" "CO2 pound for pound [or in terms of liquid or gas volume] is not a substance which is as effective greenhouse agent as H2O"
You didn't want to bet me on global warming - how about a bet as to the accuracy of that statement? "
Actually that was somewhat a premise of my post. I modeled CO2, CH4 and water as being equal in their effectiveness as greenhouse gas per their volume as a gas [parts per billion]. Then applied it to Mars and come up with a number very similar to what is claimed is the greenhouse affect on Mars. How they got this number for Mars is unknown to me- they could have simply did something similar to what did- thereby proving nothing. But my modeling *seemed* to indicate that CO2 and H20 per volume are similar in there greenhouse effectiveness. But if you have information showing that CO2 is equal or significantly more effective than H2O, lets see it.
Space/Science » in reply to looks like the standard forcing/feedback mistake in your post
re: looks like the standard forcing/feedback mistake in your post
The whole thread (40 posts)
- Analysis of the GCR contribution to climate change.
- re: Analysis of the GCR contribution to climate change.
- here ya go
- re: here ya go
- Obviously you don't understand how funny that is.
- re: here ya go
- here we don't go
- re: here we don't go
- re: here we don't go
- care to make this debate more interesting?
- re: care to make this debate more interesting?
- Interesting debate
- Uninteresting rhetoric
- "We know why." No. You don't.
- re: Uninteresting rhetoric
- Uninteresting rhetoric
- care to make this debate more interesting?
- re: here we don't go
- re: here we don't go
- here we don't go
- re: here ya go
- here ya go
- I would expect the CRF to change with time...
- re: Analysis of the GCR contribution to climate change.