Climate Change

[WHSeward]

Yeah, the comic. Doesn't prove anything.

@S it seems you are just ignoring what I wrote.

Proof, as in 100% certainty, is not something you get for a question like this. Proofs are for math, not science. We only have likelihoods. You are still evading the question, which I suppose is its own answer....

[Strategus]

Yeah, the comic. Doesn't prove anything.

@S it seems you are just ignoring what I wrote.

Proof, as in 100% certainty, is not something you get for a question like this. Proofs are for math, not science. We only have likelihoods. You are still evading the question, which I suppose is its own answer....

Evading which question?

[beowulf7]

WH - not claiming any glow. Just explaining my motivation. I could add "I care enough to back an outside horse if that's the only option left"

Too many people are acting as if they are seeking an excuse not to try to mitigate the problem

PS: what makes you think that I don't care enough to lower my living standards to help others? I'd sign up for that in a wink.

[V]

Not sure what you folks know about this, but SF6 is looking to be a better candidate than CO2 for causing greenhouse effect. I never knew this one to be an issue, but I bet we find more. It’s like the guys at UC Irvine finally realising CFC’s were destroying the ozone layer. It’s scary what we don’t know yet considering we are supposed to be taking action to mitigate the environmental damage that we do.
Personally I still don’t believe CO2 is/was ever the problem. I hope I’m right because it will probably be easier to control pollutants like SF6

https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-49567197

[beowulf7]

Yeah, I read that too. There are times when I wonder about our collective intelligence!

[V]

Yeah, I read that too. There are times when I wonder about our collective intelligence!

“Wonder”. It’s an urban myth that never existed!

[WHSeward]

Not sure what you folks know about this, but SF6 is looking to be a better candidate than CO2 for causing greenhouse effect.

https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-49567197

V,

that is not close to correct.

SF6 is measured in ppt - trillion. CO2 in ppm - million. Even adjusting for the 23,500X greater warming capacity of SF6, it is a tiny warmer compared to CO2. The math in equivalent units:

atmospheric concentration
CO2: ~400 ppm
SF6: ~10 ppt * 23,500 / 1,000,000 = 0.235 ppm CO2 equivalents
conclusion: CO2 contributes ~1,700X more warming than SF6 (= 400/0.235)

atmospheric growth
CO2: ~2 ppm / year
SF6: ~0.3 ppt / year * 23,500 / 1,000,000 = 0.00705 ppm CO2 equivalents
conclusion: CO2 contributes ~280X more warming increase each year than SF6 (=2/0.00705)

PS: what makes you think that I don't care enough to lower my living standards to help others? I'd sign up for that in a wink.

I was just referencing what I quoted from you.

If you genuinely would lower your own living standards on not merely someone else's a good place to start is your current employment - the travel you do and the national economy you are supporting doing it.

[V]

WHS,

You seem more able than most to show some of the maths behind the global warming debate.
Can you do a similar analysis for water vapour, which I’ve had two eminent professors (& friends) say is a bigger culprit than CO2 & methane which they mentioned is being released from a warning tundra in the north?
They have deep suspicions, as do I, regarding the “causation” of CO2 resulting in global warming. The “association” is probably beyond dispute, but with normal scientific rigour they view an association as insufficient evidence for understanding what is causing a phenomena. I have to agree.
Do take into account I don’t dispute that human activity is causing global warming (please see posts regarding my actions on “carbon footprint” reduction). I’m not a “denier” in that sense. I just have grievous doubts we’re backing the wrong horse with CO2 emissions.

Best Regards V

[WHSeward]

I don't have the relative data at my finger tips, but I can look around. I'm not sure I totally understand your question. CO2, methane and water vapor were all discovered to be greenhouse gases at the same time in the 1850s. You want to know which one is changing more in the current environment?

EDIT: coming back to this, I should add, water vapor is just more complicated CO2 or methane which are both colorless gasses. Water by contrast is both a GHG contributing to warming by its insulating effect, but clouds are reflective reducing the amount of sunlight reaching the surface and thereby cooling. In addition there is the cryosphere and changing reflectivity of ice based on its extent. So I am not sure how easy or meaningful it is to create one number. I'll see what is out there though. I have seen some graphics that might give an idea of relative importance.

[V]

Yes, it is the contribution to change that interests me. I understand that the existing warming in the north has exposed tundra that emits methane. I also understand methane is a far more powerful green house gas than CO2. If the planet is now unavoidably emitting lots of methane into the atmosphere, CO2 emissions could become of little interest.
On water vapour, I have also heard it is a much more powerful green house gas than CO2 & my assumption is as the climate gets warmer we will get more water vapour due to simple evaporation. Again if that’s true then the process of global warming will proceed irrespective of CO2 emissions.

I fear global warming is now a given. What caused it (many blame CO2) will become only of historical interest. If methane & water vapour are both now unavoidably increasing in the atmosphere & contributing more to global warming than CO2, then I think the old phrase “that horse has already bolted” becomes relevant...