What is Earth's 'correct' temperature?

[JBeukema]

[FONT=arial, helvetica, sans serif]Current global temperature anomalies (the amount of warming or cooling reported) are estimated against an expected average of 14 °C (287 K, 57 °F) -- the guess-timated mean temperature over the period 1961-1990.[/FONT]

[FONT=arial, helvetica, sans serif] [FONT=arial, helvetica, sans serif] [/FONT][FONT=arial, helvetica, sans serif]One of the quirks of climate science is that climate models are frequently 'tuned' to reproduce the expected mean temperature of 287 K or 14 °C and, somewhat bizarrely, 14 °C is thought to be the correct figure because 'the most trusted models produce it'. While the average of model representations of global climate suggests Earth's mean temperature is about 14 °C (287 K), the 16 most trusted and 'stable' models tested in the Coupled Model Intercomparison Project (CMIP) (see original .pdf) are not well able to reproduce this result.[/FONT]
[FONT=arial, helvetica, sans serif]This graphic represents the unforced control runs for the "ensemble" (IPCC-speak for "haven't got a clue if any of these actually represent reality -- throw 'em all together and say the errors average out"). The range starts out guessing mean Earth surface temperature as anything from 11.5 to 16.5 °C (roughly 285-290 K) and ends -- without messing with carbon dioxide levels or anything else -- with the guesses even further apart.[/FONT]
[FONT=arial, helvetica, sans serif]The absolute mean surface air temperature of the Earth is actually not known and there is no specification of exactly what we are trying to measure or how to go about doing so. No one knows what Earth's optimal temperature would be or how it could be knowingly and predictably adjusted even if an optimum could be agreed.[/FONT]
[/FONT]

JunkScience.com -- The Real Inconvenient Truth: Greenhouse, global warming and some facts

 

[froggy]

[FONT=arial, helvetica, sans serif]Current global temperature anomalies (the amount of warming or cooling reported) are estimated against an expected average of 14 °C (287 K, 57 °F) -- the guess-timated mean temperature over the period 1961-1990.[/FONT]

[FONT=arial, helvetica, sans serif] [FONT=arial, helvetica, sans serif] [/FONT][FONT=arial, helvetica, sans serif]One of the quirks of climate science is that climate models are frequently 'tuned' to reproduce the expected mean temperature of 287 K or 14 °C and, somewhat bizarrely, 14 °C is thought to be the correct figure because 'the most trusted models produce it'. While the average of model representations of global climate suggests Earth's mean temperature is about 14 °C (287 K), the 16 most trusted and 'stable' models tested in the Coupled Model Intercomparison Project (CMIP) (see original .pdf) are not well able to reproduce this result.[/FONT]
[FONT=arial, helvetica, sans serif]This graphic represents the unforced control runs for the "ensemble" (IPCC-speak for "haven't got a clue if any of these actually represent reality -- throw 'em all together and say the errors average out"). The range starts out guessing mean Earth surface temperature as anything from 11.5 to 16.5 °C (roughly 285-290 K) and ends -- without messing with carbon dioxide levels or anything else -- with the guesses even further apart.[/FONT]
[FONT=arial, helvetica, sans serif]The absolute mean surface air temperature of the Earth is actually not known and there is no specification of exactly what we are trying to measure or how to go about doing so. No one knows what Earth's optimal temperature would be or how it could be knowingly and predictably adjusted even if an optimum could be agreed.[/FONT]
[/FONT]

JunkScience.com -- The Real Inconvenient Truth: Greenhouse, global warming and some facts

Hot, cold, and all in between.

 

[Skull Pilot]

That's a trick question right?

The correct temperature has changed over the 4.5 billion years the earth has existed. The correct temperature of the Hadean Era was by definition fucking hot.

