Clouds are suspended water vapor. Even quoting wikipedia (which I'm loathe to do, but it's conveniently quick) water vapor combined with cloud cover account for up to 85% of the greenhouse effect, and CO2 is 9-26%.

http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/greenhouse_data.html for tables and information regarding how very little CO2 is contributed by man vs how much of the increase is naturally occurring.

That is a very poorly constructed article. Find something real.

The Wiki entry is fairly accurate. Those numbers are misleading however, as the low end of the scale only shows stratospheric data which doesn't add very much to the greenhouse effect. Average over the entire atmosphere is ~24% for carbon dioxide 66% for water vapor, 6% for NO2 and 3% for methane. The rest are minor (like CFCs). 85% at the surface under serious cloud coverage is max. 95% is an absurd number.

Also of note - carbon adding even minor heat allows more water vapor into the atmosphere (since a warmer atmosphere can hold more vapor) which is a positive feedback loop.

Methane isn't as big a deal because it degrades within 20 years in the atmosphere.

CO2, however, will remain for a thousand years or longer without a major sequestration event (such as the azolla event)

This post was edited by inkanddagger on Dec 9 2009 11:39am

No. Just because you don't like how it's constructed doesn't detract from it's information.



What that article points out is a numerical value for the anthropogenic part of the greenhouse effect. Specifically, that manmade CO2 emissions account for 0.117% of the greenhouse effect. Multiply your figure of roughly 59 degrees F of greenhouse effect by 0.117% and you get 0.069 degrees F attributable to man. I'm not denying climate change here, I'm denying the need for an overblown reaction to fighting something we have virtually no control over.



FYI: CO2 is water soluble, and more than 70% of the Earth's surface is water.

What I am saying is that article you posted is wrong, inaccurate, not really scientifically based. Post something using real data.

Don't try to "Climategate" me when you are posting false bullshit too.

using real stats (not 95% instead of ~66% water vapor) you end up with exactly what scientists are saying, a few degrees average distributed across the globe and mostly affecting the poles.


Actually, using that article's data even with 85% water vapor, you still end up with just about what scientists say are melting the poles. Hah.

Like I have always said, the science is sound and has been there for a while. The disputes are all in how people spin it.

This post was edited by inkanddagger on Dec 9 2009 06:54pm

I think your problem is evident. You got sucked in to the Global Warming scam and find yourself so far involved that you wouldn't dream of backing off far enough to see the big picture here, which is obviously political control over the global carbon taxes that will ultimately fund a system of global government. I know that you already know this is true through your own advocacy of the destruction of the fed, or at least the lending practices that result from compounded debt through a central bank. So why after knowing what the true agenda is, are you so fervently defending this sham that is merely the front man for tyranny? The vanguard of vanquished? Why are you doing this to me?



Sounds "TRICKY"

Oh yeah, that's exactly what it is. Corruption is bleeding, and I'm going to bleed this pig till it dies.

This post was edited by datajunky on Dec 9 2009 06:54pm

Because global warming is not a scam and no one disputes that it is happening, no one disputes the science, and the only real disputes are mostly political in nature. I have been working on AGW since a good few years before Inconvenient Truth came out.

Also, absurdly enough, the giant fossil fuel industries that run most of the governments are the deniers. You are on their side right now. Feels good to be on the side of the big money funding the government doesn't it, pawn?

This post was edited by inkanddagger on Dec 9 2009 07:00pm

Using 66% instead of 95%, you end up with roughly 0.483 degrees F of cumulative anthropogenic effect. Not enough to justify wanton economic destruction of the first world (and thus destroy our ability to combat it in the first place).



But the science of climate change is being used politically, so you cannot extricate the political discussion from the scientific one.

This post was edited by Santara on Dec 9 2009 07:00pm

That's the fucking problem.

Look, how about we develop new technologies to alter or slow down the natural process instead of worrying about taxing the globe for our minor and almost unnoticeable contribution? If you want to donate your wages to help fight, then go ahead, but don't tread on me and my countrymen.

This post was edited by datajunky on Dec 9 2009 07:03pm

GW is just another religion, scared of death or the extinction of humanity they'll fight for survival.

Fervently it seems, without any hope in humanity, because apparently we are the problem. It's preposterous really.