Re: The Real Junk Science

On Mon, 16 May 2005 02:22:49 GMT, "Coby Beck" <cbeck@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
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?  

They are a few years old.  Still relevant. What do you find, if
anything, wrong with the figures?

>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?  

As a greenhouse gas, CO2 is rather poor compared to water va****.
Although CO2, by volume os over 70% of the greenhouse g***** OTHER
THAN WATER, it's effect is pretty insignificant.  If  you want a real
world simple test, spend a weekend in the desert.  The CO2 contrations
in any of earth's deserts osn't significantly different from anywhere
else on earth, be it the jungle or an average city. What is different
is that water.  There's very little water in the desert atmosphere on
most days and nights and as a result the days are hot and the nights
cold. The CO2 isn't much help, is it? 

>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%.

Nonsense!  The real role of H20 is closer to 100% when you account for
the other affects of water on trans****tating and storing energy via
state change and it's control of earth's reflectivity, actually
regulatng how much of the suns energy gets here to be absorbed.  The
CO2 is meaningless.

>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.

Nonsense!  Water provides the regulation, and even without the
regulation accounts for 95% of the greenhouse g*****.  Besides, if CO2
were a factor, then the data would show warming, and it doesn't. In
fact, there should have been a huge spike in temperature during WWII,
but the opposite actually occured. 

>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.

Not even close.  That's pseudoscience quackery with no science behind
it at all.  It's not unlike creationism and psychics. 

William R. James