Quote:
Originally Posted by Helium
This is an article from an economist lol, please and nowhere does it mention that carbon has an insignificant effect on the atmosphere. You have used this article to try and make an argument that water vapour is a more serious green house gas than carbon, thus in doing so trying to make a point that carbon is "ïnsignificant" because its introduction into the atmosphere is far less than water vapour.
Are you f****** serious, this is a statement by an economist and he does not provide any source for this...."fact". This is a perfect example of utilizing statistics to fit your own argument, he does not state whether 95% of human introduced water vapour/anthropogenic or if this is the natural green house effect. I assume he is talking about the natural effect judging by that percentage, which is therefore irrelevant because human induced global warming is the alteration of the chemical composition of the atm...ere through introduction of more or less of green house gases.
If he means that the organic water vapour, then I agree that this can be true (95% I think not but I would believe a figure over 50%) but it is irrelevent because we know that the naturally occuring green house gases are what has created the oxic and temperate climate necessary for life so the effect of this non-human introduced vapour is essential for maintaining the current natural climate.
Heres good ol' Wallys credentials
Not really qualified to be used to support that carbon is insignificant as a gree house gas, especially when he doesn't even mention carbon.
Again irrelevant, the green house gases emitted by wetlands are what maintains the natural levels of chemical composition of the atm...ere to create the required oxic and temperature conditions necessary for life. Again what matter is what chemicals/molecules r added/introduced unnaturally by humans that alter the chemical composition thus the oxic and temperature of at...ere.
You have yet to provide evidence that CO2 emissions and its effects are irrelevant.
|
By far, the biggest and most important contributer to the green house effect IS water vapor. This is not disputed by anyone other than you. In fact, even the exxagerated effect attributed to Co2 relies on it's speculated effect on water vapor. Co2 by itself is in fact rather insignificant... both by volume and effect. It's well known that C02 by itself cannot produce a sginificant change.
Your statement that "...judging by that percentage, which is therefore irrelevant because human induced global warming is the alteration of the chemical composition of the atm...ere through introduction of more or less of green house gases."... is both incomplete and over simplified.
The hypothesis relies on radiative forcing, which can only be shown in models. What should be happening if this hypothesis is correct is increased warming in the troposphere. That is the key signal. All models used to point the finger to Co2 necessarily rely on this hypothesis (refer to IPCC TAR and every single GCM, or even realclimate if you prefer).
As you can see, it's not happening. All observations show that the troposphere is not, and has not, warmed as the models (thus the hypothesis) say it should be. So if you're going to make the argument that Co2 is drving temp and changing climate you're going to need to explain how the hypothesis can be wrong and still be right. Good luck.