said in the literature, and to evaluate a paper’s findings? And – rhetorical question – do you have the equipment and knowledge to design and execute an experiment? Are you capable of running a multivariant analysis? Could you design a climate model? With respect, no, you don’t. You’re not capable of it. I’ve been working in my field for two years, 50 hours a week as my sole job and hobby, and I’ve only just recently mastered all the basic lab protocols I need.
Sorry if this puts a bee up your ass, but science has gotten to the point that you have to devote at least five to six years dedicating nearly every waking moment to study and research before you’re even considered competent to do it on your own, and another two or three doing research in academic probation (postdoctoral positions) before you’re considered competent to teach it. It’s not a democracy. It’s an infocracy, and no member of the general public reading stuff on the internet in their spare time has a hope of accumulating enough information to build a synthetic, comprehensive understanding of a field – let alone one with the scope and breadth of climatology, a multidisiplinary field where no one person can hope to understand much more than the narrow focus of their own research, and where there are so many variables at work that researchers use teraflop supercomputers to run their simulations and process data.
And I’m sorry if that insults you. But yeah, you basically said it – you can’t think for yourself in this realm unless you’ve devoted years of your life to studying it and doing research on it. The days of Leuvenhoek inventing a microscope and checking out the pondwater are over. There is so much information to be mastered that only those who devote their lives to understanding it are considered relevant.
Your – and hunta’s – insistence that you’re just as capable as any scientist to do research and hold an informed opinion about scientific issues is about as absurd as me walking into BMW and lecturing them about how to design engines, or into Apple and telling them how to write code. I know how to code a bit. I know how an engine works, in general. But to imagine that I, by reading car magazines and taking a class on Python coding in undergrad, have sufficient knowledge to lecture experts on their area of expertise? Absurd and presumptuous.
Oh, and hunta…
Read this article and you’ll get some idea just how ignorant some of these scientist can really be.
Tell me, have you read the article yet? Not the fucking digest of it in ScienceNOW, the actual article.
Oh, and submit 2 science? That’s a link to submit an article to the journal. I won’t joke about your reading comprehension, but come the fuck on.
Post Modified: 03/07/07 18:07:58
R267379
3 years ago
GWHunta

It is also where the reader is directed to comment on an article or write a letter to the editor.
My reading comprehension is fine though my proofreading and spelling at times are quite poor. Aging eyes. As for this paraphrase:
let alone one with the scope and breadth of climatology, a multidisiplinary field where no one person can hope to understand much more than the narrow focus of their own research.
That’s the problem with the whole CO2 centric theory. It is a house of cards.
Face it Snark. All CO2 driven models depend upon CO2 increasing temperature and water vapor as a feedback or they fall in the face of the level of temperature change we’ve seen.
Tell me I’m wrong about irrigation adding water vapor to the atmosphere and in vast quantities.
You can’t.
And you if you were totally honest about it you’d admit you don’t understand the science of ET.
Occam’s razor.
The world is becoming warmer and the atmosphere is carrying increased water vapor. Relative humidity doesn’t have to rise to demonstrate this.
If it didn’t go down, there is more water vapor available or with increasing temperatures it would have gone down.
Now either the farmers of the world are accomplishing this by on a daily average evapotranspirating 12 cubic kilometers of liquid water into water vapor by virtue of irrigation of millions upon millions of acres of cropland or the miniscule increase of atmospheric CO2 over the last 50 years of .006% of total atmospheric content is the culprit.
Seriously, which of these assertions make more sense?
Post Modified: 03/07/07 18:26:59
R267381
3 years ago
Snark

All CO2 driven models depend upon CO2 increasing temperature and water vapor as a feedback or they fall in the face of the level of temperature change we’ve seen.
None of the models are “CO2 driven.” Which you would know if you understood how they work. Reading papers would help.
Tell me I’m wrong about irrigation adding water vapor to the atmosphere and in vast quantities.
Irrigation water is added to the atmosphere in vast quantities. Now correlate that with global warming, explain in detail how and why it perfectly matches
The world is becoming warmer and the atmosphere is carrying increased water vapor. Relative humidity doesn’t have to rise to demonstrate this.
Exactly what do you think humidity is if not water vapor? By definition, higher concentrations of water vapor in the atmosphere are increased humidity!
Seriously, which of these assertions make more sense?
Stop wasting my time with a priori bullshit in an attempt to prove your point. I’m not convinced. Science doesn’t have to make sense. It has to be supported by evidence. Your hypothesis is supported by nothing of the sort.
Post Modified: 03/07/07 18:39:29
R267382
3 years ago
GWHunta

The biofuel business is already huge and growing. 15% of the American corn crop is being turned into ethanol. How many gallons of water are given to the atmosphere as water vapor, complete with the latent heat it contains to make one gallon of ethanol?
This is worth investigation and thorough understanding before we really run this planet into the ground.
Peace,
R267383
3 years ago
GWHunta

The world is becoming warmer and the atmosphere is carrying increased water vapor. Relative humidity doesn’t have to rise to demonstrate this.
Exactly what do you think humidity is if not water vapor?
By definition, higher concentrations of water vapor in the atmosphere are considered humidity!
Snark, you are really out there.
Relative humidity is a function of temperature and water vapor content.
If I have the same volume of air with a fixed volume of water vapor, the relative humidity goes down as the temperature is increased.
If you can’t fathom that, do by all means save your breath. You aren’t capable of discussing this topic in even the most basic of terms.
Peace,
R267384
3 years ago
Snark

