Water vapor H2O 36 – 72 %
Carbon dioxide CO2 9 – 26 %

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenhouse_gas

(06-14-2011 02:31 PM)NIU007 Wrote:  CO2 is a more efficient greenhouse gas than water vapor.

That is completely wrong.

http://webbook.nist.gov/cgi/cbook.cgi?ID...=1#IR-SPEC

http://webbook.nist.gov/cgi/cbook.cgi?ID...=1#IR-SPEC

Quote:Methane is even more efficient but in much tinier amounts.

http://webbook.nist.gov/cgi/cbook.cgi?ID...=1#IR-SPEC

(06-14-2011 02:49 PM)SumOfAllFears Wrote:  miko, you seem to understand GW. So answer. I know it is complex, but in a one sentence response or one word. Has man, since the industrial revolution, CAUSED the earth to be warmer or colder, with certitude.

You certainly could not make that statement with absolute certainty. I am far from a GW expert, but it is not hard to see that the science is far from certain.

(06-14-2011 02:42 PM)miko33 Wrote:  

(06-14-2011 02:31 PM)NIU007 Wrote:  

(06-14-2011 01:43 PM)DrTorch Wrote:  

(06-14-2011 01:35 PM)NIU007 Wrote:  Isn't it true that the water vapor is mostly in an endless cycle between surface and atmosphere (hydrologic) and has been for a long time, whereas we're taking carbon that's been trapped in the earth's crust for a long time and putting it into the atmosphere? I can see where that would lead to more of a change in greenhouse gases than the constant movements of water and water vapor.

That doesn't follow rationally. The fact that water vapor concentrations vary so greatly, and yet there is still no positive feedback mechanism that leads to runaway global warming, conclusively disproves the theory.

Doesn't matter that the trace CO2 is new to the game. Water is "worse" according to the theory, and yet it hasn't been a problem despite much greater concentrations than CO2.

Sort of like putting weights on a scale and saying that we've constantly put 5lb weights on and off the scale w/ no problems, but if you add the weight of a shake of salt, it's gonna distort the springs and break the scale.

Water is even more interesting b/c:
The theories don't model its effect well, by their own admission.
Much of the response of the system to extra water has been demonstrated as a negative feedback mechanism. Exactly what the catastrophists don't want.

CO2 is a more efficient greenhouse gas than water vapor. Methane is even more efficient but in much tinier amounts. Wikipedia lists CO2 as contributing 36-72% of greenhouse effect vs. 9-26% for CO2 (H2O?). So it isn't a tiny amount, it's a substantial contribution. In your analogy, it's like putting the 5 lb weight on and then adding some additional weight, and weight that won't be released from the scale any time soon.

Take a step back and look at the statement in bold that you just typed. Those ranges are so great that no one even knows how much of a contribution these gases really have. If you were looking to purchase a product, and the manufacturer told you that the effectiveness of this product ranged from 36% to 72% effective, you would be highly incredulous and tell the salesman to stick it because their product sucks. So why buy the man made global warming "product" if the science behind it sucks? It has to suck because if you can't predict its contribution with any precision, then you either have no understanding of how CO2 affects climate change or there are other factors that are much larger levers than CO2 alone. Let's suppose that CO2 is 50% effective as a greenhouse gas while water vapor is 15% effective. Even in this scenario, the effectiveness of H2O will dwarf the CO2 because there will be anywhere from 10 times to 1000 times more H20 in the atmosphere than CO2.

The way they describe the percentage ranges was:

"This is because some of the gases absorb and emit radiation at the same frequencies as others, so that the total greenhouse effect is not simply the sum of the influence of each gas. The higher ends of the ranges quoted are for each gas alone; the lower ends account for overlaps with the other gases".

Also, the way they describe it, those percentages are not "effectiveness". Those percentages are the total contribution to the "greenhouse effect". So that's including the fact that there is far more H2O than CO2.

(06-14-2011 01:32 PM)NIU007 Wrote:  

(06-14-2011 09:53 AM)Bull_In_Exile Wrote:  

(06-13-2011 12:03 PM)RobertN Wrote:  Do you understand this is the basic conceprt of "global warming"?

Yes and if there is one thing the AWGers have taught us its that warming has nothing to do with the huge ball of fire in the sky..

I could be wrong, but I don't think they've measured any significant change in total solar irradiance.

We covered this 7 years ago (oddly enough, to the day)

http://ncaabbs.com/showthread.php?tid=22...pid2297536

(06-14-2011 04:26 PM)DrTorch Wrote:  

(06-14-2011 01:32 PM)NIU007 Wrote:  

(06-14-2011 09:53 AM)Bull_In_Exile Wrote:  

(06-13-2011 12:03 PM)RobertN Wrote:  Do you understand this is the basic conceprt of "global warming"?

Yes and if there is one thing the AWGers have taught us its that warming has nothing to do with the huge ball of fire in the sky..

I could be wrong, but I don't think they've measured any significant change in total solar irradiance.

We covered this 7 years ago (oddly enough, to the day)

http://ncaabbs.com/showthread.php?tid=22...pid2297536

That isn't saying there's more or less sunlight reaching Earth (i.e. the top of the atmosphere), it's just saying clouds on Earth are reflecting more or less of it.

Still, it's a good article talking about the effects of clouds, which we necessarily have to understand.

