So What are the Greenhouse Gases...and What are NOT Greenhouse Gases

In my last post I talked about the greenhouse effect, which is a normal part of our atmosphere and the phenomenon that keeps the planet at a temperature that allows life as we know it. This is scientifically established, like gravity. Keep in mind that we are not talking about anything humans have done at this point, just what nature itself does. The greenhouse effect is basic physics. And it is natural.

Today I'll take a closer look at the gases that make up the atmosphere and which ones actually create the greenhouse effect. This seemed to be a sticking point for some folks who, whether intentionally or unintentionally, exhibited confusion over the basic atmospheric processes that make our planet livable.  

Take a look at the pie charts below.

As you can see in the top pie (purple, blue, and yellow circle), the dry atmosphere is about 78% nitrogen (N₂), 21% oxygen (O₂), and about 0.9% argon (Ar). In total, these three simple elements make up about 99.96% of all of the gases in the atmosphere. And their combined impact on the greenhouse effect is - drum roll please - zero, zilch, nada, nothing. Nitrogen and oxygen are not greenhouse gases and thus do not contribute to the greenhouse effect. 

Now look at the bottom pie above (the mostly light blue one).

Only about 0.04% of the atmosphere controls the temperature balance of the earth. And most of that 0.04% is carbon dioxide (CO₂), which is indeed a greenhouse gas. Other greenhouse gases in trace amounts including methane (CH₄), nitrous oxide (N₂O), and ozone (O₃). Finally, you can add in water vapor (H₂O), which is not included in the dry atmosphere totals above because it varies, but it on average is roughly 1% of the atmosphere.

So to reiterate, this approximately 0.04% of the atmosphere controls the entire natural greenhouse effect that keeps this planet at temperatures conducive to animal, plant, and human life as we know it.

But all greenhouse gases are not created equal. They vary in how efficient they are in absorbing long-wave radiation coming back up from the Earth. When you rank them based on their relative contribution to the greenhouse effect you get:

1. water vapor
2. carbon dioxide
3. methane
4. ozone

Oops. Isn't carbon dioxide (CO₂) supposed to be THE most important greenhouse gas? Well, in a way it is, but it actually isn't the biggest contributor to the greenhouse effect. Water vapor actually generates more greenhouse effect than any other single gas. Estimates vary, but the combined effects of water, both as a gas (water vapor) and as a liquid (droplets in clouds), contributes between 66% and 85% of the greenhouse effect.

So why don't we talk more about water vapor? Well, besides some really technical stuff that I won't go into here, water vapor is naturally cycled into and out of the atmosphere on a relatively short time cycle (think, rain and snow). This means that while it has powerful short term impacts on temperature (a cloud passing in front of the sun will immediately make it feel cooler), water vapor is not a major driver of long-term climate change. It's more of a feedback, whereas CO2 is a forcing. (I'll talk about what that means in the next post) To find out more about the role of water vapor, check out this entertaining but informative video (notice the repeated cameo by Carl Sagan). For different reasons, ozone also has a pretty limited effect (and in fact actually contributes a small net cooling). Therefore, the concentrations of CO₂ and methane are the main drivers of greenhouse gas induced climate change.

Remember, we have not said anything yet about human activity. Everything about the normal greenhouse effect is basic physics and natural. It is what keeps our planet "just right" (as opposed to too hot like Venus or too cold like Mars).

In the next post I'll go into more detail on CO₂ and methane and their contributions to the greenhouse effect. I'll also look at why they are so important to future climate changes.

 [This is part of a series of posts explaining the basic science of climate change. More posts will be added weekly.]

EPA Makes Available 2010 Greenhouse Gas Emissions Data from Large Facilities

The USEPA has issued, for the first time, "comprehensive greenhouse gas (GHG) data reported directly from large facilities and suppliers across the country." The data are the first made accessible to the public through EPA’s GHG Reporting Program.   According to EPA, "the 2010 GHG data released today includes public information from facilities in nine industry groups that directly emit large quantities of GHGs, as well as suppliers of certain fossil fuels."

The public can now go online to "view and sort GHG data for calendar year 2010 from over 6,700 facilities in a variety of ways—including by facility, location, industrial sector, and the type of GHG emitted. This information can be used by communities to identify nearby sources of GHGs, help businesses compare and track emissions, and provide information to state and local governments."

In their press release, EPA notes that "GHG data for direct emitters show that in 2010:

•Power plants were the largest stationary sources of direct emissions with 2,324 million metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalent (mmtCO2e), followed by petroleum refineries with emissions of 183 mmtCO2e.

