Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Water vapor accounts for a whopping 90% or more of Earth's greenhouse effect! CO2 very minor player
several sources

Posted on 02/15/2010 5:52:36 AM PST by ETL

Three article excerpts...

From JunkScience.com:

So, greenhouse [effect] is all about carbon dioxide, right?

Wrong. The most important players on the greenhouse stage are water vapor and clouds [clouds of course aren't gas, but high level ones do act to trap heat from escaping, while low-lying cumulus clouds tend to reflect sunlight and thereby help cool the planet -etl]. 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.

http://www.junkscience.com/Greenhouse/
_______________________________________________________________

From Geocraft.com:

Water Vapor Rules the Greenhouse System

Water vapor constitutes Earth's most significant greenhouse gas, accounting for about 95% of Earth's greenhouse effect(4). Interestingly, many 'facts and figures' regarding global warming completely ignore the powerful effects of water vapor in the greenhouse system, carelessly (perhaps, deliberately) overstating human impacts as much as 20-fold.

Water vapor is 99.999% of natural origin. Other atmospheric greenhouse gases, carbon dioxide (CO2), methane (CH4), nitrous oxide (N2O), and miscellaneous other gases (CFC's, etc.), are also mostly of natural origin (except for the latter, which is mostly anthropogenic).

Human activities contribute slightly to greenhouse gas concentrations through farming, manufacturing, power generation, and transportation. However, these emissions are so dwarfed in comparison to emissions from natural sources we can do nothing about, that even the most costly efforts to limit human emissions would have a very small-- perhaps undetectable-- effect on global climate.

http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/greenhouse_data.html
_______________________________________________________________

From ScienceDaily.com:

Water Vapor Confirmed As Major Player In Climate Change

ScienceDaily (Nov. 18, 2008) — Water vapor is known to be Earth's most abundant greenhouse gas, but the extent of its contribution to global warming has been debated. Using recent NASA satellite data, researchers have estimated more precisely than ever the heat-trapping effect of water in the air, validating the role of the gas as a critical component of climate change.

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/11/081117193013.htm


TOPICS: Extended News; News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: amazongate; carbontrade; climatechange; climatechangedata; co2; glaciergate; globalwarming; globalwarminghoax; globalwarmingscandal; globqalwarminghoax; gorebullwarming; greenhouseeffect; ipcc; pachauri; pachaurigate; scandinaviagate; watervapor
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-86 next last

1 posted on 02/15/2010 5:52:37 AM PST by ETL
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: ETL

Ban Dihydrogen Monoxide NOW!!


2 posted on 02/15/2010 5:55:36 AM PST by Bryanw92 (Imagine a day when the politicians have to hold a bake sale to pay for votes!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ETL; Carlucci; proud_yank; meyer; Horusra; Para-Ord.45; rdl6989; mmanager; FreedomPoster; ...
 




Beam me to Planet Gore !

3 posted on 02/15/2010 5:57:03 AM PST by steelyourfaith (FReepers were opposed to Obama even before it was cool to be against Obama.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ETL
Water vapor is the number one greenhouse gas. Its specific heat is 1.0, the highest there is. Specific heat is how much heat something holds. I've wondered why so called scientists ignore this inconvenient fact. They push for fuel cells, which exhaust wapor vapor, as alternative green energy. They are so obsessed by their agenda that they ignore facts that are pertinent.

Mike

4 posted on 02/15/2010 5:58:13 AM PST by MichaelP (Actung! Actung! The Neofuhrer's weak!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ETL
Water vapor accounts for a whopping 90% or more of Earth's greenhouse effect! CO2 very minor player

Drain the oceans immediately! Someone call algore.

5 posted on 02/15/2010 5:59:16 AM PST by The Sons of Liberty (Pork Eating CRUSADER - FUBO! Mene, Mene, Tekel, Upharsin)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Bryanw92

Damn stuff made my car rust.


6 posted on 02/15/2010 5:59:18 AM PST by Ghost of Philip Marlowe (Prepare for survival.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Bryanw92
That darned dihydrogen monoxide again... you are aware that it's invariably found in malignant tumors, aren't you?
7 posted on 02/15/2010 5:59:37 AM PST by Oberon (Big Brutha Be Watchin'.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Oberon

Additionally, it is the chief cause of death by drowning.