 

[Old Rocks]

[FONT=arial, helvetica, sans serif]Current global temperature anomalies (the amount of warming or cooling reported) are estimated against an expected average of 14 °C (287 K, 57 °F) -- the guess-timated mean temperature over the period 1961-1990.[/FONT]

[FONT=arial, helvetica, sans serif] [FONT=arial, helvetica, sans serif] [/FONT][FONT=arial, helvetica, sans serif]One of the quirks of climate science is that climate models are frequently 'tuned' to reproduce the expected mean temperature of 287 K or 14 °C and, somewhat bizarrely, 14 °C is thought to be the correct figure because 'the most trusted models produce it'. While the average of model representations of global climate suggests Earth's mean temperature is about 14 °C (287 K), the 16 most trusted and 'stable' models tested in the Coupled Model Intercomparison Project (CMIP) (see original .pdf) are not well able to reproduce this result.[/FONT]
[FONT=arial, helvetica, sans serif]This graphic represents the unforced control runs for the "ensemble" (IPCC-speak for "haven't got a clue if any of these actually represent reality -- throw 'em all together and say the errors average out"). The range starts out guessing mean Earth surface temperature as anything from 11.5 to 16.5 °C (roughly 285-290 K) and ends -- without messing with carbon dioxide levels or anything else -- with the guesses even further apart.[/FONT]
[FONT=arial, helvetica, sans serif]The absolute mean surface air temperature of the Earth is actually not known and there is no specification of exactly what we are trying to measure or how to go about doing so. No one knows what Earth's optimal temperature would be or how it could be knowingly and predictably adjusted even if an optimum could be agreed.[/FONT]
[/FONT]

JunkScience.com -- The Real Inconvenient Truth: Greenhouse, global warming and some facts

Yes, Junk Science, for that is what this site truly is. Junk Science. Lies, and misleading half truths.

Look at the paragraphs below. Do you see anything at all that indicate the residence time of CO2 and H2O? That is extremely important, for the residence time of less than ten days for H2O versus two hundred years for CO2 renders these paragraphs a lie formed of half truths.

Water vapor is feedback from the GHGs in the atmosphere.

Wrong. The most important players on the greenhouse stage are water vapor and clouds. Carbon dioxide has been increased to about 0.038% of the atmosphere (possibly from about 0.028% pre-Industrial Revolution) while water in its various forms ranges from 0% to 4% of the atmosphere and its properties vary by what form it is in and even at what altitude it is found in the atmosphere.

In simple terms the bulk of Earth's greenhouse effect is due to water vapor by virtue of its abundance. Water accounts for about 90% of the Earth's greenhouse effect -- perhaps 70% is due to water vapor and about 20% due to clouds (mostly water droplets), some estimates put water as high as 95% of Earth's total tropospheric greenhouse effect (e.g., Freidenreich and Ramaswamy, “Solar Radiation Absorption by Carbon Dioxide, Overlap with Water, and a Parameterization for General Circulation Models,” Journal of Geophysical Research 98 (1993):7255-7264).

The remaining portion comes from carbon dioxide, nitrous oxide, methane, ozone and miscellaneous other "minor greenhouse gases." As an example of the relative importance of water it should be noted that changes in the relative humidity on the order of 1.3-4% are equivalent to the effect of doubling CO2.

JunkScience.com -- The Real Inconvenient Truth: Greenhouse, global warming and some facts

 

[froggy]

A true year is 365.242199 every four years you get a leap year, but .242199 x 4 = .968796 thus a difference of 31204. over time that will change calendar time giving an impression that the temperature is changing. But its just the calendar getting out of sync with nature.

 

[JBeukema]

Yes, the water cycle means a particular water droplet is unlikely to remain in one place for long.

Since no water ever evaporates to replace it, it's clear that the amount of water is ever falling and the amount of time a particular droplet remains around is extrmely relevant

Are you saying that the following points, which the site argues quite well, are all demonstrably false?

1) Noone has a clue what the temperature of the atmosphere is 'supposed to be', so they just kinda guesstimate

2) None of the 'tested and trusted' models produce the 14-15° they like to use

3) Global climatic patterns are an extremely complicated non-linear system and we don't understand it very well- we don't even know where carbon we know we're producing is disappearing to

4) carbon is but one small part of the system

5) Earth has experienced more significant climatic changes in shorter periods of time than we are alleged to be causing (see: mini ice age)

?

The only honest conclusion that can be drawn is that any 'AGW' is based on guesswork and assumptions, limited data, and questionable methodology. This calls any of the AGW crowd's 'conclusions' into question.

 

[westwall]

If a person were to look at the historical and geologic record it appears that when it was warmer things were better. The largest creatures ever to walk the Earth occured when the temperatures were much higher. So my guess is when its warmer its better.