•CO₂ accounted for the largest share of direct GHG emissions with 95 percent, followed by methane with 4 percent, and nitrous oxide and fluorinated gases accounting for the remaining 1 percent.

•100 facilities each reported emissions over 7 mmtCO2e, including 96 power plants, two iron and steel mills and two refineries."

To access EPA’s GHG Reporting Program Data and Data Publication Tool

GAO Calls for Improved National Priorities for Climate Change

The Government Accountability Office (GAO) has issued a report calling on the federal government to improve and clarify national priorities related to climate change.  Acknowledging that "climate change poses risks to many environmental and economic systems, including agriculture, infrastructure, and ecosystems," GAO noted that national priorities need to be set and "better align them with federal funding decisions."  While "funding for climate change activities reported by OMB increased from $4.6 billion in 2003 to $8.8 billion in 2010," GAO noted that it "is organized in a complex, crosscutting system."

Two key factors were identified that "complicate efforts to align funding with priorities."

First, notwithstanding existing coordinating mechanisms...federal officials do not have a shared understanding of strategic priorities. This is in part due to inconsistent messages articulated in strategic plans and other policy documents....Second, respondents indicated that since mechanisms for aligning funding with priorities are nonbinding, they are limited when in conflict with agencies' own priorities.

GAO came up with two recommendations:

1) To improve the coordination and effectiveness of federal climate change programs and activities, the appropriate entities within the Executive Office of the President, including the Council on Environmental Quality, Office of Energy and Climate Change Policy, Office and Management and Budget, and Office of Science and Technology Policy, in consultation with Congress, should work together with relevant federal agencies and interagency coordinating bodies to clearly establish federal strategic climate change priorities, including the roles and responsibilities of the key federal entities, taking into consideration the full range of activities within the federal climate change enterprise.

2) To improve the coordination and effectiveness of federal climate change programs and activities, we recommend that the appropriate entities within the Executive Office of the President, including the Council on Environmental Quality, Office of Energy and Climate Change Policy, Office and Management and Budget, and Office of Science and Technology Policy, in consultation with Congress, should work together with relevant federal agencies and interagency coordinating bodies to assess the effectiveness of current practices for defining and reporting federal climate change funding and aligning funding with priorities, and make improvements to such practices as needed for Congress and the public to fully understand how climate change funds are spent.

For more information and to download a highlights page and the full report, go to the GAO page here.

NASA Launches Aquarius/SAC-D Satellite to Collect Global Warming/Salinity Data

In case you missed it, last Friday NASA, along with the Space Agency of Argentina, launched the international "Aquarius" satellite.  According to NASA, Aquarius "is a focused effort to measure Sea Surface Salinity and will provide the global view of salinity variability needed for climate studies." A Delta II rocket lifted off from Vandenberg Air Force base carrying the Aquarius/SAC-D spacecraft.  Within an hour it had "separated from the rocket's second stage and began communicating with ground controllers and unfurling its solar arrays."

The mission of Aquarius is to investigate the salinity of the oceans.  Within a few months, "Aquarius will collect as many sea surface salinity measurements as the entire 125-year historical record from ships and buoys."  These data will be invaluable in the investigation of the water cycle, ocean circulation, and climate change.

Regarding the climate aspects, the blog RealClimate, run by a group of world renowned climatologists, has a great summary of why the data Aquarius collects is so important.

You can follow the progress of Aquarius on the NASA web site here.

Scientists say Carbon Release to Atmosphere 10 Times Faster than in the Past

Specifically, in the the Paleocene-Eocene Thermal Maximum (PETM), which was about 55.9 million years ago, and according an the international team of research geologists, is "the best analog we have for current global warming."  And that rate of carbon release "may not allow sufficient time for the biological environment to adjust."

As noted in a recent Science Daily article, there are some uncertainties with the core data during this time period because the cores contain layers of calcium carbonate, and "when large amounts of greenhouse gases -- carbon dioxide or methane -- are in the atmosphere, the oceans become more acidic, and acid dissolves calcium carbonate."  The concern is the change may appear more abrupt than it actually was because of the incomplete record.  So the fact that the PETM rate may have been perhaps slower than we think emphasizes even more the fact that the current rate of carbon release is 10 times faster.  In short, it could be more than 10 times.

"We looked at the PETM because it is thought to be the best ancient analog for future climate change caused by fossil fuel burning."

According to the researchers, "The outcome was a warming of from 9 to 16 degrees Fahrenheit and an acidification event in the oceans."  And that's not good.  Furthermore, according to Lee R. Kump, a professor of geosciences at Penn State:

"Rather than the 20,000 years of the PETM which is long enough for ecological systems to adapt, carbon is now being released into the atmosphere at a rate 10 times faster. It is possible that this is faster than ecosystems can adapt."