If you can’t fathom that, do by all means save your breath. You aren’t capable of discussing this topic in even the most basic of terms.
Missing the word “relative” when you’re reading quickly can fuck with your interpretation of a sentence. My apologies. I misread you.
The world is becoming warmer and the atmosphere is carrying increased water vapor.
Evidence? Like, as in, data? Perhaps showing that the atmosphere is carrying increased water vapor? Don’t tell me that it must be there, that’s more a priori bullshit; for all I know, water derived from increased evapotranspiration just precipitates out relatively quickly and overall water vapor content has remained mostly the same. As always, you need data and analysis to support your hypothesis, and I’m rapidly tiring of asking for it.
Post Modified: 03/07/07 18:50:58
R267386
3 years ago
NewWorldOdor

Ha… Assholes. This is why scientists are hated. Your egos exceed your actual intellect. It’s pretty hard to turn people on to your theories and data when you are so busy trying to first prove how much smarter you are than them.
lol I’m not even a scientist. I’m not even discounting his theory. As I mentioned earlier I’m in no position to refute what’s been said. Just trying to get an idea of GW’s qualifications.
Don’t get mad at me for phrasing what is true.
R267391
3 years ago
NewWorldOdor

Define layman?
Someone who comes at the subject as an ordinary person, and has not had his/her ideas scrutinized by other qualified researchers. Someone with no formal knowledge of a subject.
Anyone with no fundamental understanding of this subject is simply taking everyone else’s word for it. I fail to see how one could spot an error with no basic knowledge of the topic at hand.
GW, with all due respect, I think your intentions are good but let’s face it: you;re using the internet for “research” and have no formal understanding of the subject you’re talking about. This is like a laymen reading a few articles from counterpunch and all of the sudden thinking he/she understands the complexities of international relations.
R267395
3 years ago
GWHunta

I have no idea how much of the current literature or how many articles and papers I’ve read in the past 30 years.
I’ve had formal studies but admittedly most of my research has been conducted independently via various university libraries over the course of the late seventies and eighties and beginning in the mid to late 90’s has been largely replaced with primarily information obtained by virtue of the internet and raw economic and resource/material data from various almanacs.
I also appreciate your honesty regarding your incomplete understanding of the issues and processes I’m trying to explain. I appreciate the due respect.
Let’s face it, if I had a PhD in climate science, it wouldn’t make one iota of difference in your ability to discern whether I am presenting to you the basis for climate change straight for the first time, or am mad whack.
Try not to have a strong or emotional opinions about matters upon which your basis of understanding is based on belief and not knowledge or be critical of those that follow this tenent.
Peace,
Post Modified: 03/07/07 19:38:18
R267396
3 years ago
Draconis

Sorry if this puts a bee up your ass
It doesn’t.
It’s not a democracy. It’s an infocracy
No shit. It’s designed that way.
And I’m sorry if that insults you.
It doesn’t.
no member of the general public reading stuff on the internet in their spare time has a hope of accumulating enough information to build a synthetic, comprehensive understanding of a field
Who said anything about all of that? It’s important for people to have at least a general understanding. Too many scientists are too busy looking for self-gratification, or publishing works meant only for others in their field. Not nearly enough work to bring it to the general populace, in ways that they can understand and to show them why they should give a fuck. All these smug asshole attitudes get is all them dumb-can’t-fink-fer-demselves normal folks’ resentfulness.
I sometimes catch Kirk Cameron on the tube going around, trying to explain that evolution isn’t real because of bananas (his mustached friend called the fruit “an atheist’s nightmare”). Sure, we might all laugh and all feel incredibly smarter than these simpletons… But the truth is that being undereducated and being stupid are two very different things. So many of us are content to just look at things like that, laugh, feel smug, and move on. In reality, we should see how truly sad, and actually dangerous, this situation is.
you can’t think for yourself in this realm unless you’ve devoted years of your life to studying it and doing research on it
This here… Is bullshit. A person who doesn’t have the know-how or equipment or understanding of the science can still have things explained to them in a way that will be understandable. A layman is still entirely capable of searching through the fruits of others’ labors and making a basic comparison analysis for themselves. They might arrive at incorrect conclusions, but so do many Scientists (for now on, it must be capitalized to convey the superiority). Granted, an undereducated person has much more chance for error, but they aren’t feeble-minded idiots. They aren’t mentally handicapped.
Your – and hunta’s – insistence that you’re just as capable as any scientist to do research and hold an informed opinion about scientific issues is about as absurd as me walking into BMW and lecturing them about how to design engines
When the fuck did I ever insist on such a thing? Fuck… Nevermind all this… Let me break it down, simple, so a layman like you can understand.
Most scientists aren’t half as clever as they believe. History is filled with their errors. This isn’t an attack on science itself… Far from it. Rather I believe that it is the scientists themselves that are doing a disservice to their own practice by ignoring, ridiculing and otherwise pissing off those in the public.
ALL scientists are subject to ALL the same frailties that ALL human beings are subject to. This is something that I find that a lot of intelligent, high-minded people unfortunately blind themselves to. People fuck themselves because of this, including all us “geeeniuses”.
As for your analogy…
No, I don’t think undereducated people should waltz into a meeting of engineers and attempt to tell them how they’re wrong. I do think it’s entirely appropriate for a dreeeaaadful layman who’s exercised some ingenuity to approach these engineers with their ideas, correct or not. If the guy’s wrong, then they can correct him and invite him to further study the related fields if he’s interested. Better yet, educate everyone in basic engineering. They might not be able to understand the more complicated heights of the research, but at the very least they won’t be going around saying, “ENGINES WORK BECAUSE OF GOD BANANAS!”.
But no… It doesn’t work out that way. Instead people will just sneer and say, “What the fuck do you know?” And waggle their PHDs at them arrogantly. Who the fuck is science for anyway? Just other dickhead scientists?
Just trying to get an idea of GW’s qualifications.
Don’t lie. It only makes me smile. You did nothing of the sort… You were belittling him. Had nothing to do with “assessing qualifications” or even debating anything he’s saying what-so-ever. Instead it had everything to do with you lowering someone else beneath you so you could be full of that smugsy glee. How human.
lol I’m not even a scientist.
Ah, hypocrisy. According to you, he’s not within his rights to come up with his own ideas (right or wrong) because he’s not a scientist, and has no PHD.
You said… As I mentioned earlier I’m in no position to refute what’s been said
Then what is it that puts you in a position to attempt to discredit him?
Anyway… Hijacked the thread. Sorry.
R267399
3 years ago
Snark

