2 degrees F or C? Also, if the anthropogenic increase from 1750 is 2 degrees, what is the total increase? Using what for reference?

So if the solutions are watered down, how many deaths, and how much human misery are you willing to accept in the name of providing the final solution?

I did reduce to 66% to come up with 0.483 degrees F. As to whether the 95% figure is incorrect, even the source you agreed was accurate (wiki) said that combined water vapor plus cloud cover (which we also don't have control over) range from 66% (your number) to 85% (closer to the first one I referenced). Plugging in 85% to extrapolate, it would be 0.207 degrees F. Feel free to fill in the rest of the blank.

edit: are you assuming that only anthropogenic CO2 is accumulating, but ALL of the natural CO2 is being sunk?

This post was edited by Santara on Dec 9 2009 08:46pm

No, you did the 66% for vapor but you forgot to adjust the percentage of contribution. He arrived at the percentage of human contribution by doing the whole environment - see his 3.6% figure? That should be about 60% annual since we are talking about the atmosphere. You have to adjust for that.

about 100 ppm out of 389 are human, or ~40%.

Take 40% of the total CO2 contribution and attribute it to man and that will give you a more accurate figure. (40% of 24% = 9.6% of total temperature caused by GHGs)

Like I said, a classic way deniers make numbers look lower is by accounting for the total environment instead of the atmosphere.

This post was edited by inkanddagger on Dec 9 2009 09:17pm

The modern VA health care system?

100 divided by 389 equals 25.7%, not 40%.

For his 3.6% figure, if I plug in your 66% number for water vapor (leaving 34% of the rest of the greenhouse effect to the other gases) and multiply 34 by 72.369% (from his chart), I come up with 24.6%. Still not 60%. If I apply 24.6% of the greenhouse effect above the 59 degree F baseline, I come up with 14.5 degrees F. Somehow, I don't think you can show me a chart that shows that we're 14.5 degrees F above "normal".

edit: he has lots of peer reviewed references for his 95% figure:

4) References to 95% contribution of water vapor:

a. S.M. Freidenreich and V. Ramaswamy, “Solar Radiation Absorption by Carbon Dioxide, Overlap with Water, and a Parameterization for General Circulation Models,” Journal of Geophysical Research 98 (1993):7255-7264

b. Global Deception: The Exaggeration of the Global Warming Threat
by Dr. Patrick J. Michaels, June 1998
Virginia State Climatologist and Professor of Environmental Sciences, University of Virginia

c. Greenhouse Gas Emissions, Appendix D, Greenhouse Gas Spectral Overlaps and Their Significance
Energy Information Administration; Official Energy Statistics from the U.S. Government

d. Personal Communication-- Dr. Richard S. Lindzen
Alfred P. Slone Professor of Meteorology, MIT

e. The Geologic Record and Climate Change
by Dr. Tim Patterson, January 2005
Professor of Geology-- Carleton University
Ottawa, Canada
Alternate link:
f. EPA Seeks To Have Water Vapor Classified As A Pollutant
by the ecoEnquirer, 2006
Alternate link:

g. Air and Water Issues
by Freedom 21.org, 2005
Citation: Bjorn Lomborg, p. 259. Also: Patrick Michaels and Robert Balling, Jr. The Satanic Gases, Clearing the Air About Global Warming (Washington, DC: CATO Institute, 2000), p. 25.

h. Does CO2 Really Drive Global Warming?
by Dr. Robert Essenhigh, May 2001
Alternate link:

i. Solar Cycles, Not CO2, Determine Climate
by Zbigniew Jaworowski, M.D., Ph.D., D.Sc., 21st Century Science and Technology, Winter 2003-2004, pp. 52-65
Link:

This post was edited by Santara on Dec 9 2009 09:23pm

No, we both skipped a step. Thanks for straightening me out.

It would be 24.6% of the 24% Temperature contribution (assuming 66% water vapor). So that's 5.9% of the 59 degrees, or 3.5 F, which is around 1.8 C - which is, coincidentally, what most climate scientists agree on. I'm proud of us, we actually figured out the correct number and found the math that everyone else is using all on our own.

Also, if you read those peer reviewed studies, you will see that WV has around a 60-66% contribution over the planet and up to 85% under dense cloud coverage in a small single area.

If you agree with 95% (which is not accurate I promise) you end up with about a half a degree, as you figured out earlier.

