5 ms·

You're being pedantic, and worse than that, you're wrong. It's not a plot of C02. A full description of the methodology and what exactly is being plotted is av

You're being pedantic, and worse than that, you're wrong. It's not a plot of C02. A full description of the methodology and what exactly is being plotted is available in papers linked to here: http://tntcat.iiasa.ac.at:8787/RcpDb/dsd?Action=htmlpage&page=welcome#descript http://tntcat.iiasa.ac.at:8787/RcpDb/dsd?Action=htmlpage&pag...

nonbel 10y ago
Ah, I see now it is a plot of CO2 equivalents... that ignores water vapor while the others (BC, OC, CH4, Sulfur, NOx, VOC, CO and NH3) are rather negligible (which is why the ppm values are close to those for CO2 alone). Anyway you can deny what I am telling you, but it is usual for people to go to supposed authoritative site like that, then check wikipedia and see H20 is the biggest greenhouse gas.[1] As a result they just shrug and figure no one knows what they are talking about, since they can't get the story straight. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenhouse_gas https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenhouse_gas
- throwaway729 10y ago
  > Ah, I see now it is a plot of CO2 equivalents... that ignores water vapor while the others (BC, OC, CH4, Sulfur, NOx, VOC, CO and NH3) are rather negligible (which is why the ppm values are close to those for CO2 alone). Unless you're planning on boiling an ocean or great lake some time soon, humanity isn't directly effecting the amount of H20 in the atmosphere at appreciable levels as a first order effect. It's not a parameter under variation. C02 equivalents are a parameter under significant variation, and as a first-order effect of human action. We are interested in the dynamics of the system as we vary a parameter that we can, and are, directly manipulating. Larger atmospheric, oceanic and whole system models then incorporate H20 and other effects in a simulation as the parameter we actually control is varied. If this were explained on the page, you'd complain it was too technical. > Anyway you can deny what I am telling you, but it is usual for people to go to supposed authoritative site like that, then check wikipedia and see H20 is the biggest greenhouse gas.[1] As a result they just shrug and figure no one knows what they are talking about, since they can't get the story straight. Is that really common? I mean, there are actually a large population of people who will read [1] but don't bother to click on the link right under the graphic and see how the graphed data is used in climate predictions? I'm highly suspicious that there's actually a significant population of people who are open to being convinced but make such a sophomoric mistake in their reasoning. Someone can always find reasons to be uncharitable and dismissive if that's their predisposition. People with that predisposition and willingness and disregard evidence for even the most superficial of complaints aren't going to be convinced anyways.
  - nonbel 10y ago
    The reasoning is simple. A warming is said to be due to the "greenhouse effect", the major portion of which is due to "water vapor in atmosphere". If you show me a chart of "greenhouse gas concentration" and leave out water vapor, something is not making sense. I don't know whats going on with that chart, whatever. I am just telling you the end result of showing it to me, and doubt I am alone.
    - throwaway729 10y ago
      The meaning and purpose of the chart is extremely clear. They're varying C02 and similar gasses, and looking at what happens. Water vapor is held constant as a first order effect and so isn't plotted. I don't draw straight lines on all my plots relating constants to (in)dependent variables. Even fifth grade science experiments follow this convention in their plots. It's an extremely common practice. Water vapor isn't being varied, so isn't plotted. Again, nearly every fifth grade science fair project follows this convention in their plots. It really does count as basic literacy. For someone with some basic scientific literacy, the author's intent is obvious and confirmable by reading the literature. OBVIOUSLY the authors are aware of water vapor concentrations, and you can confirm this awareness with a superficial investigation into how this metric is used in models. Sorry, but I do not believe a non-antagonistic reader would jump to the conclusion that climate scientists are unaware of tyoical atmospheric H20 concentrations. That's so far from the realm of reasonability. At some point, the readers' good faith must be assumed or the entire expository enterprise is pointless. I think this plot is by far on the correct side of that line.
      - nonbel 10y ago
        >"Water vapor isn't being varied" This is another contradiction to what I've been told: "Satellites have observed an increase in atmospheric water vapour by about 0.41 kg/m² per decade since 1988." https://www.skepticalscience.com/water-vapor-greenhouse-gas-intermediate.htm https://www.skepticalscience.com/water-vapor-greenhouse-gas-...
        10y ago