beginning in the mid to late 90’s has been largely replaced with primarily information obtained by the internet and raw economic and resource/material data from various almanacs.
I am utterly unimpressed.
I also appreciate your honesty regarding you’re incomplete understanding of the issues and processes I’m trying to explain. I appreciate the due respect.
You disingenuous…….shit, I’ll get banned. Insert whatever insult you like here.
Jesus Christ.
How does this:
Missing the word “relative” when you’re reading quickly can fuck with your interpretation of a sentence. My apologies. I misread you.
Equate to “an incomplete understanding”? Jesus, are you even capable of debating without tailspinning into logical fallacies? We’re done. You are a dishonest, intellectually bankrupt, arrogant, pedantic blowhard with an ideological agenda, and I’ve got no time to waste arguing with you. Enjoy your “truth”.
Post Modified: 03/07/07 19:42:46
R267400
3 years ago
GWHunta

Don’t be sorry Draconis, valid points.
Post Modified: 03/07/07 19:45:16
R267404
3 years ago
GWHunta

Enjoy your “truth” – I’ll be glad to see it die with you.
It won’t.
R267410
3 years ago
deadender

/me pulls up a chair.
R267411
3 years ago
Snark

Too many scientists are too busy looking for self-gratification, or publishing works meant only for others in their field. Not nearly enough work to bring it to the general populace, in ways that they can understand and to show them why they should give a fuck.
I agree with this, totally. Though I believe that’s changing.
Most scientists aren’t half as clever as they believe. History is filled with their errors.
Errors which were later rectified and changed. Science is nothing but trial and error. To expect it to be right all the time is unrealistic; by its basic philosophy it acknowledges the possibility of error or incompleteness.
ALL scientists are subject to ALL the same frailties that ALL human beings are subject to.
Of course they are. But science, as an institution and a practice, tends to eventually transcend those frailties. Subhramanyan Chandrasekhar got a space telescope named after him; Arthur Eddington died in obscurity after spending his entire career claiming that Chandra’s black hole theory was wrong.
A layman is still entirely capable of searching through the fruits of others’ labors and making a basic comparison analysis for themselves.
Of course. But to claim that basic comparison analyses are better than the fruits of others’ labors is what’s pissing me off. I want people to engage with the science, it’s cool shit and it’ll help them understand their world. I just take issue with people immediately declaring that it’s wrong and fucked and that their bible/almanac/back-of-the-envelope calculation proves that the scientists are just ignorant assholes trying to fuck over the world’s poor. And such.
Rather I believe that it is the scientists themselves that are doing a disservice to their own practice by ignoring, ridiculing and otherwise pissing off those in the public.
The only time I’ve ever seen a scientist ignore, ridicule, or piss off a member of the public is when said member of the public was arrogant, condescending, insulted the scientist’s work, or claimed that they knew better. I know the “Ivory Tower” stereotype is strong, but I don’t think it’s correct with the modern generation of scientists. If you approached your average scientist and merely asked for clarification or information or to consider an idea, they’d probably be delighted. My relatives all ask me about evolution stuff they don’t understand and I’m gratified that they care. My advisor spent so much time talking about science with a few friends of his that they now work in the lab as techs. One of them convinced my advisor to abandon an entire paradigm he’d been relying on for years.
But no… It doesn’t work out that way. Instead people will just sneer and say, “What the fuck do you know?” And waggle their PHDs at them arrogantly.
I simply don’t think that would happen – if they were approached with a tone of respect, desire to communicate, and friendly interest. “I’m hoping you could clarify some things that don’t add up” elicits a much different response than, “you’re wrong, I’m right, my ideas are the truth, and you’re just in denial.” Now, I don’t mean deference, groveling, and ass-kissing, but messianic certainty is out.
I do think it’s entirely appropriate for a dreeeaaadful layman who’s exercised some ingenuity to approach these engineers with their ideas, correct or not.
If that’s what GW was doing, I’d applaud him for it. But he’s not approaching, he’s kicking down the door, saying “fuck you ignorant assholes, I’m bringing the truth” and insisting that he’s correct. He’s not joining the debate, he wants to dominate it.
Post Modified: 03/07/07 20:01:01
R267414
3 years ago
deadender

“If you approached your average scientist and merely asked for clarification or information or to consider an idea, they’d probably be delighted.”
Several years ago, I thought I had the kernel of an idea that would kickstart the AI community. I wrote up an email with my ideas and sent them to every email address I could find connected to AI research and development. To be fair, my ideas were waaaaaay broad, but they were presented in a fairly humble manner.
The replies I DID get were not very encouraging. There was a single positive (if somewhat patronizing) response. Two negative responses, one of which accused me of wasting peoples time with my ‘nonsense’. The other 15 or so emails never received a reply.
Now granted to everyone but me that’s anecdotal, and it’s not a very large sample group… but I can see where GW’s coming from with respect to scientists and laymen.
R267415
3 years ago
NewWorldOdor

