SI
SI
discoversearch

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.
Politics : The Environmentalist Thread -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Maurice Winn who wrote (21825)6/3/2008 5:57:08 PM
From: neolib  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 36917
 
Not being pedantic, water vapour is a GHG which impacts long wave radiation leaving the earth, while the condensed version in clouds has a very large impact on preventing short wave incoming radiation from ever becoming long wave radiation. A point I was trying to determine if that numbskull even knew, given his idiotic comments about his chart. Unfortunately, he does not know much at all.



To: Maurice Winn who wrote (21825)6/3/2008 7:44:08 PM
From: neolib  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 36917
 

CO2 as a problem is a rounding error, hardly worth starting famine, food wars and other wars, or even just economic destruction.

Some rough numbers from someone a little more knowledgeable on the subject than ourself:

[Response: It’s a set up since the questions are ill posed, but he thinks he’s knows the answer (but he will be wrong). For the current situation CO2 provides about 20% of the greenhouse effect (water vapour is about 50% and clouds about 25%, ozone and other minor gases make up the rest) (defined as the net reduction in the difference between longwave emitted from the surface and the longwave emitted to space, uncertainties are a few percent maybe). For CO2, the anthropogenic component is about 27%, methane it’s 60%, N2O it’s about 13%, CFCs it’s 100% (uncertainties of a couple of percent). His second set of questions are either irrelevant or make no sense. Last year, we emitted about 9 GtC, and increased concentrations by ~2ppm CO2. Your chap will most likely respond with a reference to a website run by mhieb (see here for more debunking). - gavin]

Of course there is Watson with his refrain: CO2 in ppm can't have any affect...

From here:

realclimate.org



To: Maurice Winn who wrote (21825)6/4/2008 10:29:14 AM
From: Thomas A Watson  Respond to of 36917
 
I usually don't use the term water vapor, but just the term h20 as h20 exists in the atmosphere in all phases. so substitute h20.

In that the current ppm of CO2 can be reported as 384 ppm, the appropriated rounding is that CO2 would have to increase 26 times and not 25 to be at a 1% by molecular count.




HomeMailHotSubjectMarksPeopleMarksKeepersSettings
Terms Of UseContact UsCopyright/IP PolicyPrivacy PolicyAbout UsFAQAdvertise on SI
© 2025 Knight Sac Media.  Data provided by Twelve Data, Alpha Vantage, and CityFALCON News