For those who want to read the original journal article, the full citation is:

Ying Cui, Lee R. Kump, Andy J. Ridgwell, Adam J. Charles, Christopher K. Junium, Aaron F. Diefendorf, Katherine H. Freeman, Nathan M. Urban, Ian C. Harding. Slow release of fossil carbon during the Palaeocene–Eocene Thermal Maximum. Nature Geoscience, 2011; DOI: 10.1038/ngeo1179

Head of Royal Society Says Freedom of Information Laws are Being Used to Harass Scientists

Sir Paul Nurse, president of the prestigious Royal Society in London, says that freedom of information (FOI) laws are being misused in organized attempts to harass climate scientists.  While emphasizing that FOI laws are important tools needed to ensure transparency, Nurse, the Nobel Prize winner for Medicine in 2001, argues that anti-climate science lobbying groups have orchestrated an organized campaign of requesting "data and other research materials" for the primary purposes of intimidating climate scientists and slowing down both research and legitimate communication of the science.

According to The Guardian online, another scientist, Bob Ward of Grantham Research Institute, complained that FOI requestors weren't interested in the science but rather the requests were "being used in an aggressive and organized way" to look for problems and errors.  And according to Chris Mooney in relation to another FOI fishing expedition involving Michael Mann in the US, the climate science deniers will twist whatever they receive into whatever they need it to be to confirm their predetermined belief.  Just as they did for the infamous climategate emails, which despite six separate investigations exonerating all the scientists involved, yet the climate denial industry continues to treat as a condemnation of the science (which it wasn't).

The UK FOI requests have been overly burdensome on researchers, as requests have included "among other things, all drafts of scientific papers prior to their publication in journals, with annotations, explaining why changes were made between successive versions."  Again, the intent isn't to understand better the science or the research. According to Nurse, the net result is that which the organized campaigns intended - intimidation and time taken away from doing research.

Scientists, of course, need to be more open and transparent, but then they, like all of us, produce many emails a day on things that aren't particularly interesting or controversial.  To have to organize them for FOI release even though they have no meaning limits their ability to do research.  To have to spend even more time correcting the often intentional misinterpretation (or disinterpretation) of their words by climate change deniers is a burden no professional should have to bear. 

FOI is important for transparency, and the Royal Society and others are looking for ways to bring the process up to speed with modern technology.  But unfortunately there are many who are abusing FOI, not to improve transparency, but to harass climate scientists and disinform the public.  The harassment has to stop.

House Chairman Upton May Use Debt Ceiling Debate to Defund EPA's Climate Change Activity

The online newspaper Politico is reporting that Republican Fred Upton, chairman of the House Energy and Commerce Committee, is considering the possibility of using the debt-ceiling debate "as a vehicle for provisions that would limit federal climate change rules.

"  Upton’s bill to void "EPA’s power to regulate greenhouse-gas emissions" passed in April in the House, but failed when Senator James Inhofe tried to get it passed in the Senate.

EPA's attempts to deal with climate change through regulation of greenhouse gases has been thwarted by Congress, which insists that it, i.e., Congress, has the responsibility to set policy with respect to global warming.  It, i.e., Congress, has steadfastly refused to do just that, with the Republican party leading the fight against cap-and-trade legislation that they once touted as being a "market based solution."  As presidential aspirant and current Minnesota Governor Tim Pawlenty noted, all of the Republican candidates once felt that climate change was an important national and international problem, and that cap-and-trade was their preferred policy solution.  That was until the tea party gained a vocal platform.  Since then the Republican party has been doing flip-flops (or backflips) to change their tune purely for political expediency.


Just today in an Op-Ed in The Hill, former New Jersey Governor and EPA Administrator - and Republican - Christie Todd Whitman said that the Republican party would rue their complicity in climate change denial:

The debate over the future of the Environmental Protection Agency is one of those debates where an ideological agenda, disguised as budget cutting, will result in a short-term political statement at a long-term cost in dollars and health.

Whitman argued that Republican attacks on the EPA are "short-sighted":

Most importantly, Congress needs to consider the long-term cost of short-term decisions. Eliminating the EPA, or vastly curtailing its ability to regulate pollutants as science develops and identifies more threats to our health, may save a few dollars now, but the long-term cost to our society can be great. Using the scalpel rather than the hatchet is much more challenging, but it is the kind of thoughtful approach we need.

 Time will tell how much this short-sightedness for political expediency will adversely impact our children and grandchildren.