nonbel 10y ago

Ah, I see now it is a plot of CO2 equivalents... that ignores water vapor while the others (BC, OC, CH4, Sulfur, NOx, VOC, CO and NH3) are rather negligible (which is why the ppm values are close to those for CO2 alone). Anyway you can deny what I am telling you, but it is usual for people to go to supposed authoritative site like that, then check wikipedia and see H20 is the biggest greenhouse gas.[1] As a result they just shrug and figure no one knows what they are talking about, since they can't get the story straight. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenhouse_gas https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenhouse_gas

throwaway729 10y ago
> Ah, I see now it is a plot of CO2 equivalents... that ignores water vapor while the others (BC, OC, CH4, Sulfur, NOx, VOC, CO and NH3) are rather negligible (which is why the ppm values are close to those for CO2 alone). Unless you're planning on boiling an ocean or great lake some time soon, humanity isn't directly effecting the amount of H20 in the atmosphere at appreciable levels as a first order effect. It's not a parameter under variation. C02 equivalents are a parameter under significant variation, and as a first-order effect of human action. We are interested in the dynamics of the system as we vary a parameter that we can, and are, directly manipulating. Larger atmospheric, oceanic and whole system models then incorporate H20 and other effects in a simulation as the parameter we actually control is varied. If this were explained on the page, you'd complain it was too technical. > Anyway you can deny what I am telling you, but it is usual for people to go to supposed authoritative site like that, then check wikipedia and see H20 is the biggest greenhouse gas.[1] As a result they just shrug and figure no one knows what they are talking about, since they can't get the story straight. Is that really common? I mean, there are actually a large population of people who will read [1] but don't bother to click on the link right under the graphic and see how the graphed data is used in climate predictions? I'm highly suspicious that there's actually a significant population of people who are open to being convinced but make such a sophomoric mistake in their reasoning. Someone can always find reasons to be uncharitable and dismissive if that's their predisposition. People with that predisposition and willingness and disregard evidence for even the most superficial of complaints aren't going to be convinced anyways.
- nonbel 10y ago
  The reasoning is simple. A warming is said to be due to the "greenhouse effect", the major portion of which is due to "water vapor in atmosphere". If you show me a chart of "greenhouse gas concentration" and leave out water vapor, something is not making sense. I don't know whats going on with that chart, whatever. I am just telling you the end result of showing it to me, and doubt I am alone.
  - throwaway729 10y ago
    The meaning and purpose of the chart is extremely clear. They're varying C02 and similar gasses, and looking at what happens. Water vapor is held constant as a first order effect and so isn't plotted. I don't draw straight lines on all my plots relating constants to (in)dependent variables. Even fifth grade science experiments follow this convention in their plots. It's an extremely common practice. Water vapor isn't being varied, so isn't plotted. Again, nearly every fifth grade science fair project follows this convention in their plots. It really does count as basic literacy. For someone with some basic scientific literacy, the author's intent is obvious and confirmable by reading the literature. OBVIOUSLY the authors are aware of water vapor concentrations, and you can confirm this awareness with a superficial investigation into how this metric is used in models. Sorry, but I do not believe a non-antagonistic reader would jump to the conclusion that climate scientists are unaware of tyoical atmospheric H20 concentrations. That's so far from the realm of reasonability. At some point, the readers' good faith must be assumed or the entire expository enterprise is pointless. I think this plot is by far on the correct side of that line.
    - nonbel 10y ago
      >"Water vapor isn't being varied" This is another contradiction to what I've been told: "Satellites have observed an increase in atmospheric water vapour by about 0.41 kg/m² per decade since 1988." https://www.skepticalscience.com/water-vapor-greenhouse-gas-intermediate.htm https://www.skepticalscience.com/water-vapor-greenhouse-gas-...
      - 10y ago