Path: csiph.com!news.fcku.it!fu-berlin.de!uni-berlin.de!individual.net!not-for-mail From: Trevor Wilson Newsgroups: sci.physics,talk.politics.guns,alt.checkmate Subject: Re: The last time atmospheric carbon dioxide was this high humans didn't exist Date: Tue, 22 May 2018 14:44:56 +1000 Lines: 161 Message-ID: References: <79DIC.77453$pK.65633@fx13.iad> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Trace: individual.net /DUHrSvXJt57Oj4NlMnOPQ5GZPLq0eIh22JQOD067Dl/Ig3BZD Cancel-Lock: sha1:xxGMW9ReGoZuGBDoEStSu8Ggh80= User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:52.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/52.7.0 In-Reply-To: Content-Language: en-US X-Antivirus: Avast (VPS 180521-0, 21/05/2018), Outbound message X-Antivirus-Status: Clean Xref: csiph.com sci.physics:686608 talk.politics.guns:1087534 alt.checkmate:167244 On 22/05/2018 1:05 PM, Scout wrote: > > > "Trevor Wilson" wrote in message > news:fme7krFjk2mU2@mid.individual.net... >> On 18/05/2018 12:29 PM, Scout wrote: >>> >>> >>> "Trevor Wilson" wrote in message >>> news:fm6oasF2i8U2@mid.individual.net... >>>> On 18/05/2018 11:08 AM, Scout wrote: >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> "Trevor Wilson" wrote in message >>>>> news:fm6apdFrv5sU1@mid.individual.net... >>>>>> On 17/05/2018 10:14 PM, Sergio wrote: >>>>>>> On 5/16/2018 8:35 PM, Trevor Wilson wrote: >>>>>>>> On 16/05/2018 12:28 PM, Scout wrote: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> "Trevor Wilson" wrote in >>>>>>>>> message >>>>>>>>> news:fm14ouFna6fU1@mid.individual.net... >>>>>>>>>> On 15/05/2018 4:14 PM, Scout wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> "Trevor Wilson" wrote in >>>>>>>>>>> message >>>>>>>>>>> news:flvb49Fai9hU7@mid.individual.net... >>>>>>>>>>>> On 9/05/2018 11:59 PM, benj wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>> On 5/9/2018 6:52 AM, kensi wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>> In 2013, atmospheric carbon dioxide broke 400 parts per >>>>>>>>>>>>>> million >>>>>>>>>>>>>> for the first time in human history. Just a year later, >>>>>>>>>>>>>> atmospheric carbon dioxide averaged that for an entire >>>>>>>>>>>>>> month. And >>>>>>>>>>>>>> now? >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> https://www.dailykos.com/stories/2018/5/4/1762050/-The-last-time-atmospheric-carbon-dioxide-was-this-high-humans-didn-t-exist >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> We hear you. Dinosaurs all died from heat stroke from all >>>>>>>>>>>>> that CO2 >>>>>>>>>>>>> Greenhousing their world. Somehow science doesn't agree >>>>>>>>>>>>> with this >>>>>>>>>>>>> fantasy. Since CO2 is a minor GHG it's level is obviously >>>>>>>>>>>>> more or >>>>>>>>>>>>> less irrelevant, both then and now. >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Water vapor is THE major GHG factor (50%) and clouds (also >>>>>>>>>>>>> water) >>>>>>>>>>>>> are another 25% and CO2 is NOT the remaining 25%. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> **Wrong, yappy lap-dog. You really should stop listening to >>>>>>>>>>>> your >>>>>>>>>>>> master, Sergio. He is wrong and so are you. Obviously. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Actually he's right. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> **No, he's dead wrong. As your own words confirm. The >>>>>>>>>> contribution of >>>>>>>>>> H2O varies significantly, depending on time and day. Moreover, >>>>>>>>>> both >>>>>>>>>> you and he are ignoring the elephant in the room. CO2, whilst a >>>>>>>>>> lesser contributor than H2O is NOT insignificant. The effect >>>>>>>>>> of CO2 >>>>>>>>>> ranges from 9% ~ 26%. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> "1. Water Vapor >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Water? Water?! Water! Yes, according to the IPCC, steam >>>>>>>>>>> accounts for >>>>>>>>>>> 36-70 percent of the greenhouse effect. Fog, haze and clouds >>>>>>>>>>> are all >>>>>>>>>>> water vapor, and steam is the other main byproduct of the >>>>>>>>>>> combustion >>>>>>>>>>> of fossil fuels. Worse still, warming causes a positive feedback >>>>>>>>>>> loop as higher temperatures result in more water vapor, which >>>>>>>>>>> results in higher temperatures, and so on and so on. Now the >>>>>>>>>>> next >>>>>>>>>>> time someone asks you about your carbon footprint, you can >>>>>>>>>>> ask them >>>>>>>>>>> about their steam footprint, and see if that patchouli-scented >>>>>>>>>>> hippie knows the main cause behind the greenhouse effect." >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> https://www.popsci.com/environment/article/2009-03/top-ten-greenhouse-gases#page-11 >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> " Water Vapor makes up around 33 to 66 percent of all greenhouse >>>>>>>>>>> gases in the atmosphere" >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> https://helpsavenature.com/greenhouse-gases-list >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> "List Of Greenhouse Gases >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> While natural water vapor has the greatest impact on the >>>>>>>>>>> greenhouse >>>>>>>>>>> effect...." >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> https://www.worldatlas.com/articles/list-of-greenhouse-gases.html >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> **Again, you and benj cannot ignore the significant effects of >>>>>>>>>> CO2, >>>>>>>>>> methane and the other GHGs. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Which pale next to the impact of all that water vapor. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> **Well, no. As I told you before, H2O contributes 36% ~ 72% of >>>>>>>> Solar >>>>>>>> forcing, depending on time of day and year. CO2 contributes 9% ~ >>>>>>>> 26%, >>>>>>>> depending on time of day and year. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> 9% ~ 26% is NOT insignificant. It is sufficient to keep this planet >>>>>>>> warmer than it otherwise would be. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> so you are stating water vapor H2O is 3 to 4 times as strong as CO2 >>>>>> >>>>>> **No. I have NEVER stated such a thing. Not once, not ever. >>>>>> >>>>>> This is what I have stated: >>>>>> >>>>>> H2O Solar forcing - 36% ~ 72% >>>>>> CO2 Solar forcing - 9% ~ 26% >>>>>> >>>>>> The reason why there is a difference, is because the significance >>>>>> varies according to place, time and year. It is vital to be >>>>>> specific and not over-simplify this matter. >>>>>> >>>>>> Do not misquote me again. >>>>> >>>>> So, you really don't understand what you're quoting, yet we're >>>>> suppose to accept you know what you're talking about? >>>>> >>>>> >>>> >>>> **Nope. YOU don't understand what I am quoting. I understand just fine. >>> >>> So even when pointed out, you still can't figure it out. >>> >>> >> >> **Read this and get back to me: >> >> http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar5/wg1/WG1AR5_Chapter08_FINAL.pdf >> > > No, you read it and then point out specifically what you think supports > your claim. > > **The entire section. -- Trevor Wilson www.rageaudio.com.au