Just a guess though.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

[FONT=arial, helvetica, sans serif]Current global temperature anomalies (the amount of warming or cooling reported) are estimated against an expected average of 14 °C (287 K, 57 °F) -- the guess-timated mean temperature over the period 1961-1990.[/FONT]

[FONT=arial, helvetica, sans serif] [FONT=arial, helvetica, sans serif]One of the quirks of climate science is that climate models are frequently 'tuned' to reproduce the expected mean temperature of 287 K or 14 °C and, somewhat bizarrely, 14 °C is thought to be the correct figure because 'the most trusted models produce it'. While the average of model representations of global climate suggests Earth's mean temperature is about 14 °C (287 K), the 16 most trusted and 'stable' models tested in the Coupled Model Intercomparison Project (CMIP) (see original .pdf) are not well able to reproduce this result.[/FONT]
[FONT=arial, helvetica, sans serif]This graphic represents the unforced control runs for the "ensemble" (IPCC-speak for "haven't got a clue if any of these actually represent reality -- throw 'em all together and say the errors average out"). The range starts out guessing mean Earth surface temperature as anything from 11.5 to 16.5 °C (roughly 285-290 K) and ends -- without messing with carbon dioxide levels or anything else -- with the guesses even further apart.[/FONT]
[FONT=arial, helvetica, sans serif]The absolute mean surface air temperature of the Earth is actually not known and there is no specification of exactly what we are trying to measure or how to go about doing so. No one knows what Earth's optimal temperature would be or how it could be knowingly and predictably adjusted even if an optimum could be agreed.[/FONT]
[/FONT]

JunkScience.com -- The Real Inconvenient Truth: Greenhouse, global warming and some facts

Yes, Junk Science, for that is what this site truly is. Junk Science. Lies, and misleading half truths.

Look at the paragraphs below. Do you see anything at all that indicate the residence time of CO2 and H2O? That is extremely important, for the residence time of less than ten days for H2O versus two hundred years for CO2 renders these paragraphs a lie formed of half truths.

Water vapor is feedback from the GHGs in the atmosphere.

Wrong. The most important players on the greenhouse stage are water vapor and clouds. Carbon dioxide has been increased to about 0.038% of the atmosphere (possibly from about 0.028% pre-Industrial Revolution) while water in its various forms ranges from 0% to 4% of the atmosphere and its properties vary by what form it is in and even at what altitude it is found in the atmosphere.

In simple terms the bulk of Earth's greenhouse effect is due to water vapor by virtue of its abundance. Water accounts for about 90% of the Earth's greenhouse effect -- perhaps 70% is due to water vapor and about 20% due to clouds (mostly water droplets), some estimates put water as high as 95% of Earth's total tropospheric greenhouse effect (e.g., Freidenreich and Ramaswamy, “Solar Radiation Absorption by Carbon Dioxide, Overlap with Water, and a Parameterization for General Circulation Models,” Journal of Geophysical Research 98 (1993):7255-7264).

The remaining portion comes from carbon dioxide, nitrous oxide, methane, ozone and miscellaneous other "minor greenhouse gases." As an example of the relative importance of water it should be noted that changes in the relative humidity on the order of 1.3-4% are equivalent to the effect of doubling CO2.

JunkScience.com -- The Real Inconvenient Truth: Greenhouse, global warming and some facts

So, water vapor, which comes almost exclusively from natural sources, is the major GHG and the "massive" amount of GHG that are man caused amount to less than 1% of the water vapor, yet you expect me to accept that man is the dominant cause of global warming?

 

[konradv]

That's a trick question right?

The correct temperature has changed over the 4.5 billion years the earth has existed. The correct temperature of the Hadean Era was by definition fucking hot.

Sorry, but we're only interested in the thousands of years since humans evolved, NOT billions. The correct temperature would be the correct temperature for US and AGW is all about what we're doing that could change that.

 

[Skull Pilot]

That's a trick question right?

The correct temperature has changed over the 4.5 billion years the earth has existed. The correct temperature of the Hadean Era was by definition fucking hot.

Sorry, but we're only interested in the thousands of years since humans evolved, NOT billions. The correct temperature would be the correct temperature for US and AGW is all about what we're doing that could change that.