Ah, hypocrisy
Hypocrisy first of all has to do with advocating one thing and doing another. You accused me of being an arrogant scientist. I obliterated that point by stating I’m not a scientist.
next…
According to you, he’s not within his rights to come up with his own ideas (right or wrong) because he’s not a scientist, and has no PHD
Actually you’re the only one saying that. I never said anything remotely close to that.
Don’t lie. It only makes me smile. You did nothing of the sort… You were belittling him. Had nothing to do with “assessing qualifications” or even debating anything he’s saying what-so-ever. Instead it had everything to do with you lowering someone else beneath you so you could be full of that smugsy glee. How human.
Thanks for me telling what I did. If you’re interested in my intentions, however, they were exactly what I said: an interest in his qualifications. I was curious whether he was talking out of his ass or in a position to refute qualified scientists.
I asked the question because had I assumed from the start I might have said something I regret.
Then what is it that puts you in a position to attempt to discredit him?
How have I discredited him? All I asked was for his qualifications. Two years ago I asked Snark the same question. Three years ago I asked fennec the same question when we used to talk about evolution. It seems to me GW has discredited himself by stating that he is a scholar when in fact he is nothing of the sort.
Post Modified: 03/07/07 20:22:46
R267417
3 years ago
Snark

The other 15 or so emails never received a reply
I dunno – take it how you will, but in my experience most professors and researchers are insanely hella busy, and it taxes their meager time- and people-management skills to the max. It’s a crapshoot whether my advisor will even return my emails, let alone somebody he doesn’t know emailing him cold. You’d probably have better results forming a relationship with them first, then discussing the ideas – just as with anybody, really.
There was a single positive (if somewhat patronizing) response. Two negative responses, one of which accused me of wasting peoples time with my ‘nonsense
That’s too bad. There’s assholes in every group, I suppose, but I don’t think that’s representative of the whole.
R267432
3 years ago
egalitarian77

GWHunta has proposed a hypothesis that many of us agree is interesting and potentially valid. Let us set aside the tact or lack therof of his presentation. Let us also set aside his qualifications to suggest said hypothesis, for from the perspective of seeking truth these are irrelevant.
GWHunta, have you presented your hypothesis to anyone with the resources to test it in existing climate models and/or to investigate whether or not there is a correlation between increased water vapor (influenced by CO2 etc.) and temperature?
Snark, could you summarize the unanswered questions you have regarding this hypothesis?
What, if any are your plans for this hypothesis? Presummably you would like to see questions as to its validity investigated.
Are there climate change forums where it may be fruitful to present your hypothesis?
Isn’t Exxon or another big oil firm offering cash for such hypothesis (not that I support big oil)?
Personally, I’d like to see more respect from all and more of an effort placed on isolating the unknowns, the unanswered questions, the next steps to be taken to test this hypothesis, etc.
Cheers,
R267434
3 years ago
hera

“Isn’t Exxon or another big oil firm offering cash for such hypothesis (not that I support big oil)?”
Um, gee, isn’t Marboro offering cash for a hypothesis that posits that nicotine tastes like ice cream, elongates penises/enlarges breasts and that it isn’t addictive?
Post Modified: 03/07/07 21:29:38
R267435
3 years ago
hera

The stupidity on this site is unbelievably fucking shocking, sometimes.
R267437
3 years ago
egalitarian77

Does the peanut gallery have anything constructive to add?
R267438
3 years ago
hera

Yeah, The stupidity on this site is unbelievably fucking shocking, sometimes.
R267481
3 years ago
GWHunta

egalitarian77,
Thanks. It is refreshing to find some perspective and a response that isn’t based on an emotional reaction to having one’s belief system altered.
hera,
You don’t understand how CO2 contributes to climate change and is the cause of the documented warming, because it isn’t.
You simply believe it mindlessly and until the herd runs the other way, you’ll heckle from the crowd.
Open your mind a crack. This isn’t rocket science and my explanation for the warming is very simple as compared to the CO2 centric hypothesis.
For some reason, economic pressures, social discord, popular culture, whatever; there seems to be an affinity for doomsday and apocolyptic scenarios in modern society. We must all band together and do something, quick before it’s too late.
I don’t discount this, or the need to do something.
But if the cause is misunderstood, then the “cure” may well kill the patient.
Biofuels do more harm than good. The ethanol business is one of the few bright spots in the U.S. manufacturing base. Converting 15% of the U.S. corn crop to alcohol to fuel transportation in the U.S. is compounding the problem, not alleviating it.
Now I’ve heard your vile for the tobacco companies and realize you don’t have a lot of love for Exxon, nor do I. But do you really buy into the General Motors biofuel campaign? Flexfuel vehicles to save the planet?
Activists do what they can based on what think they know, but their CO2 centric global warming theory is based on belief.
I posted this information to test the water in terms of the receptivity of the so called altenate media to think outside the framework that the mainstream media has framed the whole concept of global warming.
I ask you again to take a look at the real world and see what is being done globally to combat climate change.
Besides sincere activists trying to limit their use of automobiles and maybe planting a few trees and trying to cut back on their personal waste stream, the push towards biofuels is the biggest effort out there in terms of change.
The MTBE in gasoline is history and ethanol is its replacement.
I am right on this. If you’ll take the time to actually think this through that will become apparent. The push for biofuels as a solution will exacerbate climate change and there isn’t enough cropland currently in production on the planet to feed 6.6 billion people and fuel America on E-85 or biodiesel.
Something will have to give.
Sometimes no Peace,
R267498
3 years ago
deadender

