Re: The Real Junk Science

Lloyd Parker wrote:
> 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, 

	Define natural.

> which has been in balance for millions of years. 

	But it has not been and millions of years is a blink of an eye for earth.

> 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.

	What caused the little Ice Age 600 years ago? Please be specific in the
human cause for it.

>>	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.

	Yes. And I regard the opinions of others you are repeating from
journalism majors very dumb.

>>	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.

	As you are not a scientist, how would you know?

-- 
How can we say all Jews are not animals unless all of them
condemn the behavior of the squatters in Hebron?
	-- The Iron Webmaster, 3444
  nizkor http://www.giwersworld.org/nizkook/nizkook.phtml
  book review http://www.giwersworld.org/israel/willing-executioners.phtml
a7