The earth has not been the "correct" temperature for human life as we know but for a very very small window of geologic time.

To assume the earth will be the "correct" temperature for human life as we know it for the remainder its existence is fucking stupid.

 

[konradv]

That's a trick question right?

The correct temperature has changed over the 4.5 billion years the earth has existed. The correct temperature of the Hadean Era was by definition fucking hot.

Sorry, but we're only interested in the thousands of years since humans evolved, NOT billions. The correct temperature would be the correct temperature for US and AGW is all about what we're doing that could change that.

The earth has not been the "correct" temperature for human life as we know but for a very very small window of geologic time.

To assume the earth will be the "correct" temperature for human life as we know it for the remainder its existence is fucking stupid.[/QUOTE]

NO, I don't expect that. I expect us not to fuck with it! Talk of what happened millions or billions of years ago is irrelevant. AGW is about we've been doing over the last couple of hundred years. Tell me, if CO2 and other GHGs keep rising, how can we expect anything but warming? Even the water vapor argument is specious. So what if it's the major GHG? That just shows, if we continue to add to the earth's GHG load, we'll get warming, then more water vapor, then more warming, then more water vapor, etc., etc. It's a little thing called amplification. Talk to your engineering buddies about it.

 

[code1211]

[FONT=arial, helvetica, sans serif]Current global temperature anomalies (the amount of warming or cooling reported) are estimated against an expected average of 14 °C (287 K, 57 °F) -- the guess-timated mean temperature over the period 1961-1990.[/FONT]

[FONT=arial, helvetica, sans serif] [FONT=arial, helvetica, sans serif] [/FONT][FONT=arial, helvetica, sans serif]One of the quirks of climate science is that climate models are frequently 'tuned' to reproduce the expected mean temperature of 287 K or 14 °C and, somewhat bizarrely, 14 °C is thought to be the correct figure because 'the most trusted models produce it'. While the average of model representations of global climate suggests Earth's mean temperature is about 14 °C (287 K), the 16 most trusted and 'stable' models tested in the Coupled Model Intercomparison Project (CMIP) (see original .pdf) are not well able to reproduce this result.[/FONT]
[FONT=arial, helvetica, sans serif]This graphic represents the unforced control runs for the "ensemble" (IPCC-speak for "haven't got a clue if any of these actually represent reality -- throw 'em all together and say the errors average out"). The range starts out guessing mean Earth surface temperature as anything from 11.5 to 16.5 °C (roughly 285-290 K) and ends -- without messing with carbon dioxide levels or anything else -- with the guesses even further apart.[/FONT]
[FONT=arial, helvetica, sans serif]The absolute mean surface air temperature of the Earth is actually not known and there is no specification of exactly what we are trying to measure or how to go about doing so. No one knows what Earth's optimal temperature would be or how it could be knowingly and predictably adjusted even if an optimum could be agreed.[/FONT]
[/FONT]

JunkScience.com -- The Real Inconvenient Truth: Greenhouse, global warming and some facts

Yes, Junk Science, for that is what this site truly is. Junk Science. Lies, and misleading half truths.

Look at the paragraphs below. Do you see anything at all that indicate the residence time of CO2 and H2O? That is extremely important, for the residence time of less than ten days for H2O versus two hundred years for CO2 renders these paragraphs a lie formed of half truths.
Water vapor is feedback from the GHGs in the atmosphere.

Wrong. The most important players on the greenhouse stage are water vapor and clouds. Carbon dioxide has been increased to about 0.038% of the atmosphere (possibly from about 0.028% pre-Industrial Revolution) while water in its various forms ranges from 0% to 4% of the atmosphere and its properties vary by what form it is in and even at what altitude it is found in the atmosphere.

In simple terms the bulk of Earth's greenhouse effect is due to water vapor by virtue of its abundance. Water accounts for about 90% of the Earth's greenhouse effect -- perhaps 70% is due to water vapor and about 20% due to clouds (mostly water droplets), some estimates put water as high as 95% of Earth's total tropospheric greenhouse effect (e.g., Freidenreich and Ramaswamy, “Solar Radiation Absorption by Carbon Dioxide, Overlap with Water, and a Parameterization for General Circulation Models,” Journal of Geophysical Research 98 (1993):7255-7264).