“You’d probably have better results forming a relationship with them first, then discussing the ideas – just as with anybody, really.”
Yeah, probably. It was a stupid email. I know NOTHING technical about AI… but even if the slight was not intentional. The lack of response to an enthusiastic layman… comes off poorly for science as a whole.
Maybe scientists need PR?!
R267554
3 years ago
GWHunta

Or a PhD in Thinkology, like the one the Wizard gave me.
Post Modified: 03/08/07 11:45:22
R267562
3 years ago
deadender

Hmmm…
too many questions run through my brain.
Should science be better guided… perhaps a world council…?
Does science need intermediaries, people who could function in a professional capacity to not only bring science to the layman, but also bring a bit of the layman to science?
If you did any of the above, would it still be science?
guh… I hate when I have to actually think about anything….
R267567
3 years ago
GWHunta

Does science need intermediaries, people who could function in a professional capacity to not only bring science to the layman, but also bring a bit of the layman to science?
Word.
R267569
3 years ago
Truthcansuk

Does science need intermediaries, people who could function in a professional capacity to not only bring science to the layman, but also bring a bit of the layman to science?
Carefull what you wish for… I’m pretty sure George Bush is trying to fill that role of ‘explaining science to the masses…’
It made for big news when President Bush confidently declared on prime-time television last month that private research had produced a trove of more than 60 stem-cell lines. Most experts had assumed that there were as yet only a dozen or so such colonies of the cells that might become weapons against a range of debilitating diseases, from Alzheimer’s to juvenile diabetes to Parkinson’s…
R267620
3 years ago
Chickenma1

GW, I’m following your theory except for one thing: Why are the graphs of CO2 levels throughout time almost identical with heat level graphs? What would cause that if they’re not directly correlated? And if heat drives the CO2 levels rather than the other way around, well, how? That was a really impressive part of Al Gore’s film.
Snark, my dad is a well-known and stellar research scientist. He has never been turned down for a grant. He manages to make his research (cancer) understood easily by a college drop-out like me. And it was I who got him to finally concede that non-locality is a valid theory even though he screamed at me for months that that was impossible and I shouldn’t have dropped out of school if I was going to believe such things.
Peace.
On edit: This is way fun. Think we can do 39 pages?
Post Modified: 03/08/07 16:53:32
R267662
3 years ago
GWHunta

A search of science magazine for CO2, 6677 articles found.
A search of science magazine for evapotranspiration, 175.
Here’s one from 1981.
On the correlation of CO2 and average global temperature, that is well established.
But a correlation doesn’t establish that rising CO2 levels increase temperatures.
Temperature driving CO2 levels is equally plausible and not too difficult to understand.
Carbon in the form of CO2 is released to the atmosphere when plant matter either burns or is broken down by biological processes. Some of what we eat is liberated to the atmosphere as the average adult human exhales approximately 2.2 lbs of CO2 each day.
If atmospheric CO2 levels are temperature driven as I assert that they are, then the fall of atmospheric CO2 during relatively cold periods (ice ages) when CO2 levels historically have bottomed would be explained by the fact that the cold oceans are a net CO2 sink and that when the terrestrial surface is largely covered by ice, there isn’t much CO2 being released to the atmosphere by burning or decomposing plant matter, as much of it is now preserved till the thaw, beneath the snow pack and or ice sheets.
During warmer periods, when even Siberia has been the home of mamoths and covered in lush vegetation that normally (as in the mid-range more moderate global average temperatures we are having now) doesn’t grow in the arctic.
If temperature was driven strictly by CO2, how would the world have again come out of an ice age, when CO2 levels bottom?
Peace,
Post Modified: 03/09/07 16:45:00
R267687
3 years ago
Cain

A change in ocean currents over a period of time due to continuous continental drift.
R267688
3 years ago
Cain

just a guess
R267692
3 years ago
GWHunta

A wild shot in the dark really.
Post Modified: 03/08/07 23:30:11
R267693
3 years ago
GWHunta

R267694
3 years ago
GWHunta

Opening statement of the summary of a “golden oldie” circa 1951.
Peace,
Post Modified: 03/09/07 00:28:33
R267812
3 years ago
GWHunta

R267829
3 years ago
Snark

Opening statement of the summary of a “golden oldie” circa 1951
Don’t waste my time with ancient papers. Climatology has come as far in 60 years as genetics has.
If temperature was driven strictly by CO2, how would the world have again come out of an ice age, when CO2 levels bottom?
A particularly lame strawman, here. Nobody has claimed that temperature is driven strictly by CO2, and to attempt to refute that point shows that you’re either deliberately disingenuous or ignorant.
Here’s the abstract from Stott et al 2000. Surely you’ve read it; it’s one of the most cited, influential global warming papers ever published.
A comparison of observations with simulations of a coupled ocean-atmosphere general circulation model shows that both natural and anthropogenic factors have contributed significantly to 20th century temperature changes. The model successfully simulates global mean and large-scale land temperature variations, indicating that the climate response on these scales is strongly influenced by external factors. More than 80% of observed multidecadal-scale global mean temperature variations and more than 60% of 10- to 50-year land temperature variations are due to changes in external forcings. Anthropogenic global warming under a standard emissions scenario is predicted to continue at a rate similar to that observed in recent decades.
So, as I suspect you know, nobody has ever claimed that CO2 alone drives all climate change. The assertion is more properly expressed as “Anthropogenic CO2 is the most dominant of all factors that force climate activity in the present day.” In fact, natural forcings were the dominant forcing until the middle of the last century. So you’re just right enough to be wrong, as usual – in the past, other factors have driven temperature and CO2 has followed along, and now CO2 is the leading forcing, along with anthropogenic aerosols.
I won’t bother to go too far into your misconception that active microbial activity and decomposition doesn’t occur under snowpack (my own lab showed that wasn’t the case, yay team), or point out that the only reason cold ocean water is a net CO2 sink is because of increased pelagic bacterioplankton primary productivity in cold upwelling zones, but…yeah….
Post Modified: 03/09/07 16:12:35
R267853
3 years ago
GWHunta