It should be banned IMMEDIATELY!!!


8 posted on 02/15/2010 6:00:42 AM PST by Peter W. Kessler (Dirt is for racing... asphalt is for getting there.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: ETL

Gorebal Warming is falling apart faster than obozo’s HC plan.

Pray for America’s Freedom


9 posted on 02/15/2010 6:01:10 AM PST by bray (Throw All the Bums Out, starting with McCain)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Oberon

Evil capitalists like the Coca-Cola company actually market it to KIDS and sell it in plastic bottles like a soft drink! The bastards are selling it to kids!!! Oh, the humanity...


10 posted on 02/15/2010 6:02:20 AM PST by Bryanw92 (Imagine a day when the politicians have to hold a bake sale to pay for votes!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: MichaelP
Water vapor is the number one greenhouse gas. Its specific heat is 1.0

Thanks. I was under the impression that CO2 was a more effective greenhouse gas, and that water vapor was so critical only due to its abundance. Are you sure, pound for pound, water vapor is a more effective greenhouse gas than CO2?

11 posted on 02/15/2010 6:03:38 AM PST by ETL (ALL (most?) of the Obama-commie connections at my FR Home page: http://www.freerepublic.com/~etl/)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Bryanw92

The DoD requires that minority and female soliders drink the stuff! It’s like the Tuskegee Experiment all over again!


12 posted on 02/15/2010 6:04:51 AM PST by Bryanw92 (Imagine a day when the politicians have to hold a bake sale to pay for votes!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: ETL

Google “Harvard and MIT debunk global warming”


13 posted on 02/15/2010 6:06:13 AM PST by stephenjohnbanker (Support our troops, and vote out the RINOS)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: Bryanw92

Lol!


14 posted on 02/15/2010 6:06:39 AM PST by ETL (ALL (most?) of the Obama-commie connections at my FR Home page: http://www.freerepublic.com/~etl/)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: stephenjohnbanker

Many scientists say the figure is 95%


15 posted on 02/15/2010 6:06:48 AM PST by stephenjohnbanker (Support our troops, and vote out the RINOS)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: ETL

Great post!

B U M P


16 posted on 02/15/2010 6:07:51 AM PST by stephenjohnbanker (Support our troops, and vote out the RINOS)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ETL

17 posted on 02/15/2010 6:07:52 AM PST by listenhillary (the only reason government wants to be our provider is so it may become our master)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Bryanw92

“Ban Dihydrogen Monoxide NOW!!”

Shhhhhh! Please don’t give EPA any more bright ideas. For all we know, they may be already drafting an executive order to accomplish this objective since after all, ANY policy can be justified if it is in service of averting the doomsday that Al Gore has assured us will be ushered in by global warming.


18 posted on 02/15/2010 6:08:16 AM PST by DrC
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: ETL

And water vapor is so sneaky and such a silent killer, I bet you do not even know you are breathing it right now.


19 posted on 02/15/2010 6:08:43 AM PST by justa-hairyape
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Bryanw92
Evil capitalists like the Coca-Cola company actually market it to KIDS and sell it in plastic bottles like a soft drink! The bastards are selling it to kids!!! Oh, the humanity...

That's nothing compared to what the French have been up to! They sell it to us straight, and infuse it with Co2 to make
it even more of an environmental threat! I never did trust them!

20 posted on 02/15/2010 6:10:00 AM PST by CrazyIvan (What's "My Struggle" in Kenyan?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: ETL
Dihydrogen Monoxide is extremely dangerous. Check out the facts here.

Dihydrogen Monoxide Research Division

21 posted on 02/15/2010 6:15:15 AM PST by aomagrat (Gun owners who vote for democrats are too stupid to own guns.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: CrazyIvan

Not only that, Dihydrogen monoxide is one of the chief components of acid rain.


22 posted on 02/15/2010 6:15:16 AM PST by Oberon (Big Brutha Be Watchin'.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: ETL
Egads - it's in my BASEMENT!