The remaining portion comes from carbon dioxide, nitrous oxide, methane, ozone and miscellaneous other "minor greenhouse gases." As an example of the relative importance of water it should be noted that changes in the relative humidity on the order of 1.3-4% are equivalent to the effect of doubling CO2.

JunkScience.com -- The Real Inconvenient Truth: Greenhouse, global warming and some facts

I have asked this of you numerous times and have never gotten an answer that means anything. I'll repeat the same action and hope for a different result:

If the amount of water vapor remains constantly at a level of about 95% of all GHG's even though it is comprised of constantly rotating individual molecules, why is this anything other than an interesting but meaningless fact?

Does a GHG molecule of any description require experience to function as a GHG molecule?

Does a water vapor molecule "trap" more heat in it's last minute than in its first? How about CO2 or Methane.

Water vapor may be constantly replaced by other other water vapor in the air, but it is always about 95% of the total GHG component.

 

[code1211]

JunkScience.com -- The Real Inconvenient Truth: Greenhouse, global warming and some facts

Yes, Junk Science, for that is what this site truly is. Junk Science. Lies, and misleading half truths.

Look at the paragraphs below. Do you see anything at all that indicate the residence time of CO2 and H2O? That is extremely important, for the residence time of less than ten days for H2O versus two hundred years for CO2 renders these paragraphs a lie formed of half truths.

Water vapor is feedback from the GHGs in the atmosphere.

Wrong. The most important players on the greenhouse stage are water vapor and clouds. Carbon dioxide has been increased to about 0.038% of the atmosphere (possibly from about 0.028% pre-Industrial Revolution) while water in its various forms ranges from 0% to 4% of the atmosphere and its properties vary by what form it is in and even at what altitude it is found in the atmosphere.

In simple terms the bulk of Earth's greenhouse effect is due to water vapor by virtue of its abundance. Water accounts for about 90% of the Earth's greenhouse effect -- perhaps 70% is due to water vapor and about 20% due to clouds (mostly water droplets), some estimates put water as high as 95% of Earth's total tropospheric greenhouse effect (e.g., Freidenreich and Ramaswamy, “Solar Radiation Absorption by Carbon Dioxide, Overlap with Water, and a Parameterization for General Circulation Models,” Journal of Geophysical Research 98 (1993):7255-7264).

The remaining portion comes from carbon dioxide, nitrous oxide, methane, ozone and miscellaneous other "minor greenhouse gases." As an example of the relative importance of water it should be noted that changes in the relative humidity on the order of 1.3-4% are equivalent to the effect of doubling CO2.

JunkScience.com -- The Real Inconvenient Truth: Greenhouse, global warming and some facts

So, water vapor, which comes almost exclusively from natural sources, is the major GHG and the "massive" amount of GHG that are man caused amount to less than 1% of the water vapor, yet you expect me to accept that man is the dominant cause of global warming?

To help put this into perspective:

All GHG's = 5% of the atmosphere.
Water Vapor = about 95% of the GHG's
CO2 = about 3% of all GHG's

Man's contribution to CO2 in the air annually = about 3% of the total contibuted from all sources.

That is, 4.5 hundred thousands of a percent of the air.

Is the eco-system resiliant? Where's the oil?

Back to our regular programming...

 

[code1211]

Sorry, but we're only interested in the thousands of years since humans evolved, NOT billions. The correct temperature would be the correct temperature for US and AGW is all about what we're doing that could change that.

The earth has not been the "correct" temperature for human life as we know but for a very very small window of geologic time.

To assume the earth will be the "correct" temperature for human life as we know it for the remainder its existence is fucking stupid.[/QUOTE]

NO, I don't expect that. I expect us not to fuck with it! Talk of what happened millions or billions of years ago is irrelevant. AGW is about we've been doing over the last couple of hundred years. Tell me, if CO2 and other GHGs keep rising, how can we expect anything but warming? Even the water vapor argument is specious. So what if it's the major GHG? That just shows, if we continue to add to the earth's GHG load, we'll get warming, then more water vapor, then more warming, then more water vapor, etc., etc. It's a little thing called amplification. Talk to your engineering buddies about it.