Republicans Schedule Three Hearings This Week to Limit EPA Authority on Clean Air Act

The Republican majority in the US House of Representatives, in particularly those chairing subcommittees of the House Energy and Commerce Committee, has scheduled three hearings this week in their continuing attempts to limit EPA authority.  The ranking Democrat on the Committee, Henry Waxman, yesterday sent a letter to Republican Representatives Fred Upton, Ed Whitfield, and John Shimkus complaining that the Committee is not giving adequate notice to EPA officials of the hearings.

The result of this "insufficient notice" has been that EPA is unable to provide a witness for two of the three hearings.

The three hearings as noted in Waxman's letter and in the online Congressional newspaper The Hill are:

·        On Wednesday, April 13, the Energy and Power Subcommittee will hold a legislative hearing on draft legislation to amend the Clean Air Act as it relates to drilling on the Outer Continental Shelf.

·        On Thursday, April 14, the Environment and Economy Subcommittee will hold a legislative hearing on H.R. 1391, legislation to amend the Resources Conservation and Recovery Act to block an EPA proposal designed to ensure the safe disposal of coal ash.

·        On Friday, April 15, the Energy and Power Subcommittee will hold a hearing on five rulemakings under the Clean Air Act and one under the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act.  The Clean Air Act rulemakings address toxic air pollutants, including mercury, from a variety of different types and sizes of sources.  The Resource Conservation and Recovery Act rule addresses the definition of solid waste.  Draft legislation relating to these rulemakings is expected to be circulated during the week.

According to Waxman, EPA was not contacted about the hearing until after it was publicly announced, a trend that goes against historical practice in which the chair (including Waxman when the Democrats were in the majority) would reach out to relevant organizations weeks in advance of a hearing in order to allow time for them to prepare a response to any concerns.

Waxman also called for "a second legislative hearing on the Clean Air Amendment that will be examined by the Committee" in order to give EPA a chance to provide a witness to testify. 

The Hill article, including the full letter by Waxman to the Republican Chairs, can be read here.

Industry Association and Environmental NGO Reactions to Senate Greenhouse Gas Vote - Did They See the Same Vote?

As noted yesterday there were four votes in the Senate on amendments related to climate science.  Senate Democrats narrowly "defeated a Republican effort to ban the Environmental Protection Agency from controlling the gases blamed for global warming." Despite the unlikelihood of it ever becoming law, according to the Washington Post, "the Republican-led House moved Thursday to take away the Environmental Protection Agency’s authority to regulate greenhouse gases in a vote largely negated by Senate action a day earlier to reject such a repeal." 


Industry and the environmental NGOs had predictably different reactions to the votes.

The American Chemistry Council (ACC), a trade association representing most of the large chemical manufacturers, many of who are impacted by the Clean Air Act mandate for EPA to regulate pollutants, "welcomed signs of growing support in Congress for stopping the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) greenhouse gas (GHG) regulations for stationary sources."  According to their press release:

“We are encouraged by these votes, which signal growing momentum toward stopping EPA’s GHG regulations,” said Cal Dooley, President and CEO of the American Chemistry Council. “Lawmakers from both parties agree this is a critical issue for the country, economic recovery and protecting American jobs. Congress must stop EPA so that business growth and hiring can continue.”

The NGO Environmental Defense Fund (EDF) had a different take on the votes. In EDF's press release, Tony Kreindler accused Congressional Republicans of attempting "to unravel public health protections under the Clean Air Act," and noted that "the amendments are a prelude to further attempts to weaken public health protections as the budget debate continues."  Further:

"Today's votes were an unprecedented assault on public health protections under the Clean Air Act. In 40 years we've never faced such a brazen attempt to rollback air quality standards," said Fred Krupp, president of Environmental Defense Fund. "It remains to be seen which Senators will continue to side with clean air and who will vote to go backward."

Clearly industry and NGOs see this differently.

Senate Narrowly Misses Their Chance to Deny Climate Science

Yesterday there were four votes in the Senate related to climate science.  The amendments were designed to either further limit EPA's ability to do what the Clean Air Act and a Supreme Court decision compelled them to do...complete an endangerment finding and then regulate accordingly greenhouse gases.  In March the Republican-led House voted to deny amendments acknowledging the state of the science.  And yesterday the Senate did essentially the same thing.

Brad Johnson, writing on a left-leaning blog called The Wonk Room describes it this way:

McConnell Amendment: Four pollution-fueled Democrats embraced the “Energy Tax Prevention Act” — the extremist legislation introduced by Sen. Jim Inhofe (R-OK) to literally deny the science of global warming. The Democrats who voted for the McConnell amendment, which failed by a 50-50 vote, were Sen. Mary Landrieu (LA), Joe Manchin (WV), Ben Nelson (NE), and Mark Pryor (AR). In the 2010 cycle, Koch Industries contributed $39,500 to Landrieu, $36,500 to Nelson, and $30,000 to Pryor. Manchin’s 2010 election was fueled by over $500,000 from coal and oil interests.

