EXXON Contradicts its Own Scientists

[_Res Ipsa]

So far, we've've covered two of the factors that need to be considered in determining whether a greenhouse gas is "significant:" the quantity of the gas and it's radiation adsorption spectrum. There is about 5X as much water vapor in the atmosphere as there is CO2. Water vapor CO2 is better at adsorbing the long wave radiation emitted by the earth's surface than because of the frequencies at which adsorption takes place. However, the two spectra are not identical, so CO2 is able to adsorb some long wave radiation from the earth's surface even if there is lots of water vapor also present. This is all consistent with why water vapor is described as a more powerful greenhouse gas than CO2 and the main cause of the greenhouse effect we experience today.

The third factor to consider is the distribution of the gases in the atmosphere. As the articles I linked to above demonstrate, greenhouse gas research was dormant for a long time because of experiments that treated the atmosphere as a uniform slab of gases. Once scientists understood that analyzing the greenhouse effect requires a layer by layer examination of what happens as altitude increases, they began to get a more accurate picture of how the effect actually works in the atmosphere.

When it comes to distribution of gases, there is a significant difference between water vapor and CO2 -- there is a limit to how much water vapor the air can hold depending on it's temperature. CO2 has no such limit with respect to the portions of the atmosphere that is relevant to the greenhouse effect. As a result, about 99% of the water vapor in the atmosphere is found in the lowest portion of the atmosphere called the troposphere. Around 95% is found in the lower half of the troposphere. About half is found below about a kilometer and a half. http://eu.wiley.com/legacy/wileychi/ege ... B085-W.PDF

The troposphere is where nearly all of our weather takes place. It's width varies between about 8 kilometers at the poles to 18 kilometers at the equator. You can find a good general description here. http://www.albany.edu/faculty/rgk/atm101/structur.htm It contains about 80% of the total atmosphere. As you rise through the troposphere, both temperature and water vapor content decrease rapidly. In addition, as sections of warm, moist air at the surface begin to rise (because humid air is less dense than dry air), the temperature of that section falls as atmospheric pressure decreases. Eventually, the water vapor condenses out and falls as precipitation. This releases heat, as the water vapor changes state. As a result of this convection process, the air in the troposphere circulates well up until it hits the tropopause, which separates the troposphere from the stratosphere. The name comes from this circulation: "tropo" means something like "overturning." The stratosphere has no similar mechanism for circulation, as there is almost no water vapor there.

CO2, on the other hand, varies through the troposphere by only a few percent. Relative to water vapor, it is close to constant. At the earth's surface in the tropics and temperate latitudes, there is far more water vapor than CO2. However, the water vapor rapidly falls off so that, in the upper troposphere CO2 predominates over water vapor. So, while water vapor is much more powerful than CO2 at the bottom of the troposphere, that changes dramatically as you increase in altitude.

Now, Tobin has made a number of unsubstantiated claims about the surface being more important than higher in the atmosphere and the tropics being more important than the poles when it comes to global warming. I want to make sure we're clear on "global warming." When I use that term, I'm talking about changes in the overall temperature of the atmosphere. I'm not talking about the mechanisms in the atmosphere that distribute heat around the troposphere. Those are two entirely different concepts, and I think Tobin bounces back and forth from one to the other in a way that creates confusion. One involves the distribution of heat within the troposphere on a day to day basis. The other involves increasing the temperature of the troposphere as a whole.

One of the main differences between the troposphere and stratosphere is the mechanism through which they are heated. The major source of heat for the troposphere is the surface of the earth. As a result, the temperature gets cooler the farther away we get from the earth's surface. In the stratosphere, the temperature reverses, getting hotter as altitude increases. That's because the main source of heat in that layer is not the surface of the earth, but the adoption of short waver radiation from the sun by ozone, which is then radiated as long wave radiation. (Ozone can absorb the radiation directly from the sun, unlike water vapor and CO2).

So, if we are talking about the source of heat for the troposphere, that's the earth's surface. (Re-radiating UV radiation from the sun). Likewise, if we are talking about the mechanism that distributes that heat into the upper atmosphere, that's convection and the area of most significant convection is the tropics. But neither of those things will change the overall temperature of the atmosphere over a period of years, decades, or centuries. That type of change is what we mean by "global warming," and that requires a change in something else.