If the eco-system was a static thing, what you say might make sense, but it is not. It is constantly changing and adjusting. In truth, if the eco-system becomes static or even stagnant, it is dying.

A ba-zillion years back when CO2 was the dominant gas in the air, plants began to flouish and the levels of CO2 decreased and oxygen increased. As oxygen became plentiful, life forms rose that used it.

Today, in much more locally defined areas, when a food sorce becomes plentiful, things that eat it come round to feast. Whether it's bait on a hook or road kill, if it's there, something will eat it. If there is more of it, more of the eaters will appear.

As far as I know, this law of nature is violated only when I'm fishing for walleye. I keep drowning worms and those little fishies just ignor the wiggly little buggers.

It will be interesting to see what happened to the little oil eating thingys in the Gulf over the months or years upcoming in view of the spill.

 

[Old Rocks]

JunkScience.com -- The Real Inconvenient Truth: Greenhouse, global warming and some facts

Yes, Junk Science, for that is what this site truly is. Junk Science. Lies, and misleading half truths.

Look at the paragraphs below. Do you see anything at all that indicate the residence time of CO2 and H2O? That is extremely important, for the residence time of less than ten days for H2O versus two hundred years for CO2 renders these paragraphs a lie formed of half truths.
Water vapor is feedback from the GHGs in the atmosphere.

Wrong. The most important players on the greenhouse stage are water vapor and clouds. Carbon dioxide has been increased to about 0.038% of the atmosphere (possibly from about 0.028% pre-Industrial Revolution) while water in its various forms ranges from 0% to 4% of the atmosphere and its properties vary by what form it is in and even at what altitude it is found in the atmosphere.

In simple terms the bulk of Earth's greenhouse effect is due to water vapor by virtue of its abundance. Water accounts for about 90% of the Earth's greenhouse effect -- perhaps 70% is due to water vapor and about 20% due to clouds (mostly water droplets), some estimates put water as high as 95% of Earth's total tropospheric greenhouse effect (e.g., Freidenreich and Ramaswamy, “Solar Radiation Absorption by Carbon Dioxide, Overlap with Water, and a Parameterization for General Circulation Models,” Journal of Geophysical Research 98 (1993):7255-7264).

The remaining portion comes from carbon dioxide, nitrous oxide, methane, ozone and miscellaneous other "minor greenhouse gases." As an example of the relative importance of water it should be noted that changes in the relative humidity on the order of 1.3-4% are equivalent to the effect of doubling CO2.

JunkScience.com -- The Real Inconvenient Truth: Greenhouse, global warming and some facts

I have asked this of you numerous times and have never gotten an answer that means anything. I'll repeat the same action and hope for a different result:

If the amount of water vapor remains constantly at a level of about 95% of all GHG's even though it is comprised of constantly rotating individual molecules, why is this anything other than an interesting but meaningless fact?

Does a GHG molecule of any description require experience to function as a GHG molecule?

Does a water vapor molecule "trap" more heat in it's last minute than in its first? How about CO2 or Methane.

Water vapor may be constantly replaced by other other water vapor in the air, but it is always about 95% of the total GHG component.

Why Code, follow your reasoning. So when you increase the GHGs in the atmosphere, you also increase the water vapor. By a bunch, by your reasoning.

 

[Old Rocks]

Yes, Junk Science, for that is what this site truly is. Junk Science. Lies, and misleading half truths.

Look at the paragraphs below. Do you see anything at all that indicate the residence time of CO2 and H2O? That is extremely important, for the residence time of less than ten days for H2O versus two hundred years for CO2 renders these paragraphs a lie formed of half truths.

Water vapor is feedback from the GHGs in the atmosphere.

Wrong. The most important players on the greenhouse stage are water vapor and clouds. Carbon dioxide has been increased to about 0.038% of the atmosphere (possibly from about 0.028% pre-Industrial Revolution) while water in its various forms ranges from 0% to 4% of the atmosphere and its properties vary by what form it is in and even at what altitude it is found in the atmosphere.

In simple terms the bulk of Earth's greenhouse effect is due to water vapor by virtue of its abundance. Water accounts for about 90% of the Earth's greenhouse effect -- perhaps 70% is due to water vapor and about 20% due to clouds (mostly water droplets), some estimates put water as high as 95% of Earth's total tropospheric greenhouse effect (e.g., Freidenreich and Ramaswamy, “Solar Radiation Absorption by Carbon Dioxide, Overlap with Water, and a Parameterization for General Circulation Models,” Journal of Geophysical Research 98 (1993):7255-7264).