I won’t bother to go too far into your misconception that active microbial activity and decomposition doesn’t occur under snowpack
Do me a favor and prior to making statements about my conceptions or misconceptions, don’t quote or paraphrase what I’ve said out of context.
Nowhere have I stated microbial activity and decomposition doesn’t occur under snowpack. It not only occurs under it, but on its surface during the melt as well.
I stated that there is a reduction of the decomposition of plant matter during an ice age, when continents are covered with ice sheets and snowpack, slowing the release of CO2 to the atmosphere from the terrestrial surface.
If atmospheric CO2 levels are temperature driven as I assert that they are, then the fall of atmospheric CO2 during relatively cold periods (ice ages) when CO2 levels historically have bottomed would be explained by the fact that the cold oceans are a net CO2 sink and that when the terrestrial surface is largely covered by ice, there isn’t as much CO2 being released to the atmosphere by burning or decomposing plant matter, as much of it is now preserved till the thaw, beneath the snow pack and or ice sheets.
I am sure you would concur in this regard.
I should have stated that if trees can’t grow because they have been buried in the snow until it has formed into an ice sheet hundreds of feet thick, that this is the reason for the reduction of CO2 released from the terrestrial surface, but I assumed anyone with the intelligence to follow the reasoning in context would have gathered that.
Sometimes no Peace,
Post Modified: 03/09/07 17:52:38
R267857
3 years ago
GWHunta

As to the relevance of external forcings upon temperature and climate change, I don’t discount them or their impact, I’m simply trying to explain the primary anthropogenic impact on climate.
Peace,
R267862
3 years ago
GWHunta

Anthropogenic CO2 is the most dominant of all factors that force climate activity in the present day.
Anthropogenic water vapor not atmospheric CO2.
As well as some of the other feedback effects I’ve described such as reduced cooling of the Gulf Stream at middle latitudes and the reduction of ice cover on the Great Lakes further increasing both the sensible heat of the wintertime atmosphere as well as the latent heat from additional water vapor that otherwise wouldn’t have been available to impact the climate.
Post Modified: 03/09/07 18:33:57
R267885
3 years ago
Orapronubis

I thought the official guerrilla position is that God controls the weather!
Afterall it was God that “sent out a great wind into the sea, and there was a mighty tempest in the sea” (Jonah 1:4).
R267895
3 years ago
GWHunta

Apparently the official guerilla position is that this topic is too complicated to be understood or discussed rationally and it’s easier to just move on to something more relevant, like the accidental invasion of Liechtenstein by the Swiss Army.
LOL?
R267908
3 years ago
Cain

Are you trying to sound off like an arrogant asshole?
I do avalanche forecasting with local snow pack evaluations that require extensive knowledge of water/ice/snow and it’s continuous transformation. People lives are at stake.
The topic that you are attempting to “discuss” is not beyond myself nor a lot of folks here. What’s beyond me is your approach, if you want people to understand or even debate you then don’t be so condescending and confrontational.
So far I’m not sold on what you’ve put forward. I’d like to read more of what’s got you convinced that this is the major source of G.W.
R267911
3 years ago
Chickenma1

Who’s an arrogant asshole? GW has been insisting that we here on this site can understand, and is taking great pains to explain it. It’s everyone else who’s trying to shout him down because he (and presumably we) do not have Ph.D.‘s. What he’s been writing has been clear, the responses have not. Peoples’ lives are at stake, so step up to the plate and explain why he’s wrong so we peons can understand. You’re the one that’s being condescending.
R267912
3 years ago
Chickenma1

And thanks, GW, for answering my questions. All answers have been straight forward and understandable.
R267979
3 years ago
GWHunta