Rockefeller Amendment: Nine Democrats voted for Sen. Jay Rockefeller’s (D-WV) amendment for a two-year moratorium on climate rules, which failed by a 12-88 vote: Sen. Kent Conrad (ND), Tim Johnson (SD), Landrieu, Manchin, Claire McCaskill (D-MO), Nelson, Pryor, Rockefeller, and Jim Webb (VA).

Stabenow-Brown Amendment: Seven Democrats voted for Sen. Debbie Stabenow (D-MI) and Sen. Sherrod Brown’s (D-OH) amendment to suspend, for 2 years, any Environmental Protection Agency enforcement of greenhouse gas regulations, to exempt American agriculture from greenhouse gas regulations, and to increase the number of companies eligible to participate in the Advanced Energy Manufacturing Tax Credit Program, which failed 7-93: Brown, Robert Casey (PA), Conrad, Amy Klobuchar (MN), Johnson, Pryor, and Stabenow.

Baucus Amendment: Seven Democrats voted for Sen. Max Baucus’s (D-MT) amendment to prohibit the regulation of greenhouse gases from certain sources, which also failed 7-93: Baucus, Mark Begich (AK), Kay Hagan (NC), Carl Levin (MI), Klobuchar, Conrad, and Johnson.

As I've noted here before, it's perfectly acceptable to debate the policy options for dealing with climate change.  But the votes on these amendments, and those earlier in the House, are not on policy options but rather politicians exerting their political veto of science itself.   Regarding climate change, the US National Academies of Sciences last year noted that:

A strong, credible body of scientific evidence shows that climate change is occurring, is caused largely by human activities, and poses significant risks for a broad range of human and natural systems….

This state of climate science is concurred by very nearly all active climate researchers, the most recent IPCC report, the National Academies of all of the major countries of the world, and pretty much all of the major scientific organizations on the planet.  Every single one of whom concur that the climate is changing and that human activity is the major cause.  The US National Academies even recently called it "settled fact."

And yet, here are both houses of Congress voting to deny the science because they don't want to have to do the hard work of honestly debating policy options to deal with the science.  The political debate should be focused on finding solutions, not denying the science and hog-tying the agency compelled by the science.

Chris Mooney -Are Scientists Ignorant About Ignorance...When It Comes to Understanding How Climate Denial Works?

Many have probably heard of Chris Mooney, the columnist, blogger and author of several books including "The Republican War on Science" and "Unscientific America" (co-authored with scientist Sheril Kirshenbaum).  He has in the past said that scientists need to get out and talk to the public more.  But today in his column in the blog called Desmogblog Mooney suggests that scientists have to have a better understanding of how climate denial, and science denial in general, works.  It isn't so much about ignorance.  He notes:

As anyone who reads DeSmogBlog knows very well, the top climate skeptics are, you know, scientists. They are not ignorant of the scientific method. They may cleverly twist and abuse its findings, perhaps, but they all learned it, and were awarded advanced degrees for doing so. These are not “poorly educated people” we're dealing with. Not remotely.

I think he may be giving too much credit to "skeptics" as opposed to "denialists," but he makes the case that there are actually skeptics who are scientists and they are most certainly not ignorant of how science works. Mooney goes on to say:

And as for the nonscientist citizens who encounter the climate debate, and don’t know what to think? They may be confused, but it doesn’t make them ignorant about the scientific method. They also may be deflated, uncertain about what’s true—because the media is not doing its job of adjudicating.

Mooney makes a good point, but may also be conflating separate issues here.  As he suggests, there are non-scientists out there who do have enough of an understanding of the scientific method to be able to intellectually understand the scientific principles.  That, however, doesn't mean there aren't also people who have no clue about science, method or otherwise.  Still, one must assume that those who are capable of understanding must intentionally have chosen not to understand the science.  Or perhaps more likely, to simply have chosen to deny the science.

Which presents scientists with the problem facing many scientists, i.e., "frustrated not only by the persistence, but by the powerful resurgence of climate denial, many scientists are outraged."  Outrage in itself rarely succeeds in winning over the public.  And yet scientists must ensure that the science isn't misrepresented by those in denial either, as this carries over to honest, hard working, yet non-scientific members of society who want to do what is right but truly can't separate the wheat from the chaff.

Hopefully Mooney in future columns will explore this issue further.  It will definitely be a topic of this blog in the future.

Read Chris Mooney's full Desmogblog article here.