This event will prove or disprove Man Made Global Warming. Of course if the Earth does indeed cool down rapidly, these global warming nutjobs will insist that Global Warming caused the cooling trend and not the lack of Sun Spots. oh hum

http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20110614/ts_afp/usspacesun

(06-15-2011 03:08 AM)Joey_Niklas Wrote:  This event will prove or disprove Man Made Global Warming. Of course if the Earth does indeed cool down rapidly, these global warming nutjobs will insist that Global Warming caused the cooling trend and not the lack of Sun Spots. oh hum

http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20110614/ts_afp/usspacesun

Thanks, that was the one I was gonna track down.

(06-14-2011 02:49 PM)SumOfAllFears Wrote:  miko, you seem to understand GW. So answer. I know it is complex, but in a one sentence response or one word. Has man, since the industrial revolution, CAUSED the earth to be warmer or colder, with certitude.

SOAF YOU are a freakin idiot. I wouldn't even say that MAN has not CAUSED GW or CC. It is in conjunction w/ natural processes.

(06-15-2011 03:08 AM)Joey_Niklas Wrote:  This event will prove or disprove Man Made Global Warming. Of course if the Earth does indeed cool down rapidly, these global warming nutjobs will insist that Global Warming caused the cooling trend and not the lack of Sun Spots. oh hum

Are there no limits to how far Big Oil will go to cast doubt on global warming?

(06-15-2011 03:08 AM)Joey_Niklas Wrote:  This event will prove or disprove Man Made Global Warming. Of course if the Earth does indeed cool down rapidly, these global warming nutjobs will insist that Global Warming caused the cooling trend and not the lack of Sun Spots. oh hum

http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20110614/ts_afp/usspacesun

It won't prove or disprove anything. You are just as nutty as SOAF, Dr. Moron and the rest of them.

(06-15-2011 01:07 PM)RobertN Wrote:  

(06-15-2011 03:08 AM)Joey_Niklas Wrote:  This event will prove or disprove Man Made Global Warming. Of course if the Earth does indeed cool down rapidly, these global warming nutjobs will insist that Global Warming caused the cooling trend and not the lack of Sun Spots. oh hum

http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20110614/ts_afp/usspacesun

It won't prove or disprove anything. You are just as nutty as SOAF, Dr. Moron and the rest of them.

I could be that "all of them" are right, and you the board moron is short on fact and long on wrong with every post.

(06-15-2011 01:07 PM)RobertN Wrote:  

(06-15-2011 03:08 AM)Joey_Niklas Wrote:  This event will prove or disprove Man Made Global Warming. Of course if the Earth does indeed cool down rapidly, these global warming nutjobs will insist that Global Warming caused the cooling trend and not the lack of Sun Spots. oh hum

http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20110614/ts_afp/usspacesun

It won't prove or disprove anything. You are just as nutty as SOAF, Dr. Moron and the rest of them.

Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha.

(06-15-2011 01:01 PM)Lord Stanley Wrote:  

(06-15-2011 03:08 AM)Joey_Niklas Wrote:  This event will prove or disprove Man Made Global Warming. Of course if the Earth does indeed cool down rapidly, these global warming nutjobs will insist that Global Warming caused the cooling trend and not the lack of Sun Spots. oh hum

Are there no limits to how far Big Oil will go to cast doubt on global warming?

Are there no limits to how far third world nations, through the use of the U.N. will go to support a hypothesis that is "proven" to be true via heavily politicized "science" and group think in order to enact global wealth redistribution?

I wonder which one of our questions are more valid? Follow the money, and I'm sure we'll figure it out...

Well, technically mine was more tongue in cheek. I was implying that Big Oil was manipulating the Sun....

(06-14-2011 04:43 PM)NIU007 Wrote:  

(06-14-2011 04:26 PM)DrTorch Wrote:  

(06-14-2011 01:32 PM)NIU007 Wrote:  

(06-14-2011 09:53 AM)Bull_In_Exile Wrote:  

(06-13-2011 12:03 PM)RobertN Wrote:  Do you understand this is the basic conceprt of "global warming"?

Yes and if there is one thing the AWGers have taught us its that warming has nothing to do with the huge ball of fire in the sky..

I could be wrong, but I don't think they've measured any significant change in total solar irradiance.

We covered this 7 years ago (oddly enough, to the day)

http://ncaabbs.com/showthread.php?tid=22...pid2297536

That isn't saying there's more or less sunlight reaching Earth (i.e. the top of the atmosphere), it's just saying clouds on Earth are reflecting more or less of it.

Still, it's a good article talking about the effects of clouds, which we necessarily have to understand.

Clouds are formed, in part, by the interaction of cosmic rays with earths upper atmosphere. Cosmic rays are somewhat inversely proportional to mean solar output.

If the sun is blowing out more solar winds the earth gets a bit of a 'shield' from cosmic rays. When the sun is quiet we get a slightly larger dose.

So I ask again...

Where are the measurements of solar activity from 1900 and how were they taken?

(06-15-2011 01:43 PM)Lord Stanley Wrote:  Well, technically mine was more tongue in cheek. I was implying that Big Oil was manipulating the Sun....

Uh, 'Sunoco'. Dude, the Sun has been in Big Oil's pocket from the beginning. They aren't even subtle about it.

I'll be turning in my Big Oil Shill (BOS) badge at the front desk on my way out.

I hope my shame doesn't reflect badly on my family.

Shame, shame, shame.....