Easy Chickenma1,
he didn’t call me one, just said he thinks I sound like one.
The impact of my approach could be considered by some to be confrontational.
But they must consider the lens through which they are viewing the material I’m presenting.
Denial is of course the natural psychological defense mechanism to finding out what you believe about an issue isn’t factual.
It isn’t pleasant being wrong about anything.
Almost everybody has had the CO2 centric theory explained to them and the simplified irradiative model of global warming is the one that is taught and commonly understood.
Most of us have explained it to others and have taken a position on its validity and either believe in global warming or we do not, and hence are then labeled global warming deniers.
I’m unusual in that I’ve not been on one side or the other.
I try to hear out both sides of the issue as it is being debated, but keep my focus on what is actually changing on the ground and less so on the debate.
Neither side of the debate answers the fundamental questions of why the climate is changing or adequately explains the reasons why the pattern of the warming has been somewhat unpredictable and that the most profound impacts have been upon the formerly cooler, drier and northernmost climates.
The material I’m presesenting is as straightforward and as easy to understand as I’ve yet been able to present it.
Realizing that it is difficult to break through the veil of denial that most of us have since as people we have an emotional investment in what we believe to be true or not true and the positions we’ve taken and possibly even changes we’ve made in our lifestyles to accomodate these beliefs.
I have been a bit brash in this, as I believe if I wasn’t the material would just get glossed over and not really read or deeply considered.
Additionally there has been a backlash, and often a nasty one, each time I’ve tried to broach the global warming topic that in any manner questions the integrity of the CO2 centric irradiative theory.
It’s almost taboo to even question it.
I don’t work or ever plan on working for Exxon, though I’m viewed through that lense.
I think the greatest error we are making in our national energy policy is not breaking the dependence of the entire transportation sector on liquid fuels.
I’ve repeatedly taken the position that our homes and business should be heated and cooled with geothermal from ground water heat pumps and our cars should be plug in hybrids that when driven beyond the range of the batteries switch to CNG (compressed natural gas) for primary internally combusted power to recharge the batteries and keep us going down the road.
Biofuels as I’ve pointed out repeatedly will hasten climate change and increase the warming.
Cars shouldn’t be in competition with people for food either and there’s not enough cropland to do both, even if warming and climate change wasn’t an issue.
Not only do I not work for Exxon, I don’t work.
Haven’t for a decade.
Leaving me time for research and thinking through issues and I don’t have a palm to grease or any worry about my outspoken position on sometimes politically sensitive issues having any impact on my employment.
I’m as totally independent regarding freedom of thought and speach as one can be in modern America.
I think the entire coal burning industry needs to be revamped to one that requires the gasification of coal prior to using it to generate electricity.
This process is mature and has been used in Tampa, FL for over a decade, proving that coal can be burned cleanly and economically as well.
This process lends itself to the removal of the sulfur and other contaminents, including radioactive particulates in the smokestack exhaust of conventional coal fired plants, prior to burning the gas for power.
This prevents these contaminents from being introduced into the biosphere, and they can then be further processed into useful products of commercial value.
If we took these three simple steps; geothermal heating and cooling, CNG powered plug in hybrid automobiles, and implemented clean coal technology for commercial electricl power with an eye on increasing individual homes and businesses reliance on direct solar to electrical conversion (solar panels); America would be cleaner, energy independent and economically on a better footing in less than a decade.
As for combatting global warming, there is a huge volume of waste regarding water issues in agriculture and agricultural irrigation proper.
Farmers many times put water on their fields regardless of need, just to keep the dust down and use their allotment so that they will have it drought conditions.
Open ditch and the stereotypical arched pivoting sprinker systems that rotate around the field are also very inefficient and lose much of the water they dispense directly to evaporation.
Drip irrigation is more efficient and is used in countries where water is in short supply and relatively expensive.
Much of the agriculture in America is in support of the factory farm system for animal products. Most doctors and nutritionalists will tell us that we are consuming far too much animal protein in our diets already.
Rational changes in our diets, eating only the recommended amounts of meat would go along way towards reducing agricultural demand and hence eliminate much of the additional and unnecessary water vapor as well as reducing obesity related illnesses associated with diets high in cholesterol and animal fats.
Simply not growing corn and cotton in semi-arid climates and instead growing crops that fair well naturally under the average precipitations of the regions in which they are grown could largely eliminate the actual need for most irrigation.
It would entail major economic change, shifting production of crops back to lands that are naturally suited for their production, but it is a necessity if we are to mitigate our impact on the climate.
No till or reduced till planting and weeding practices are also worthy of consideration and would do much to mitigate the impact of evapotranspiration of the more common style of non-irrigated agriculture practiced globally.
These no and low till practices also have the side benefit of reducing the need for agricultural chemicals on the land as well as being better in terms of soil conservation.
Sorry that we aren’t on the brink of the point of no return in terms of atmospheric CO2 levels. It isn’t the end of the world, it is simply time to do things in a more environmentally sound and rational fashion.
We don’t have to give up our cars to walk or ride bikes, though I’m all for it for health and recreation benefits, we don’t have to sit in the dark and cold in our homes and we don’t have to let the third world starve so we can drive our cars on so called “renewable” energy.
We simply have to implement some real and beneficial change to save ourselves and mitigate our impact on the biosphere and the climate.
Step one is acknowledging and understanding our current impact.
Peace,
Post Modified: 03/12/07 18:20:39
R267991
3 years ago
GWHunta

R268074
3 years ago
Cain

Good article but other than reinforcing that climate models and projections are subject to many variables and sometimes not entirely accurate, especially long term, it does not mention anything that outright supports your theory.
R268089
3 years ago
GWHunta

That was the only point I was trying to make with that single post.
The models are far from perfect
My “theory” is self-supporting.
Do the math.
Peace,
R268173
3 years ago
gigzter

Has anyone posted this yet?
R268541
3 years ago
GWHunta

Does Big Al walk the walk, or just talk the talk?
…….Gorezilla
Sometimes no Peace.
The inclusion of this photo was inspired by a_pretty_rainbow
Post Modified: 03/12/07 19:34:42
R268728
3 years ago
GWHunta

Here’s a link to a PDF entitled:
It is 28 pages and 1.74 MB.
It may be helpful for the “duly diligent” in understanding the environmental impact that agriculture and argicultural irrigation have on the climate.
Peace,
R270986
3 years ago
GWHunta

The increased humidity had driven the temperature up, Philipona said.
The scientists calculated that 70 percent of the recent increase in temperatures in central Europe is due to water vapor, and 30 percent is due to other greenhouse gases.
Did I say primary.
They’ll come around.
Peace,
Post Modified: 03/22/07 18:39:00
R271176
3 years ago
Chickenma1

