Re: The Real Junk Science

"Matt Giwer" <matt@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message 
news:QB_he.21496$VH2.10807@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> 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.

The referenced table is show percent of absorbed heat per GHG.  It shows 
3.502% natural CO2 to .117% anthro. CO2.  Check what I wrote again.

>> 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.

What is this supposed to mean?  What average temperature would the earth's

surface be absent any greenhouse effect, and what is your source?

>> 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.

Hmm.  An inability to understand what you read, followed by some
gibberish, 
followed by an unsup****ted and incorrect conclusion.  Pretty convincing 
stuff.

-- 
Coby Beck
(remove #\Space "coby 101 @[EMAIL PROTECTED]
 bigpond . com")