EEEEEAAAAAAAARRRRRRGGGGH!

23 posted on 02/15/2010 6:18:06 AM PST by Izzy Dunne (Hello, I'm a TAGLINE virus. Please help me spread by copying me into YOUR tag line.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Bryanw92

Dihydrogen Monoxide asphyxia is the second leading cause of death in children!


24 posted on 02/15/2010 6:20:03 AM PST by traderrob6
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Izzy Dunne

My stupid neighbors spray the stuff on their lawns!!!!


25 posted on 02/15/2010 6:22:33 AM PST by Kartographer (".. we mutually pledge to each other our lives, our fortunes, and our sacred honor.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: listenhillary

Where does that chart come from?


26 posted on 02/15/2010 6:23:46 AM PST by The Old Hoosier (Right makes might)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: ETL
Great concise resource here:

Global Warming: A Closer look at the numbers

27 posted on 02/15/2010 6:25:28 AM PST by MrB (The difference between a humanist and a Satanist is that the latter knows who he's working for.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: listenhillary

I think that’s the same chart as in my link above.

Yes, man’s co2 contribution to the greenhouse effect is ZERO POINT ONE ONE SEVEN PERCENT.


28 posted on 02/15/2010 6:26:27 AM PST by MrB (The difference between a humanist and a Satanist is that the latter knows who he's working for.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: All
THE ACQUITTAL OF CARBON DIOXIDE
by Jeffrey A. Glassman, PhD

ABSTRACT:

"Carbon dioxide in the atmosphere [historically] is the product of oceanic respiration due to the well-known but under-appreciated solubility pump. Carbon dioxide rises out of warm ocean waters where it is added to the atmosphere. There it is mixed with residual and accidental CO2, and circulated, to be absorbed into the sink of the cold ocean waters. Next the thermohaline circulation carries the CO2-rich sea water deep into the ocean. A millennium later it appears at the surface in warm waters, saturated by lower pressure and higher temperature, to be exhausted back into the atmosphere. Throughout the past 420 millennia, comprising four interglacial periods, the Vostok record of atmospheric carbon dioxide concentration is imprinted with, and fully characterized by, the physics of the solubility of CO2 in water, along with the lag in the deep ocean circulation.

Notwithstanding that carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas, atmospheric carbon dioxide has neither caused nor amplified global temperature increases. Increased carbon dioxide has been an effect of global warming, not a cause. Technically, carbon dioxide is a lagging proxy for ocean temperatures. When global temperature, and along with it, ocean temperature rises, the physics of solubility causes atmospheric CO2 to increase.

If increases in carbon dioxide, or any other greenhouse gas, could have in turn raised global temperatures, the positive feedback would have been catastrophic. While the conditions for such a catastrophe were present in the Vostok record from natural causes, the runaway event did not occur. Carbon dioxide does not accumulate in the atmosphere."

http://www.rocketscientistsjournal.com/2006/10/co2_acquittal.html
_______________________________________________________________

The graph above represents temperature and CO2 levels over the past 400,000 years. It is the same exact data Al Gore and the rest of the man-made global warmers refer to. The blue line is temps, the red, CO2 levels. The deep valleys represent 4 separate glaciation/ice-age periods, approximately 100,000 years apart. Look carefully at the historical relationship between temps and CO2 levels (the present is on the right hand side of the graph) and keep in mind that Gore claims this data is the 'proof' that CO2 has warmed the earth in the past. But does this data indeed show this? Nope. In fact, rising CO2 levels all throughout this 400,000-year period actually *followed* temperature increases, lagging behind by an average of 800 years! So it couldn't have been CO2 that got Earth out of these past glaciations. Yet Gore continually and dishonestly uses this same data as "evidence" of a *positive* historical correlation between CO2 and temps. Furthermore, and importantly, the subsequent CO2 level increases (due to dissolved CO2 being released from warming oceans) never did lead to additional warming, the so-called "run-away greenhouse effect" that Al Gore and company continue warning us about. In short, there is little if any evidence that CO2 had ever led to any significant global warming when the levels were within 10-15 times of what they are today. -etl
_______________________________________________________________


