On Wed, 18 May 2005 19:32:43 GMT, "Coby Beck" <cbeck@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
wrote:
>"Wm James" <wrjames.remove@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message
>news:268l81pkku1dimvia7bh240l157mgjqemc@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>> On Tue, 17 May 2005 17:07:57 GMT, "Coby Beck" <cbeck@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
>> wrote:
>>
>>>"Wm James" <wrjames.remove@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message
>>>news:1hgi81p4op70fvg96hn90c7jtl31u0vtp5@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>>>> 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.
>>>
>>>You didn't answer my question. If you did not calculate them yourself,
>>>what
>>>text book or scientific source did you get them from?
>>
>> You want to attack me or the source or something other than the
>> figures? And you want my help? If you can't dispute the data, just
>> say so.
>
>I already pointed out its problems. It is not unreasonable to ask for a
>source or method when someone posts a set of figures. Given your
reluctance
>to be forthcoming, I guess you don't have any reliable source.
No, I'm just waiting for the punchline. I know what it is, I'm
waiting to hear it.
>>>>>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****.
>>>
>>>You did not address my question at all.
>>
>> ROTFLMAO!
>> Your reading problems do not equate to any problem or error on my
>> part. You snip what I said, then act like I never said it! And you
>> think you are making any point other than that you are a clueless
>> liar?
>
>I snipped it because it was irrelevant. I left your main point that CO2
is
>poor relative to water, the rest was sup****ting that statement, all the
>sup****t in the world does not make it relevant.
It's absolutely relevant! It's the entire point, the whole issue!
>The snipped content was:
>"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?"
>
>How does this answer my question about why your chart shows 23% of
>atmospheric CO2 is anthropogenic but only 3.3% of CO2 heat retention is
>anthropogenic?
Where do you see 23% or 3.3% in that anywhere? The total of
anthropogenic greenhouse g***** is only 0.28%. The total of CO2 is
only 3.618%. Are you referring to the total of all combined
anthropogenic greenhouse gases? That's barely inder 3.3% by volume,
IGNORING WATER, and without adjusting for greenhouse effect of the
g*****.
Here's one page I just located using google:
(btw, they seem to have the same source as me, huh? :) )
http://www.keystonecurriculum.org/html/climate_change_debate.html
=================================================================
....
Water va**** overwhelms all other natural and man-made greenhouse
contributions.
3. Table 3 shows what happens when the effect of water va**** is
factored in, and together with all other greenhouse gases expressed as
a relative % of the total greenhouse effect.
Role of Atmospheric Greenhouse Gases
(man-made and natural) as a % of Relative
Contribution to the "Greenhouse Effect"
Based on concentrations Percent of Total
(ppb) adjusted for heat Percent of Total --adjusted for
retention characteristics water va****
Water va**** ----- 95.000%
Carbon Dioxide (CO2) 72.369% 3.618%
Methane (CH4) 7.100% 0.360%
Nitrous oxide (N2O) 19.000% 0.950%
CFC's (and other misc. gases) 1.432% 0.072%
Total 100.000% 100.000%
As illustrated in this chart of the data in Table 3, the combined
greenhouse contributions of CO2, methane, N2O, and misc. gases are
small compared to water va****!
Total atmospheric carbon dioxide (CO2) -- both man-made and natural--
is only about 3.62% of the overall greenhouse effect. Water va****, the
most significant greenhouse gas, comes from natural sources and is
responsible for roughly 95% of the greenhouse effect (4). Among
climatologists, this is common knowledge, but among special interests,
certain environmental groups and news re****ters this fact is
under-emphasized or just ignored altogether.
Conceding that it might be "a little misleading" to leave water va****
out, they nonetheless defend the practice by stating that it is
"customary" to do so!
....