[_Tobin]

(Ozone can absorb the radiation directly from the sun, unlike water vapor and CO2).

[_Res Ipsa]

(Ozone can absorb the radiation directly from the sun, unlike water vapor and CO2).

http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Featur ... zone_2.php
http://www.ozonelayer.noaa.gov
http://okfirst.mesonet.org/train/meteor ... udget.html

[_The CCC]

Those pesky scientists at it again with inconvenient facts.

[_Tobin]

Those pesky scientists at it again with inconvenient facts.

Not really. Read what Brad wrote. It's completely idiotic. Ozone, H2O, and CO2 are in fact ALL greenhouse gases. They ALL absorb radiation directly from the sun. The fact he'd state otherwise means he has no idea what he's reading or talking about.

[_Res Ipsa]

Those pesky scientists at it again with inconvenient facts.

Not really. Read what Brad wrote. It's completely idiotic. Ozone, H2O, and CO2 are in fact ALL greenhouse gases. They ALL absorb radiation directly from the sun. The fact he'd state otherwise means he has no idea what he's reading or talking about.

CO2 and water vapor do not absorb incoming short wave radiation from the sun. They absorb the long wave radiation emitted from the surface of the earth. O3, on the other hand, does absorb the incoming short wave radiation from the sun. If Tobin has a problem with that, he needs to take it up with physics, not me.

[_Gunnar]

Those pesky scientists at it again with inconvenient facts.

Not really. Read what Brad wrote. It's completely idiotic. Ozone, H2O, and CO2 are in fact ALL greenhouse gases. They ALL absorb radiation directly from the sun. The fact he'd state otherwise means he has no idea what he's reading or talking about.

CO2 and water vapor do not absorb incoming short wave radiation from the sun. They absorb the long wave radiation emitted from the surface of the earth. O3, on the other hand, does absorb the incoming short wave radiation from the sun. If Tobin has a problem with that, he needs to take it up with physics, not me.

The only one Tobin is discrediting here is himself, and I think he knows it and just doesn't care. He is not reading your posts for understanding or learning or rational discussion. He is trolling to draw attention to himself by trying to spin or distort what you say any way he can in order to create the illusion that you are the dishonest one who doesn't know what he is talking about.

[_Tobin]

The only one Tobin is discrediting here is himself, and I think he knows it and just doesn't care. He is not reading your posts for understanding or learning or rational discussion. He is trolling to draw attention to himself by trying to spin or distort what you say any way he can in order to create the illusion that you are the dishonest one who doesn't know what he is talking about.

Please quote Brad's original post and show where I've misquoted him or misrepresented what he said? He made a general statement that was simply wrong. And I'm not going to delve into the silliness of his response since short wave radiation like ultraviolet has nothing to do with global warming. Why? At those wavelengths the photons fail to excite the electrons in atoms.

[_Res Ipsa]

The only silly claim here is that Tobin thinks that what makes something a greenhouse gas is that it absorbs energy directly from the sun. It's just an example of his level of self-inflicted ignorance of even basic facts about climate science.

This is just classic Tobin. It's what he does. He tries to derail conversations by seizing on and criticizing some peripheral detail in the conversation. He intentionally drags people into an insult war. He's almost always wrong in some fundamental way, but that's beside the point. The derailing and the personal nastiness are the point.

Here's how to understand Tobin: when he calls your argument silly, it means he doesn't understand it. When he attacks your integrity, it means he knows he's lost the argument.

Going forward, I'll be happy to respond to Any criticism from Tobin of something I say, but only if he states clearly what he claims is inaccurate or misleading, cites some kind of source to back up his claim, and explains how it is relevant to the subject being discussed. Otherwise, he's just doing his Trollbin thing and I'll give him the response that a troll deserves.

[_Tobin]

The only silly claim here is that Tobin thinks that what makes something a greenhouse gas is that it absorbs energy directly from the sun. It's just an example of his level of self-inflicted ignorance of even basic facts about climate science.

Actually, I don't think that Brad and never made that claim. Another lie for your pile of lies hmmmm?!?