The remaining portion comes from carbon dioxide, nitrous oxide, methane, ozone and miscellaneous other "minor greenhouse gases." As an example of the relative importance of water it should be noted that changes in the relative humidity on the order of 1.3-4% are equivalent to the effect of doubling CO2.

JunkScience.com -- The Real Inconvenient Truth: Greenhouse, global warming and some facts

So, water vapor, which comes almost exclusively from natural sources, is the major GHG and the "massive" amount of GHG that are man caused amount to less than 1% of the water vapor, yet you expect me to accept that man is the dominant cause of global warming?

To help put this into perspective:

All GHG's = 5% of the atmosphere.
Water Vapor = about 95% of the GHG's
CO2 = about 3% of all GHG's

Man's contribution to CO2 in the air annually = about 3% of the total contibuted from all sources.

Which has added up to a 40% increase over the last 150 years. From 289 ppm to 390 ppm.

That is, 4.5 hundred thousands of a percent of the air.

Ever suffered from allergies? Do you know how the amount of pollen in the air is measured? It is in Parts per Billion. Now tell me small amounts cannot mess up a large complex system. Why don't you look up the weight of the amount of botulism toxin it would take to kill you, compared to your weight.

Code, you are using a totally false arguement, designed for the less intelligent on this board. Of which there are plenty.

Is the eco-system resiliant? Where's the oil?

Most of it is still there, underwater. Ask the Alaskans affected by the Exxon Valdez spill where the oil is. In fact, why don't you go into a bar in one of those communities and loudly announce that the oil is no longer having any effects.

Back to our regular programming...

Yes, back to the other lies and misinformation.

 

[JBeukema]

I expect us not to fuck with it!

Why? if we were to find a way to keep Earth inhabitable for our species, why would we refuse to do so?

? Even the water vapor argument is specious. So what if it's the major GHG?

That just shows, if we continue to add to the earth's GHG load, we'll get warming, then more water vapor, then more warming, then more water vapor, etc., etc.

Except more warming doesn't lead to more vapour and more warming ad infinitim. Extra water vapour falls from the sky. It happens every single year.

Google: seasons; monsooon

It's a little thing called amplification. Talk to your engineering buddies about it.

There's this little matter of not being able to exceed 100% saturation/humidity. Ask a meteorologist.

 

[IanC]

At least we have satellite data now. The actual temp doesn't matter, just the fluctuations.

Hey Old Rocks- do you have a link to the feud between Willson and Lean over the 'corrections' made to the raw satellite data? Was it ever settled? The satellite guys seemed pretty pissed that their info was being manipulated without their consent or imput.

 

[Zander]

The "correct" Temperature is "that Temperature which creates the most fear amongst the populace that the climate is either heating up, or cooling down".
Pick a freakin' number....it's all garbage science for numbskulls.....

 

[Skull Pilot]

Sorry, but we're only interested in the thousands of years since humans evolved, NOT billions. The correct temperature would be the correct temperature for US and AGW is all about what we're doing that could change that.

The earth has not been the "correct" temperature for human life as we know but for a very very small window of geologic time.

To assume the earth will be the "correct" temperature for human life as we know it for the remainder its existence is fucking stupid.[/QUOTE]

NO, I don't expect that. I expect us not to fuck with it! Talk of what happened millions or billions of years ago is irrelevant. AGW is about we've been doing over the last couple of hundred years. Tell me, if CO2 and other GHGs keep rising, how can we expect anything but warming? Even the water vapor argument is specious. So what if it's the major GHG? That just shows, if we continue to add to the earth's GHG load, we'll get warming, then more water vapor, then more warming, then more water vapor, etc., etc. It's a little thing called amplification. Talk to your engineering buddies about it.

There is also something called equilibrium look it up. Even positive feedback loops are subject to it.

So what if the earth gets a few degrees warmer over the next couple centuries?

It will probably offset the next cooling period and make life easier for people.

The way I see it people won't be around in a million years or even less so live it up while you can.