Re: The Real Junk Science

In article <fuiie.44015$IO.40145@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>,
   Matt Giwer <matt@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>Lloyd Parker wrote:
>> In article <QB_he.21496$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.
>

We're not talking about the natural greenhouse effect, which has been in 
balance for millions of years.  We're talking about the additional
warming, 
which has been happening for just the last 120 years.  And it's caused by 
increased CO2 in the atmosphere, which in turn is caused by human 
activities.

>	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.

You're a physicist?  Yeah, sure.

>
>	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.
>
I find it interesting that you claim you're a scientist and post crapola.