CO2 makes up approximately 3/100ths of the Earth's atmosphere. Numbers like that are sort of nebulous for most folks unless they are put into something they can relate to.

1 gallon of water = 128 oz's or 256 tablespoons. 1 tablespoon = .5 oz's. If the Earth's atmosphere were a gallon of water CO2 would make up 3.84 oz's or 7.68 table spoons. But, this is for total CO2 levels, man made CO2 accounts for approximately 3.225% of the 7.68 table spoons or .24 (1/4) of a tablespoon in a gallon of water.

So what's the answer for modern day transportation? Hydrogen fuel cell cars? The exhaust they produce is water vapor which is responsible for 95% of the green house effect. Wouldn't this then increase global warming?

__________________
China uses more coal than the United States, the European Union and Japan combined.

Firstly - let me congratulate you!!! Some 68 pages into this thread, and countless requests for somebody to show any actual scientific papers published which argue that AGW is not occurring - and someone has finallly had a crack at it!!

Well done you!


...now, lets see what we have here shall we,

Oh dear. Not a good start.

This paper was originally sent out with the infamous Oregon Petition. It was printed in the same typeface and format as the official Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. The National Academy of the Sciences responded with:
"The NAS Council would like to make it clear that this petition has nothing to do with the National Academy of Sciences and that the manuscript was not published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences or in any other peer-reviewed journal"
http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php...e_and_Medicine

Your link shows that the paper was eventually puplished in Energy & Environment - a social science journal not carried in the ISI listing of peer-reviewed journals. Its peer review process has been widely criticised for allowing the publication of substandard papers.
http://pubs.acs.org/subscribe/journa..._skeptics.html

The "paper" is authored by a biochemist, his 22 year old son and an astrophysisist. Not really climate science experts.




More from our friend Willie Soon, and his astropysisist mate Sallie Baliunas.
These guys generally like to take something they do know about - solar variability - and apply it to something they don't know about - CO2 forcing.

Yes - these are 2 rare examples of peer-reviewed anti-AGW papers.
I can't find an abstract for the Progress in Physical Geography paper, but the Climate Research one was widely criticised:
"...13 of the authors of papers cited by Baliunas and Soon refuted her interpretation of their work. There were three main objections: Soon and Baliunas used data reflective of changes in moisture, rather than temperature; they failed to distinguish between regional and hemispheric temperature anomalies; and they reconstructed past temperatures from proxy evidence not capable of resolving decadal trends. More recently, Osborn and Briffa repeated the Baliunas and Soon study but restricted themselves to records that were validated as temperature proxies, and came to a different result"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sallie_...s#cite_note-12


and onto old Freddie Singer, who claims not only to be an expert on climate change, but also atomic energy and tobacco smoke!

The first of those papers was published in EOS - which is not a peer-reviewed journal, it is the AGU's newsletter.

The second is definitley an example of a scientific paper that argues against AGW. It is the one I have been expecting to be quoted now for some 68 pages! At last someone found it! Well done!

It has been widely criticised for it's very selective use of data - but we can address that another time.

Your third reference is a letter related to the same issue as the 2nd paper


This paper concludes:

There is no controversy surrounding the claim that atmospheric CO2 concentrations are on the rise; direct measurements demonstrate that fact. The basic con- cept of the greenhouse effect is also not in question; rising carbon dioxide concentrations, in and of themselves, clearly enhance the thermal blanketing properties of the atmosphere. What is debatable, however, is the magnitude of any warming that might result from a
rise in the air’s CO2 concentration.

Fair enough. That is not arguing that AGW is not occurring.



Yet another paper that accepts the occurance of AGW - but questions the magnetude of impact. Fine - there is plenty of room for debate there. It is not arguing that AGW is not occurring.




...in which Mr Lindzen tells us:

...increasing CO2 is likely to cause some climate change, and that the resulting change will involve average warming of the earth
Yes Mr Lindzen - I agree with you

[/quote]

Why indeed.

__________________
Have you ever stood toe to toe with someone that was intent on kicking your arse? C-D-P

We can argue scientists till were blue in the face, but facts are facts. If the atmosphere were a gallon of water, man made CO2 would represent 1/4 of a table spoons worth. Who in their right mind would believe such a minuscule amount can make the difference you propose?

Anyone reading this thread who even remotely believes this horse hockey must watch this video. It interviews many lead IPCC authors who simply don't believe CO2 is driving any warming and why. You owe it to yourselves to watch it and then make up your own minds!

http://www.brightcove.tv/title.jsp?title=881376822

__________________
China uses more coal than the United States, the European Union and Japan combined.

Still using the liberal group SourceWatch to debunk your detractors? Shame on you. I've already discredited them.

