Re: The Real Junk Science

Coby Beck wrote:
> "Wm James" <wrjames.remove@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message
> news:m6vf811l4bssj0e50i2dhm3la063piso1b@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> 
>>Anthropogenic (man-made) Contribution to the "Greenhouse
>>Effect," expressed as % of Total (water va**** INCLUDED) Based on
>>concentrations (ppb) adjusted for heat retention characteristics
>>
>>       % of All Greenhouse Gases   % Natural   % Man-made
>>Water va****           95.000%        94.999%     0.001%
>>Carbon Dioxide (CO2)   3.618%         3.502%     0.117%
>>Methane (CH4)          0.360%         0.294%     0.066%
>>Nitrous Oxide (N2O)    0.950%         0.903%     0.047%
>>Misc. gases            0.072%         0.025%     0.047%
>>Total                100.000%         99.72%     0.28%

> How did you calculate these numbers?  I'm especially curious as to how 
> man-made CO2 has gone from ~280ppm to ~380ppm (accounting for 23% of
what's 
> in the atmosphere) and yet is only contributing 3.3% of the total CO2
heat 
> retention?  Have you accounted for the effects of differeing IR
absorbtion 
> bandwidths of the gases, specifically where they do and don't overlap? 
The 
> table you show has been debunked many times and only persists through 
> mindless repetition.  If you do the calculations correctly, the real
role of 
> H2O is about 70%.

	You appear to be confusing percent in the atmosphere with percent of
greenhouse gases which are 
only those with an IR interest.

380 parts per million is .000380 of the atmosphere or .038% of the
atmosphere.

> But remember, the greenhouse effect keeps the temperature from being 
> around -18oC, thus the rise of about 1 degree is not inconsistent with
CO2's 
> weighted role in greenhouse warming.

	That is BS. The Moon is the the earth without atmosphere. It is then only
of interest to determine 
the "averaging" contribution of what is in the atmosphere.

> The main point to remember is we are dealing with a balance and as such
a 
> small amount that you otherwise may wish to dismiss as insignificant, is
in 
> fact critical.  H2O concentration is a feedback not a forcing of climate

> change.

	It is not a matter of dismissing it. It is a matter of there being no
rational case for considering 
CO2 pivotal or even significant.

-- 
Never again believe those do***entaries showing how hard
it is use explosives to bring down a building safely.
9/11 showed how easy it is.
	-- The Iron Webmaster, 3414
  nizkor http://www.giwersworld.org/nizkook/nizkook.phtml
  Old Testament http://www.giwersworld.org/bible/ot.phtml
a6