In message , Pete Stockdale
writes
Try reading about the numbers, then tell me that man is responsible for
global warming: http://tinyurl.com/gtp6z
Granity
But the paper you quote is six years old.
The site he quotes repeats errors known to be errors long before 6 years
ago. For example it compares the magnitudes of the anthropogenic and
non-anthropogenic fluxes, and concludes that because the anthropogenic
fluxes are much smaller human influences are negligible (0.28%). The
flaw in the argument is that the natural fluxes are in equilibrium -
great amounts of CO2 are released and absorbed by the oceans, or by
vegetation, but they cancel out over the course of the year and the
surface of the earth. The relatively small anthropogenic fluxes are not
in equilibrium, and disturb the atmospheric CO2 concentration which has
increased by about 30% over the last few hundred years. If the
greenhouse effect was linear in CO2 concentration that would be a human
contribution of ~25%, not 0.28%. (I don't know offhand what the actual
figure is, but it would be nearer 25% than 0.28%.)
The site's treatment of water vapour is also flawed. In the terminology
of the field the water vapour greenhouse effect is a feedback not a
forcing. This is because that water vapour has a short atmospheric
residence time (it falls out as rain) and the concentration of water
vapour depends on atmospheric temperature. Add greenhouse gases with
longer residence times and the atrmosphere warms, allowing it to hold
more water vapour, resulting in additional warming. Remove the other
greenhouse gases, and the atmosphere will cool, and more water vapour
will condense and rain out, causing additional cooling. This water
vapour feedback should be included in the anthopogenic contribution to
the greenhouse effect.
Surely "expert" opinion has moved on since then.
The mistake that was made in the Copenhagen deliberations was that there was
too much emphasis on getting
a change of use agreement rather than a change of emphasis agreement.
The main resolutions should have been towards an early re-meet to sort stuff
out properly, as compared with fixing limits there and then.
IMHO.
After all - the next ice age will come anyway - fact of earthly natural
comings and goings.
Regards
Pete
www.thecanalshop.com
--
Stewart Robert Hinsley