Weather School Musing ... Greenhouse gas facts can be hard!

[simonjk]

(I have also posted this Musing to http://www.weatherweb.net/Musing241111.pdf)


Hello,

You know I have always taken the view that the science of Climate Change has been 'infected' by protagonists on both sides, and that 'good' science has somehow got lost in the middle.

I do try to present the facts, and another 'fact sheet' appeared on Monday from the World Meteorological Organisation.

This was the 7th annual release of their report into GHG (Greenhouse gas abundance) in the atmosphere until the end of 2010. You can download the short report at http://www.wmo.int/pages/mediacentre/press_releases/documents/GHGbulletin.pdf

It shows continued increases in Carbon dioxide (CO2, Nitrous oxide (N20) and Methane (CH4) in 2010.

These are measurements that cannot be disputed, and to the best of our human knowledge are facts!

It seems that there is an anthropogenic link between the rise in these gases and an increase in global temperature (to the best of our present knowledge).

Again, I make no 'thou shalt commands from this data, but one of the worrying facts fro this bulletin for me is this "
According to the NOAA Annual Greenhouse Gas Index, the total radiative forcing by all LLGHGs increased by 29% from 1990 to 2010 and by 1.4% from 2009 to 2010 ". That looks to me like some real pressure being put on the atmospheric heating system.

Assuming humans are a big cause of the problem, it is possible to do something about it, as CO2 etc.. does not stay in the atmosphere indefinitely.

Hope the above is of interest and remains as 'facts' for you. I've attempted to stay as scientific and impartial as possible.

Keep the sun shining!

Simon

(To receive these and other Weatherweb email Musings and updates send an email to generalweather-subscribe@weatherweb.net)

 

[Twister_Ken]

I'm having to follow this stuff for work I'm doing for a client at the moment, in advance of next week's Durban climate talks (expect no pleasing results)..
Don't have access to my notes at the moment but a couple of things I do remember: as a ghg methane is 21 times more potent than CO2, and your average CO2 molecule has a 100 year atmospheric life so the CO2 there today will still be having an affect at the end of the century. I'm not batting for either side but when you start looking at the numbers you can't help wonder what sort of world your grandchildren will mature into.

OK, probably said enough to get this thread banned, unfortunately.

 

[Talulah]

(I have also posted this Musing to http://www.weatherweb.net/Musing241111.pdf)
Assuming humans are a big cause of the problem, it is possible to do something about it, as CO2 etc.. does not stay in the atmosphere indefinitely.

Hope the above is of interest and remains as 'facts' for you.

You've put an assumption in and not stated purely facts.

 

[fireball]

+1

there's the devil! the elusive IF and ASSUME sorry Simon not very scientific; on this subject like no other you have no handle on cause and effect just a few random correlations that may or may not be linked - and loads of assumptions, here are some more events to put in the mix:

Eyjafjallajökul, Mount Merapi, Tungurahua, Pacaya, Kliuchevskoi, Sheveluch, Santiaguito, Mount Sinabung, Kizimen, Cleveland, the top few of many extreme unanticipated climate gas events none of them man made.

Whilst I agree with you that there are massive CO2 outputs from natural sources - I do think "we" should be as frugal as we can be when using the worlds natural resources - and this includes pumping out CO2 into the atmosphere as well as cutting down trees...
I don't have any figures or facts, but I can't help but wonder what affect it would have on the world if we all turned everything OFF ...

 

[Signed Out]

Please.

Can this not be dragged into yet another bitchfest?

If certain parties must go over the topic any more, could this be taken down to the Lobby (my new name for the Bilge). That way it can be more easily noticed that there are already numerous threads of related topics that typically have dissolved into acrimony.

Personally I agree with Fireball's post. It's the most sensible way for the topic to be considered.

 

[MissFitz]

Personally I agree with Fireball's post. It's the most sensible way for the topic to be considered.

+1