If it is so important to you that these opinions on AGW come exclusively from "scientifically peer reviewed" whatever you call it magazines/journals, why do you not provide us with a list of acceptable magazines/journals first, so that we can meet you standards of what is valid science?

__________________
"We should Invade Their Countries, Kill Their Leaders, and Convert Them to Christianity." Ann Coulter
There is a fine line between a subtle nuance and an extreme dichotomy! - PatriotNews

You still never answered this question, so I will ask again.

The references used to make the statement about water vapor that you claim is incorrect, which one or ones are you claiming are incorrect and please show the basis for your claim?

__________________
China uses more coal than the United States, the European Union and Japan combined.

Do you have a link for the above example of the gallon of water? I think your calculations are off. By my calculations, CO2 would be about 1.38 tablespoons and mans contribution to that would be about .04 of one tablespoon.

__________________
"We should Invade Their Countries, Kill Their Leaders, and Convert Them to Christianity." Ann Coulter
There is a fine line between a subtle nuance and an extreme dichotomy! - PatriotNews

No - you provided a link to a right-wing blog. That is not what you would call "discrediting" something. It is about as convincing as quoting Andrew Bolt's opinion on Benny Peiser - which you have also done.

Your point may be valid if I were quoting opinion from Sourcewatch - but as I told you back in post #230 (when I used Sourcewatch as a reference to a direct quote from your mate Benny Peiser) - I was not quoting the opinion of the authors of that site - I cited it as reference for a direct quote from the National Academy of the Sciences. My apologies for not providing the quote from it's original source - but most people can tell the difference between opinion and a direct quote.

Just for your benefit - here is the original source:
http://www8.nationalacademies.org/on...rdID=s04201998

Do you have a right wing blog to discredit that? What does Andrew Bolt have to say about it? Benny Peiser?


"scientifically peer reviewed" whatever you call it magazines/journals,
!?!?!?!

This is truly unbelievable! You have absolutely no idea, do you!

Let Wikipedia help you:

In academic publishing, a scientific journal is a periodical publication intended to further the progress of science, usually by reporting new research. Most journals are highly specialized, although some of the oldest journals such as Nature publish articles and scientific papers across a wide range of scientific fields. Scientific journals contain articles that have been peer reviewed, in an attempt to ensure that articles meet the journal's standards of quality, and scientific validity.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_journal

So take note:
www.activistcash.com - is not a peer-reviewed scientific journal
An opinion column by Andrew Bolt is not a peer-reviewed scientific journal
The SCIENCE & ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY PROJECT website is not a peer-reviewed scientific journal
and neither are most of the other things you like to link to.
Of course, sourcewatch.com and wikipedia are also not peer-reviewed scientific journals - but they are often convenient places to find references to papers from peer-reviewed scientific journals - just check the references in the footnotes.

That fact that you want to try to discuss a scientific matter when you don't even have the faintest idea how scientific publishing works is quite hilarious.

__________________
Have you ever stood toe to toe with someone that was intent on kicking your arse? C-D-P

No. CO2 makes up about 3/10,000ths of the earths atmosphere by volume.

If you are going to try to make some sort of pointless, infantile argument - at least get the numbers right. People may think you have no idea what you are talking about

__________________
Have you ever stood toe to toe with someone that was intent on kicking your arse? C-D-P

Thanks, nosocialism. I'm finally beginning to understand why the deniers see AGW as they do. You seem to be the victim of a poor science education. My sister is about the same age as you and she, and some of her other friends of the same age, does not remember being taught any thing about global cooling in her science classes. You cannot extrapolate what you were taught in science to all the other schools in the US. I'm older than you and I certainly don't remember anyone going "ape $hit" over the blizzard of '77.
You might want to check the wiki article on the Great Global Warming Swindle..

__________________
If electricity comes from electrons, does morality come from morons?

Can't find the study on line.
From a booklet from Center for the Study of American BusinessNow we see where the deniers misinformation comes from.
From your original link:[/url=http://www.eia.doe.gov/cneaf/alternate/page/environment/appd_d.html]from your link's link, the doe[/url]The word "troposphere" seems to be missing from your original link.

I can't comment on something I can't find the source for.
Please point it out to me, because I can't find it.

Listed as Peer Reviewed @ http://petesplace-peter.blogspot.com...te-change.html
Peer review?? It's a friggin' blog.
Link does not work
Contradicts current evidence. See your link to the DOE above.
Ah yes. Another Heartland "scientist" that's got it wrong.

The only link you provided that has it right disagrees with you. Care to try again.
I don't have the time or experience to debate with you on peer-review. All I'm going to post is that the system may not be perfect, but the alternative, no peer review, would be devastating to the advancement of science.

All I have time for right now. Maybe more tonight.

__________________
If electricity comes from electrons, does morality come from morons?