Senate Report: Gore Lies, Media Biased, Advocates Misrepresent

[KrazyHorse]

Originally posted by BlackCat


I'll bite on this. I agree on all three, but will you accept the fact that CO2 is only a minor contributor as a green house gas ?

Why should he, given that CO2 the single largest radiative forcer, and by itself approximately equals the contributions due to all other greenhouse gases (other than water vapour)?

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

[Zkribbler]

Are you reading the same Wikipedia as I?

The major natural greenhouse gases are water vapor, which causes about 36-70% of the greenhouse effect on Earth (not including clouds); carbon dioxide, which causes 9-26%; methane, which causes 4-9%, and ozone, which causes 3-7%. Note that it is not possible to state that a certain gas causes a certain percentage of the greenhouse effect, because the influences of the various gases are not additive. (The higher ends of the ranges quoted are for the gas alone; the lower ends, for the gas counting overlaps.)[3] [4]

(Although the article also says that mankind's activities do not affect the amount of water vapor in the air but that, since the beginning of the Industrial Revolution, the amount of carbon dioxide has greatly increased.)

[KrazyHorse]

Although the article also says that mankind's activities do not affect the amount of water vapor in the air

We do, but only indirectly. Water vapour has a very short lifecycle. Direct contributions do little. Changing wind patterns and temperatures is the only way we have to significantly alter water vapour concentrations.

[BlackCat]

Originally posted by KrazyHorse


Why should he, given that CO2 the single largest radiative forcer, and by itself approximately equals the contributions due to all other greenhouse gases (other than water vapour)?

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

It is common knowledge that CO2 isn't a major contributor of greenhouse effect. Check any reasonably reliable site about climate and they all agree.

The discussion is really about the posibillity that the manmade change in CO2 is enough to have an impact on the climate that are distinctive from natural variations.

I read your link (wich by the way, I don't grant any reliability since it's wikipedia) but can't find what you claim. Please quote what you think supports your claim.

[Zkribbler]

Originally posted by BlackCat
It is common knowledge that CO2 isn't a major contributor of greenhouse effect. Check any reasonably reliable site about climate and they all agree.

The links above all disagree with you.
And I notice you have posted any links.

[BlackCat]

Originally posted by Zkribbler


The links above all disagree with you.
And I notice you have posted any links.

Yeah, I haven't provideded any links, but really, any sensible site about this subject will either prove my pov or give links to sites that do - why should I prove the obvious ?

[Zkribbler]

Because you're in the vast minority of people who believe that human activity is NOT causing global warming, and because the sites you are afraid to link to either do not exist or are crackpot sites.

I win.

[BlackCat]

Originally posted by Zkribbler

Who can argue against a bouncing frog

[KrazyHorse]

Originally posted by BlackCat


It is common knowledge that CO2 isn't a major contributor of greenhouse effect. Check any reasonably reliable site about climate and they all agree.

You are completely wrong.

The discussion is really about the posibillity that the manmade change in CO2 is enough to have an impact on the climate that are distinctive from natural variations.

You confuse the manmade greenhouse with greenhouse. CO2 is the major contributor to the current level of greenhouse effect outside water vapour. Your statement was that CO2 is not an important greenhouse contributor. That is completely untrue. It becomes less significant when talking about manmade greenhouse (since there is a level of diminishing returns in effect) but it is still a major source of marginal radiative forcing.

I read your link (wich by the way, I don't grant any reliability since it's wikipedia) but can't find what you claim. Please quote what you think supports your claim.

The table which lists the radiative forcings of different components is right there, dude. CO2 at current levels adds ~1.5 W/m^2. Learn to read.

And I don't particularly care what you think of wikipedia. I've performed the calculation myself and arrived at reasonably similar numbers. It's not very difficult.

[KrazyHorse]

Originally posted by BlackCat




Yeah, I haven't provideded any links, but really, any sensible site about this subject will either prove my pov or give links to sites that do - why should I prove the obvious ?

It's not obvious. In fact, what you are claiming is blatantly ridiculous. If you had any physics knowledge you would be able to see that for yourself.

[KrazyHorse]

http://www.cmdl.noaa.gov/aggi/#figure3

[Zkribbler]

For us less informed, "NOAA" stands for what?

[KrazyHorse]

National Oceanic and Atmosperic....something. Can't remember.

[KrazyHorse]

ahhh. The last A is administration. It's a part of the US Dept of Commerce

[KrazyHorse]

Nonscientists get weird ideas about **** sometimes.