==================================================================
They even include these quotes:
" There is no dispute at all about the fact that even if punctiliously
observed, (the Kyoto Protocol) would have an imperceptible effect on
future temperatures -- one-twentieth of a degree by 2050. "
Dr. S. Fred Singer, atmospheric physicist
Professor Emeritus of Environmental Sciences at the University of
Virginia,
and former director of the US Weather Satellite Service;
in a Sept. 10, 2001 Letter to Editor, Wall Street Journal
" I can only see one element of the climate system capable of
generating these fast, global changes, that is, changes in the
tropical atmosphere leading to changes in the inventory of the earth's
most powerful greenhouse gas-- water va****. "
Dr. Wallace Broecker, a leading world authority on climate
Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory, Columbia University,
lecture presented at R. A. Daly Lecture at the American Geophysical
Union's
spring meeting in Baltimore, Md., May 1996.
Here's another with similar data:
http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/greenhouse_data.html
"Just how much of the "Greenhouse Effect" is caused by human activity?
It is about 0.28%, if water va**** is taken into account-- about 5.53%,
if not."
>>>>>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!
>>>
>>>Why? And where is the answer to my question?
>>
>> You mean the part you snipped where I said this:
>> 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.
>
>Simply stating a conflicting opinion is not pointing out the problems
with
>what I said. I made a simple and clear point, you can not refute it so
you
>yell "Nonesense" and make even more extreme and equally unsup****ted
claims.
>You also continue to avoid my question as to whether your chart accounts
for
>IR absorbtion bandwidth overlaps.
I pointed out the simple fact that the CO2 is irrelevant, that water
is the regulating factor. Increasing the CO2, doubling it, quadupling
it, would make absolutely no difference int he earth's temperature
because of the role of water. The water in the atmosphere is a
function of the temperature as long as there is both liquid and gas.
Everyone who ever took even a basic course on refrigeration
understands the principle even if they never read a science text book.
You heat the air, you get more eva****ation, that's higher humidity
withut increasing the relative humidity. The ocean is a huge global
reserve of the earth's equivilant to freon. Water absorbs massive
amounts of energy just changing state. You can observe that phenomonon
by wetting a canteen and hanging it in the shade in the desert. You
can nearly freeze the water even if it's 100 degrees in the shade. Or
stick a thermometer in a pot of boiling water and see it stop getting
hotter as 212 degrees even though you are pumping more energy into it.
The earth does the same thing. If water can eva****ate and condense,
the temperature doesn't change except relative to the energy input and
distribution. The water also trans****ts surface energy (not just in
the form of heat, but in the water's change of state) high intoi the
atmosphere whe it loses energy when condensing radiating the energy
out into space and also reflecting light so less energy makes it to
the surface to eva****ate more water. This is really basic science.
it's not complicated at all.
>>>>>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!
>>>
>>>Sorry, this is again, too easy a copout. What specifically is
nonsense?
>>>and
>>>Why? Even using your over estimate of H2O's greenhouse role, a 3% rise
in
>>>temperature from a 70% rise in CO2 is not out of the ballpark.
>>
>> Once again, you snip to attempt to argue beyond your limited capacity.
>> What I said was:
>> 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.
>
>You really need your nose rubbed in it don't you? Where in the above
>restored context is anything addressing the simple point that the total
>greenhouse effect of ~33oC vs the AGW of ~.75oC is consistent with the
very
>large role of H2O vapour in Greenhouse theory?
See above. If you can't read, have someone who can explain it to you.
>>>> Besides, if CO2
>>>> were a factor, then the data would show warming, and it doesn't.
>>>
>>>Yes it does. http://www.giss.nasa.gov/data/update/gistemp/
>>
>> Surface temperature analysis?
>
>Uh..most of us live here on the surface (earth that is) not you?
I live on one tiny piece of the surface. Like those peddling the
hoax, I don't live on the whole thing, and unlike them, I wouldn't
claim my observation here is global.
>I'm happy
>for you that you found one study, discredited years ago, that sup****ts
>*your* pre-formed conclusion that nothing is happening, but you really do
>stretch credibility when you try to excuse and ignore everything else
(and I
>do mean everything). That crack about "data mining" (you mean cherry
>picking) is quite rich.
No, I said "data mining" because I meant "data mining". Look it up.
You might notice the techniques used to sell all sorts of scams and
pseudocience, including the global warming hoax.
>How come every scientific effort that shows warming is "quackery" and the
>one that didn't you swallow whole?
Where is a scientific effort that shows warming?
William R. James
|