"The above chart shows the range of global temperature through the last 500 million years. There is no statistical correlation between the level of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere through the last 500 million years and the temperature record in this interval. In fact, one of the highest levels of carbon dioxide concentration occurred during a major ice age that occurred about 450 million years ago [Myr]. Carbon dioxide concentrations at that time were about 15 times higher than at present." [also see 180 million years ago, same thing happened]:
http://www.tcsdaily.com/article.aspx?id=010405M

29 posted on 02/15/2010 6:27:49 AM PST by ETL (ALL (most?) of the Obama-commie connections at my FR Home page: http://www.freerepublic.com/~etl/)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: MrB
Yes, man’s co2 contribution to the greenhouse effect is ZERO POINT ONE ONE SEVEN PERCENT.

Excellent point. Adding to the fact that CO2 is such a minor player in Earth's greenhouse system, only a fraction of it is related to human activities.

30 posted on 02/15/2010 6:30:50 AM PST by ETL (ALL (most?) of the Obama-commie connections at my FR Home page: http://www.freerepublic.com/~etl/)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: Bryanw92
Ban Dihydrogen Monoxide NOW!!

Wanna sign the petition? LOL.

31 posted on 02/15/2010 6:34:24 AM PST by Zack Attack
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Bryanw92

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u03QcymdCtg&feature=player_embedded

vob


32 posted on 02/15/2010 6:46:45 AM PST by Vob (free radical community organizer)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Bryanw92
Ban Dihydrogen Monoxide NOW!!

It's highly corrosive and will dissolve many substances placed in it. It can cause death in humans if breathed. Dangerous stuff! Congress has to regulate it pronto!

33 posted on 02/15/2010 6:47:06 AM PST by 6SJ7 (atlasShruggedInd = TRUE)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: listenhillary

Bookmark


34 posted on 02/15/2010 6:48:05 AM PST by DarthVader (Liberalism is the politics of EVIL whose time of judgment has come.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: ETL

Water vapor??? I use a small humidifier in my bedroom that I use in the winter. The unit produces, you guessed it...WATER VAPOR!!! Aaaaaaahhhhhhhhhhh!!!!!!!!!!


35 posted on 02/15/2010 6:49:07 AM PST by Mich Patriot
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: MichaelP
"They push for fuel cells, which exhaust wapor vapor, as alternative green energy. They are so obsessed by their agenda that they ignore facts that are pertinent."

Burning any fossil fuel gives off water vapor as well as CO2. Where do you think all those hydrogen atoms attached to the carbon chain go??

36 posted on 02/15/2010 6:49:07 AM PST by Wonder Warthog (The Hog of Steel (NRA))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: ETL
ok, folks I need someone with a thinking cap:

The term “green house” gas is used. That puts an image in our mind as most of us have been in a green house or in a hot car. One old research article from the early century that I can not find now, asserted that it was the PHYSICAL BARRIER of the glass that retained the heat more than anything else. Are clouds that much of a physical barrier?

37 posted on 02/15/2010 7:19:09 AM PST by PeterPrinciple ( Seeking the truth here folks.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: The Sons of Liberty
Drain the oceans immediately!

Better yet, cap them. Put a huge, sturdy roof over them and cover it with dirt. No more hurricanes! More area to grow crops! Don't even THINK of any negative unintended consequences.

What a wonderfully expensive project obie could set up using stimulus funds. He could accomplish two goals at once: bankrupt the country faster and 'save the planet.'

I hope they don't read this. They'll probably try to do it.

38 posted on 02/15/2010 7:30:40 AM PST by Right Wing Assault (The Obama magic is fading.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: PeterPrinciple

Clouds, which basically consists of tiny water droplets (not gas), specifically the high, thin variety, AND water vapor (gaseous water), act as barriers to heat escaping. Gaseous CO2 and water vapor, I would imagine, are less of a “physical barrier” than the high, thin, stratus-type clouds. Interesting question. I’ll look into it when I have more time.


