Gavin has succeeded in making the press completely illiterate about the greenhouse effect.
The focus of most efforts worldwide to fight climate change is to reduce carbon dioxide emissions. It is the most important greenhouse gas because it has been emitted in such vast volumes through the burning of fossil fuels.
But other greenhouse gases, such as methane, account for up to 40 per cent of the greenhouse gas effect, trapping the Sun’s heat on Earth.
That is The Gav.
H2O is 90 to 97% and CH4 is 40% that should leave 170% for all the other GHGs.
GAV is so special he is 500% certain that the garbage he feeds his models can be verified by the garbage he feeds his model and both are consistent with what he thinks the results should be.
“H2O is 90 to 97%”
Mike perhaps you can supply some credible research to substantiate this claim. I asked Steve on a previous thread to no avail.
How about the IPCC report??
Are you going to insist those numbers are wrong?
CO2 Is The Most Important Greenhouse Gas
In this new science H2O is not the most important.
Amino Acids in Meteorites says:
“How about the IPCC report??”
Does that claim that H2O is responsible for 90 to 97% of the green house effect?
“Are you going to insist those numbers are wrong?”
I’m a skeptic – if the numbers are from a credible source I will accept them – so far no source at all let alone any research.
http://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/2010/09/05/quantifying-the-greenhouse-effect-in-the-tropics/
Thanks Steven, I knew I had read it somewhere.
Steve, are you seriously expecting your blog to be taken as credible scientific research?
Surely your figures (if even close to reality) must have been confirmed in numerous research papers over the last century or so?
I provided a link to the RRTM models used by NCAR climate models. If you don’t believe my results, try them out yourself. If you aren’t willing to do that, then stop wasting everyone’s time.
Of course I’m not going to try them out for my self. I am as qualified as you at interpreting the results – which is not at all.
So you have been bandying about figures for the individual contributions of GHGs as if they were credible scientific research but all the time they are your own, published on your blog.
Do you seriously think a real skeptic would accept such as credible. Yet you are now basing other posts on such flimsy and unqualified sources. It’s like a house of cards and the bottom one is damp.
It seems that it has been you that has been wasting all our time.
If you aren’t qualified then don’t comment. Appeals to authority are kind of pointless on a blog titled “Science is the belief in the ignorance of the experts”
No one here appears to be qualified, is that preclude people from voicing an opinion on your posts?
BTW asking for research to support your scientific claims is not an appeal to authority, it as an appeal for credible science to support your claims. Why not be grown up and admit you can’t?
Al Gore made a whole documentary and which science qualifications does he hold ?
So did Durkin.
So what are you saying, believe the unqualified only if they are telling you what you want to hear?
I do not accept polemic from a politician, I accept the general thrust of peer review. You can’t criticise me for that just because Gore is more in line with peer reviewed science than he is with some unqualified bloggers.
Here is a study authored by Kevin Trenberth that says:
“Various atmospheric gases contribute to the
greenhouse effect, whose impact in clear
skies is 60% from water vapor, 25% from
carbon dioxide, 8% from ozone, and the
rest from trace gases including methane and
nitrous oxide (1).”
http://perceval.bio.nau.edu/downloads/grail/climate_seminar/section1/Karl_and_Trenberth03.pdf
The numbers don’t add up. Remember the study that says methane contributes 20% of warming effect?
http://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/2010/11/25/methane-is-thought-to-contribute-around-one-fifth-of-the-greenhouse-gas-warming-effect/
They just can’t keep their stories straight.
Methane is colourless and odourless – it’s invisible to human eyes. Its two small absorption peaks are also all but invisible in outgoing LW IR absorption spectra plotted from satellite data. Where does all this “50x, 25x, 20x, 10x (take your pick) more powerful than CO2” come from?
Even if the 50x factor were true, its 1.8 ppmv concentration would make it equivalent to about 90 ppmv CO2, or less than 25% of CO2 forcing. This sort of claim is scientific, logical and mathematical nonsense.
You are missing the need for sounding terribly threatening so the Chicken Little Brigade has a new line to scream about. It would get real boring if they only cried abut CO2 or raising sea levels or Ocean “Acidification”.. Using words like Carbon, Carbon Dioxide, Methane, Acid are more ominous than using the molecular structure. Dy-hydrogen Monoxide sounds a lot more alarming than H2O or water.
Why not just call it by a commonly used name “Natural Gas”?
Gavin has succeeded in making the press completely illiterate about the greenhouse effect.
I thought that was what he was trying to do in the first place.
I look for the eco-warriors to tough it out when they have surgery now and opt out of anesthesia in order to save my future grandchildren and the planet.
A no anesthesia operation in a wind powered hospital with no backup generator.