Trevor Wilson wrote:
Jerry Peters wrote:
Trevor Wilson wrote:
N_Cook wrote:
Arfa Daily wrote in message
...

"Franc Zabkar" wrote in message
...
I plan to reduce my own CO2 emissions by not talking about them.

- Franc Zabkar
--
Please remove one 'i' from my address when replying by email.

I wouldn't worry about it Franc. Judging by the stuff I'm reading
at the moment about the 'massaged' data coming out of the
University of East Anglia, it's not going to have any genuine
effect anyway ... :-)

Arfa




I'm old enough to remember all the scare stories in the press about
the impending ice age coming, after the seas freezing over around UK
coasts.

**I'm old enough to remember that those silly ice age articles were
published in magazines like People, Newsweek and other populist crap.
Science, Nature and Scientific American stuck to the facts. Those
facts, of course, were concerned with the very serious problem of
CO2 being a major influence in global warming.


Except that *water vapor* is the major "greenhouse" gas.

**Points:

* Water vapour is certainly _the_ major GHG.
* I wrote: CO2 is _a_ major GHG. Note the emphasis.
* Water vapour persists for barely hours in the atmosphere.
* CO2 persists for hundreds of years in the atmosphere.
* CO2 is the second most significant GHG, accounting for between 9% ~ 26% of
Solar forcing.
* There is not much we can do about water vapour.
* There is much that can be done to reduce CO2 emissions.

Wow 9% to 26%, and these are the people who supposedly can tell me the
temperature to a fraction of a degree for say 1500AD.

Did you ever study thermodynamics? There's only a certain amount of
energy available for CO2 to absorb, once that amount is absorbed,
there isn't any additional "forcing". Something normally omitted from
the popular press articles.

Of course there's not much you can do about water vapor, why do you
think they've focussed on CO2. Even the most idiotic enviro-nut
realizes that they'd be laughed into oblivion by proposing to regulate
water vapor.

As for reducing CO2 emmisions, you're dreaming. Not without going back
to a much more primitive lifestyle.


To get their dire predictions the climastrologists assume that rising
CO2 will cause a positive feedback effect with water vapor.

**It's CLIMATOLOGISTS, moron. Learn to spell it correctly. Learn a little
about the climate of this planet whilst you are at it. And yes, More CO2 may
well lead to most water vapour, thus exacerbating the effect.

No, I prefer climastrologists, it's a much better description of their
scientific abilities. More water vapor may also lead to more clouds
which tend to relect the sun's energy before it's absorbed. The point
is, we don't know, an the scientists who should be researching these
things have turned into advocates for one single point of view.



As for Scientific American, read their latest editorial on GW. It
sounds like the ravings of a left-wing loony conspiracy theorist.

**Except that Scientific American is concerned with, well, science.
Something you clearly have no knowledge of.

Did you read the editorial? It's a vast morass of conspiracy theories.
SA hasn't been about science for at least a decade, it's now about
being politically correct more than about science.



BTW, any one ever heard of the University of East Anglia *before* the
emails were leaked? Take a look at the money they've been pulling
in for their climate research.

**So? Are you attempting to link ONE instance where researchers ****ed up,
with the thousands of researchers who have not?

One instance? Only one instance. My my, you are gullible. Why do you
think the climastrologists don't want to release any of their data and
methodology? Perhaps because most of it is just plain crap?

Jerry