Do you question the 30%?
R271706
3 years ago
GWHunta

“Human activities are transforming the surface of the Earth at an accelerated pace. Such disturbance of the land can affect local, regional, and global climate by changing the energy balance on the Earth’s surface and the chemical composition of the atmosphere [Chase et al., 1999; Houghton et al., 1999; Pielke, 2001]. Over the past decades, land use/cover has been widely recognized as a critical factor mediating socioeconomic, political and cultural behavior and global climate change [International Geosphere-Biosphere Programme (IGBP), 1990; Lambin et al., 1999; Watson et al., 2000]. Numerous attempts have been made to understand past climate changes and to project potential future climate changes by incorporating reconstructed historical land cover changes and projected possible future land cover changes into numerical simulations [Xue, 1997; Pielke et al., 1999; Chase et al., 2000; DeFries et al., 2002; Taylor et al., 2002]. Recent studies have suggested that land use/cover change is a first-order climate effect at the global scale [Feddema et al., 2005].”
The 2007 IPCC Statement for Policymakers clearly chose to minimize the important role of land surface processes as part of the human influence on the climate system.
R271956
3 years ago
GWHunta

R273074
3 years ago
donovonc

JESUS, that’s a long ass list of comments
Dude, THank you so much for posting this, I LOVE having A-HA enlightment moments. I could kiss you for posting this.
And it ties into my watching Fast food nation last night, after which , I am going to have to wait months before my behavioral processes uncondition themselves to a physical aversion to meat.
R273075
3 years ago
GWHunta

Vegetarianism mitigates global warming.
Reduce your anthropogenic water vapor footprint by eating lower on the foodchain.
Peace,
R303189
2 years ago
GWHunta

R303191
2 years ago
GWHunta

To date, probably the most reliable and widely-accepted water estimate to produce a pound of beef is the figure of 2,500 gallons/pound. Newsweek once put it another way: the water that goes into a 1,000 pound steer would float a destroyer.
R303192
2 years ago
GWHunta

R317343
2 years ago
GWHunta

R336633
2 years ago
aganunitsi

Very informative, very thought provoking. And more importantly, very simple to understand.
Not a common theory? They have to start somewhere.
Constructive criticism, additional ideas:
Point out that agricultural plants are a product of “intelligent design” (us). Over thousands of years of domestication, targeting high rates of growth/production, it is logical that they would pump more water than “natural” plants.
R336634
2 years ago
Science

Actually it’s called “artificial selection”, to distinguish it from natural selection.
“Over thousands of years of domestication, targeting high rates of growth/production”
That and deliciousness. You think the sweet sugary deliciousness that is a grape could have evolved on it’s own?
“Not a common theory?”
It’s not actually a theory (by the way).
R336641
2 years ago
GWHunta

It really isn’t a theory at all.
It is scientific fact.
It is just regaled as theoretical and as inconsequential in the face of the “current trace gas hysteria” related to CO2, methane and a dozen even less important GHG’s.
This is a water planet and the hydrological cycle rules this planet’s climate.
Alter the hydrological cycle, and we do, alter the climate.
Peace,
R340496
2 years ago
GWHunta

R375610
8 months ago
GWHunta

R375645
8 months ago
Chickenma1

Thanks, GW. This is what I come to gnn for.
R393788
3 months ago
GWHunta

Human influence on Arctic sea ice detectable from early 1990s onwards
Human influence has previously been identified in the observed loss of Arctic sea ice, but this hypothesis has not yet been tested with a formal optimal detection approach. By comparing observed and multi-model simulated changes in Arctic sea ice extent during 1953–2006 using an optimal fingerprinting method, we find that the anthropogenic signal first emerged in the early 1990s, indicating that human influence could have been detected even prior to the recent dramatic sea ice decline. The anthropogenic signal is also detectable for individual months from May to December, suggesting that human influence, strongest in late summer, now also extends into colder seasons.
Post Modified: 07/26/09 03:29:51
R393961
3 months ago
GWHunta

A quick guide to understanding the critical importance of evapotranspiration in the Earth’s energy budget.
Peace,
R393962
3 months ago
GWHunta

R394096
3 months ago
GWHunta

The U.S., China and India are the big three when it comes to irrigation.
R402139
4 days ago
GWHunta

Never underestimate the climate changing power of altering evapotranspiration rates.
Peace,
Advertisements

10 Responses to Agriculture and Agricultural Irrigation is the Primary Cause of Anthropogenic Warming of Earth’s Climate System

  1. gwhunta says:

    http://www.eoearth.org/article/Aquifer_depletion

    Ying and Yang? (see previous links/comments)

    CO2’s biogeochemical influence on climate (reduced transpiration for an equivilent amount of plant biomass production) exceeds its radiative forcing impact.

    The problem with this line of thought is that the amount of plant matter on the planet isn’t fixed, so overall transpiration rates may indeed increase as plant life becomes more prolific in spite of any gains in the efficiency of transpiration/photosynthesis.

    Peace,

  2. gwhunta says:

    Study: No-Till Farming Reduces Greenhouse Gas

  3. GWHunta says:

    Myths about industrial agriculture
    (Rainfed) Organic farming is the “only way to produce food” without harming the planet and people’s health.

  4. Wade Roberts says:

    Human activities impact both weather and climate, but climate stasis is a false premise. While as a species it is necessary to mitigate our per capita anthropogenic impact as our population continues its exponential expansion, the fundamental problem is curbing population growth, since the planet and its resources are indeed finite. That said, the primary anthropogenic impact on weather and climate isn’t simply increased atmospheric CO2 levels, but rather changes in the planet’s hydrology that are having the greatest impact. These changes in hydrology are primarily due to agricultural use of the land to support our growing populations and the damming of streams and rivers to support this vast agricultural enterprise. These hydrological changes also have an impact on the natural process of carbon sequestration and have profoundly changed the chemical makeup and volume of continental runoff which further impacts the health of the ocean and its ability to sequester carbon. Bottom line is that the problem is far more complex than simply limiting tailpipe and smokestack emissions.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s