This post was edited by inkanddagger on Dec 9 2009 09:34pm

Why should I go read all those studies when he already did? He came up with a number different than yours.

Also, no one has seen fit to comment on the petition project information posted earlier that included 31K signatories, including 9,000 PhD's. Why do they get short shrift over the 2500 UN bureaucrats who signed the IPCC?

Totally. Why bother going and looking at something yourself when you can just get your information spoon-fed to you by an 'expert' who already agrees with what you want the truth to be?

This is the root of "Climategate." Parsing freely available information takes too much effort to go through when you can just trust someone else to vomit it into your mouth like a mother bird.

This post was edited by AiNedeSpelCzech on Dec 9 2009 09:34pm

I looked through all of them myself and still came up with an average of between 60 and 66% from them. The only one that mentions 90% is one studying different sorts of cloud formations and their effects on radiative forcing at the surface.

I am saying 66% to be on the high end, but also because 66% is the number used by the IPCC.

Assuming 66% water vapor, man has contributed 1.8 degrees to the global temperature since 1750 (which agrees with the research). If you use the 95% figure it goes down to less than half a degree, which is why that particular person used that singular data out of place to base the rest of his information on.

Still, a half degree average over the planet is a few degrees at the poles and hardly noticeable at the equator (which is sort of what everyone is saying anyway).

Also, just to concede a little here, that 1.8 degree increase includes average troposphere and stratosphere The tropospheric warming based on that figure comes down to .9 degrees C. We aren;t really concerned with warming or GHG concentrations outside of the troposphere for the most part.

This post was edited by inkanddagger on Dec 9 2009 09:42pm

Dodge all the rest. I really have LOTS of time to devote to all that, like you do... But your spoon-feeding "experts" are above being reviewed with correct data, right?

The conclusions of the petition project:

There are no experimental data to sup port the hypothesis that increases in human hydrocarbon use or in atmospheric carbon dioxide and other green house gases are causing or can be expected to cause unfavorable changes in global temperatures, weather, or landscape. There is no reason to limit human production of CO2, CH4, and other minor green house gases as has been proposed (82,83,97,123). We also need not worry about environmental calamities even if the current natural warming trend continues. The Earth has been much warmer during the past 3,000 years without catastrophic effects. Warmer weather extends growing sea sons and generally improves the habitability of colder regions. As coal, oil, and natural gas are used to feed and lift from poverty vast numbers of people across the globe, more CO2 will be released into the atmosphere. This will help to maintain and improve the health, longevity, prosperity, and productivity of all people. The United States and other countries need to produce more energy, not less. The most practical, economical, and environmentally sound methods available are hydrocarbon and nuclear technologies. Human use of coal, oil, and natural gas has not harmfully warmed the Earth, and the extrapolation of current trends shows that it will not do so in the foreseeable future. The CO2 produced does, however, accelerate the growth rates of plants and also permits plants to grow in drier regions. Animal life, which depends upon plants, also flourishes, and the diversity of plant and animal life is increased. Human activities are producing part of the rise in CO2 in the atmosphere. Mankind is moving the carbon in coal, oil, and natural gas from be low ground to the atmosphere, where it is available for conversion into living things. We are living in an increasingly lush environment of plants and animals as a result of this CO2 increase. Our children will therefore enjoy an Earth with far more plant and animal life than that with which we now are blessed.

Link to the paper if you can't find it: http://www.petitionproject.org/gw_article/GWReview_OISM150.pdf

This post was edited by Santara on Dec 9 2009 09:43pm

@bold - no....Wow, that's a real wingnut statement right there. The other stuff I can partially agree with you on. Warming WILL do some of those things, but it will also cost trillions of dollars in other areas. Personally, I think people are sounding the alarms because of the fact that most human habitations are near the oceans where there will be erosion and property loss. I am more concerned with other things, and I agree a warmer planet might not be that bad if we plan for it. But we should be planning for sequestration instead.


Also, please look at your own damn argument:

You say warming isn't happening because of CO2 THEN you say we need to make more CO2 because a warmer planet is desirable, Which is it? We worked out the maths ourselves.


The only thing I want consensus on here is that we have used climate science to show a warming of anywhere from .5 degrees C to 1.8 degrees C attributable to human activity (depending on water vapor % 95% to 66%)

This post was edited by inkanddagger on Dec 9 2009 09:50pm