39 posted on 02/15/2010 7:31:12 AM PST by ETL (ALL (most?) of the Obama-commie connections at my FR Home page: http://www.freerepublic.com/~etl/)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: ETL

Here’s some good info:

http://www.junkscience.com/Greenhouse/


40 posted on 02/15/2010 7:39:16 AM PST by Right Wing Assault (The Obama magic is fading.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]

To: ETL
Ok folks, another thinking cap question: I was taught that gases do absorb energy. See the below reference. Now, what does the gas do with the absorbed energy? I was taught that it did not increase the temp of the gas but that the electrons were stepped up to another level. Eventually the gas molecule would want to settle down and would release the energy as a photon again? If random, half would be release back to outer space and half transmitted to earth. Ok, the below says CO2 is a good absorber of infrared energy but NOTE THAT THE STAEMENT STOPS THERE. What happens to that absorbed energy.? My mind says that half goes down to earth and half goes to space. Do the “models” assume it all goes back to earth? It is more complex than this as I remember pigments (not gases) absorb higher spectrum and release lower spectrum.

Greenhouse Gas Absorption Spectrum
http://www.meteor.iastate.edu/gccourse/forcing/spectrum.html
Figure 4 gives the amount of energy absorbed by greenhouse gases in various wavelength regions, from ultraviolet radiation on the left, to visible light in the middle, to infrared radiation on the right.

The CFCs are not plotted here but will be considered separately. For each gas is given a plot of the absorptance of the gas, ranging from 0 to 1, for each wavelength.

As an example, if we look at the plot for oxygen and ozone, we see that the absorption is very high in the ultraviolet region but essentially zero in the visible and infrared regions, except for isolated peaks. We interpret this to mean that this gas absorbs essentially all radiation in the ultraviolet but is transparent in the visible and mostly transparent in infrared portions of the spectrum. This gas then is responsible for shielding earth-based biological systems from lethal ultraviolet radiation, radiation with wavelengths less than 0.3 micrometers (or 300 nanometers), but allows visible light and infrared radiation to pass through without much absorption.

Other gases have much different absorption properties. Methane (CH4), for example, has a couple of very small wavelength regions in which it absorbs strongly and these occur at about 3.5 and 8 microns, which are in the infrared region. Nitrous oxide, N2O, having peaks at about 5 and 8 microns, absorbs in fairly narrow wavelength ranges.

Carbon dioxide has a more complex absorption spectrum with isolated peaks at about 2.6 and 4 microns and a shoulder, or complete blockout, of infrared radiation beyond about 13 microns. From this we see that carbon dioxide is a very strong absorber of infrared radiation. The plot for water vapor shows an absorption spectrum more complex even than carbon dioxide, with numerous broad peaks in the infrared region between 0.8 and 10 microns.

The total spectrum of all atmospheric gases is given in the bottom plot. This shows a “window” between 0.3 and 0.8 microns (the visible window), which allows solar radiation (without the lethal UV component) to reach the earth's surface. “Earth radiation”, the upwelling infrared radiation emitted by the earth's surface, has a maximum near 10 microns. The total atmosphere plot shows that a narrow window (except for an oxygen spike) exists in the range of wavelengths near 10 microns.

41 posted on 02/15/2010 7:44:01 AM PST by PeterPrinciple ( Seeking the truth here folks.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Right Wing Assault
I hope they don't read this. They'll probably try to do it.

Sounds shovel-ready to me...

42 posted on 02/15/2010 7:44:14 AM PST by paulycy (Demand Constitutionality. (Hi Mom.))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]

To: ETL
Get caught up with the program here. There hasn't been any "greenhouse effect" for 15 years. Don't take my word for it, the leading global warming scientist, Phil Jones, just said so.

If there is no greenhouse effect there also can't be a greenhouse gas. Unless you are Algore or you work at the EPA water vapor is called evaporation, precipitation, weather...not greenhouse gas.

It is true that generally the climate changes when nature adds or subtracts water vapor...you know, like when it rains, or it's foggy...or not.

43 posted on 02/15/2010 7:46:32 AM PST by lewislynn (What does the global warming movement and the Fairtax movement have in common? Disinformation)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: PeterPrinciple
If we look at that graph...

