Search results

I am not changing the subject at all. You can do your same calculation for the x and y components of a sine curve and it will look great in the middle 2/3s of the amplitude and then it fails miserably when it reaches peaks. You are trying to model a complex dynamic system that has feedback...

This model does not agree with the historical data. If there is not a mechanism to reverse the feedback process and since water vapor is the dominant greenhouse gas the system would never be able to reverse itself and we would have reached and stayed at that 6 degree above normal limit...

"Carbon dioxide adds 12 percent to radiation trapping, which is less than the contribution from either water vapor or clouds. By itself, however, carbon dioxide is capable of trapping three times as much radiation as it actually does in the Earth's atmosphere. Freidenreich and colleagues have...

Your calculation may work in some range but as you move the extremes of that range it reaches a tripping point and some other mechanism becomes dominant otherwise temperatures would never decrease like history shows they do. What is this other mechanism? It must be accounted for. An analogy...

I understand this but you tried to argue that the % contribution of warming in the stratospheric from CO2 and water vapor was of some importance. The greenhouse effect is dominated by the heating in the tropospheric. I omitted the sentence about the tropospheric in my original post because it...

I have no idea where you are coming up with this person named Bill. It is not a letter, it is a government required report. What is your basis other than 'I don't agree' for saying the quoted source is misunderstood. Have you read the source? What is clear is that all the reviews whose...

So you are claiming that holding all other factors constant, decreasing stratospheric temperatures will cause global warming?

Oh so you are saying they are doing the opposite of what the IPCC does? Try finding something stating water vapor is a greenhouse on the IPCC website. The IPCC is clearly not a political group, they just want to save the ice caps so all the polar bears will have a place to live.

You cannot debate the anthropogenic portion of the greenhouse effect before you distinguish what portion of the greenhouse effect is natural and what portion is anthropogenic . You have been trying do a correlation between changes in CO2 levels and temperature changes ignoring water vapor, the...

Yes I can: "Water vapor is the predominant absorber of incoming solar radiation and a major contributor to the natural greenhouse effect. Scientists at the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration have reported that the atmospheric water vapor content in the stratosphere at...

EIA gratefully acknowledges the following persons, who provided extensive technical reviews of draft versions of this report: Dr. Richard S. Lindzen Arthur P. Sloan Professor of Meteorology Massachusetts Institute of Technology Dr. Greg Marland Environmental Sciences Division Oak Ridge...

Dave you never cease to amaze me. Did you miss the memo that stratosphere temperature have been decreasing: "WMO (1999) concluded, on the basis of intercomparisons of the temperature records as measured by different instruments, that there has been a distinct cooling of the global mean...

Why can't it becoming from the same source causing the oscillations shown in the data for the last 400,000 years?

Dave what is your gripe with this source? It is fully referenced and comes from the DOE. Please try to come up with a better response than "I don't understand it", that argument only makes you look like a fool. If you don't understand a term try looking it up on wikipedia. And again I am...

Good links Haroki. For those of you who claim that changing CO2 levels drive the temperature up and down what was the source of the changing CO2 levels before the industrial revolution. The data shows they have been correlated for hundreds of thousands of years. You have to be able to...

If in fact the small anthropogenic increases in CO2 levels did did have increase global temperature then yes some feedback would occur as warmer air holds more water vapor. I argue that the small anthropogenic increases in CO2 will not have any significant effect on global temperature so thus...

I have explained this many times. If you can't understand simple terminology you really shouldn't be posting in here. I'm sure I could dig up plenty of financial ties to the IPCC and their reports too if I tried. The idea of it being classified as a pollutant is, not the fact that it is the...

I have posted this before, I will post it again. "Carbon dioxide adds 12 percent to radiation trapping, which is less than the contribution from either water vapor or clouds. By itself, however, carbon dioxide is capable of trapping three times as much radiation as it actually does in the...

Why is this so difficult to understand? The greenhouse effect causes some quantity of energy to be absorbed at the surface of the earth which then increases the surface of the earth. I am talking about the percentage of this total energy that each individual gas contributes. Yes and my...

You must be ignoring the next post I made because it came directly from the actual reports.