Re: The Real Junk Science

Lloyd Parker wrote:
> In article <QB_he.21496$VH2.10807@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>,
>    Matt Giwer <matt@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
> 
>>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.

> It is a matter of you being the village idiot then.

	So you can explain in scientific terms why I am in error.

	Please do.

	I do not take appeals to authority nor hand-waving for an answer. If it
will help you, I am a 
physicist so you can produce your answer in terms of physics.

	If you are not a scientist, you have no opinion of interest in this
discussion.

	And I find it interesting that non-scientists get pissed when informed
their opinions are worthless.

-- 
Hodie decimo ***to Kalendas Iunias MMV est
      -- The Ferric Webceasar
nizkor http://www.giwersworld.org/nizkook/nizkook.phtml
  antisemitism http://www.giwersworld.org/antisem/
a1