We see that water vapor not only absorbs more wavelengths, those wavelengths are shorter than those absorbed by CO2. Shorter wavelengths have higher energy than longer wavelengths. Thus H20 absorbs much more energy than does CO2. These higher energies are then converted into kinetic energy; heat.

44 posted on 02/15/2010 7:54:06 AM PST by Redcloak (Messin' up threads since 1998)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies]

To: listenhillary

That’s the only ‘science’ chart that needs ‘believed’! The rest are junk science, corruption, political ‘science’, cult, religion, etc. Algore is 99.72% snake oil salesman.


45 posted on 02/15/2010 8:00:11 AM PST by CRBDeuce (here, while the internet is still free of the Fairness Doctrine)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: Redcloak

These higher energies are then converted into kinetic energy; heat.


I don’t think that is true and that is the point I am trying to determine.


46 posted on 02/15/2010 8:17:41 AM PST by PeterPrinciple ( Seeking the truth here folks.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 44 | View Replies]

To: lewislynn
Get caught up with the program here. There hasn't been any "greenhouse effect" for 15 years.

There is ALWAYS a greenhouse effect taking place, be-it almost entirely due to water vapor, despite the fact that we've been in a cooling trend for the past 11-12 years. Without greenhouse gases, the planet would be freezing.

47 posted on 02/15/2010 9:26:24 AM PST by ETL (ALL (most?) of the Obama-commie connections at my FR Home page: http://www.freerepublic.com/~etl/)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 43 | View Replies]

To: ETL
Long before the Global Warming hysteria blew up when the conspiracy of fraud came unraveled, there were serious voices questioning and documenting opposition to the global warming fraud. All of it based on studies and commentary by serious scientists in all the disciplines upon which "Climate Science" is presumably based.

Here is one from 2007!

MAN-MADE GLOBAL WARMING BITES THE DUST

What does it take?

Two things are increasingly frustrating :

"Science" commentators on hundreds of TV stations still seem unaware that there has been a massive fraud for 20 years, and that the fraudsters have been "found out" beyond debate. These "readers" are science idiots who continue hawking "green energy", CO2 panic and business-as-usual neuroses about the discredited anthropogenic global warming."

Similarly, politicians at all levels seem impervious to reality, fraud and real scientists everywhere shouting at the top of their lungs that the onslaught of hysteria by politicians, and other non-scientist have brainwashed the equally ignorant populace with, is based on lies, ignorance and an agenda based on control, not pursuit of the truth.

Taxes confiscated from working Americans can be used more productively on other things; Trillions$ are being wasted and budgeted for future waste as we speak.

How can we stop these idiots?

48 posted on 02/15/2010 9:27:46 AM PST by Publius6961 (You can't build a reputation on what you are going to do)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ETL
Are you sure, pound for pound, water vapor is a more effective greenhouse gas than CO2?

In the lab, perhaps.
In the atmosphere, under the dynamics of complex weather, sunlight, cosmic rays and other solar system nasties we may not even know about, apparently not.

One of the qualities of real scientists is the ability to make a distinction between isolated lab experiments, and the identical few substances interacting with the thousands of different elements, compounds and factors in a real-time atmosphere.

The arrogance and ignorance of those claiming to mimic the complexity of weather, climate and the atmosphere on computer models which they write themselves --- is mind boggling.

Climate models, until recently, were claimed to be predicting future weather.

Since they have all failed, 100% of the time to do so, the claim has now changed to "projections!"

... which will continue to be wrong 100% of the time!

Hello?

49 posted on 02/15/2010 9:41:19 AM PST by Publius6961 (You can't build a reputation on what you are going to do)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: ETL
There is ALWAYS a greenhouse effect taking place, be-it almost entirely due to water vapor, despite the fact that we've been in a cooling trend for the past 11-12 years. Without greenhouse gases, the planet would be freezing.
Nice try, greenhouse gas and greenhouse effect is a term you global warming pinheads coined and for some reason you choose to keep using it.

We haven't always had greenhouses. What was the natural order of things called before anyone knew what a greenhouse was? Condensation and evaporation?

50 posted on 02/15/2010 9:56:46 AM PST by lewislynn (What does the global warming movement and the Fairtax movement have in common? Disinformation)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 47 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-86 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson