re: The actual numbers, like anybody cares.

Space/Science » in reply to The actual numbers, like anybody cares.

re: The actual numbers, like anybody cares.

gbaikie — 11/18/2008 11:51:39 PM (archived)

"Firstly, there is the greenhouse effect, and then there is global warming. The greenhouse effect is caused by certain gases (and clouds) absorbing and re-emitting the infrared radiating from Earth's surface. It currently keeps our planet 20°C to 30°C warmer than it would be otherwise. Global warming is the rise in temperatures caused by an increase in the levels of greenhouse gases due to human activity."

Love it.
So, if we want to discuss water vapor in regards to global warming it can only refer to the increase in water vapor caused by human activity.
And suppose since the the term "global warming" is being morphed to the term "climate change" then this same *rule* also applies?

The whole thread (61 posts)

Lies, Opinions and a Few Facts about AGW - S - 11/17/2008 8:11:07 PM
- Btw, a must see - gbaikie - 11/19/2008 3:34:14 AM
- re: Lies, Opinions and a Few Facts about AGW - Brian Ganek - 11/18/2008 2:13:44 PM
- Back HERE, actually -- corrected HZ ink - S - 11/17/2008 10:29:17 PM
- The H20 - 95% myth is proof that the cited info is nonsense - pwokenyaw - 11/17/2008 9:56:12 PM
  - The H20 - 95% myth, What About Sublimation - Brian Ganek - 11/18/2008 2:26:15 PM
    - re: The H20 - 95% myth, What About Sublimation - pwokenyaw - 11/18/2008 6:27:29 PM
      - YOU didn't but "S" did (n/t) - Nick Hoffman - 11/18/2008 11:32:10 PM
  - You need to read more carefully - S - 11/17/2008 10:08:25 PM
    - by volume, not effect... - nick hoffman - 11/18/2008 10:41:24 AM
    - A runaway greenhouse effect is quite unlikely. - Dr Clayton Forrester - 11/18/2008 3:36:44 AM
      - re: A runaway greenhouse effect is quite unlikely. - Post Sputnik - 11/18/2008 7:49:06 PM
        
        Figure of speech, somewhat analogous to the term "reaction cross section" occuring at nuclear scales". - Baffler - 11/18/2008 8:50:01 PM
        
        re: Euphemisms - Post Sputnik - 11/18/2008 10:56:52 PM
        
        the H and K lines of ionized calcium - ER - 11/18/2008 11:44:55 PM
        
        re: the H and K lines of ionized calcium - Post Sputnik - 11/19/2008 2:18:24 AM
        
        Well, if you're appealing to Wiki...I won't be outdone. - ER - 11/19/2008 3:12:07 AM
        
        There's a whole lotta shakin goin on ... - Post Sputnik - 11/19/2008 3:55:40 AM
        
        That's for sure, Dude. (n/t) - ER - 11/19/2008 4:24:36 AM
      - Thanks - S - 11/18/2008 7:10:00 PM
        
        I'm the OTHER Doc Forrester. - CF - 11/18/2008 7:24:12 PM
        
        "This is amazing!" - S - 11/18/2008 7:35:48 PM
      - re: A runaway greenhouse effect is quite unlikely. - gbaikie - 11/18/2008 5:43:29 AM
        
        This is amazing! (n/t) - Dr Clayton Forrester - 11/18/2008 1:48:31 PM
        
        Doc! Haven't seen you since Oak Ridge! (n/t) - McFly - 11/18/2008 2:45:18 PM
        
        I was wondering how long it would take. - ER - 11/18/2008 2:58:01 PM
      - A few degrees isn't going to do anything - zed - 11/18/2008 4:44:11 AM
        
        A sustained and systemic temperature rise, even a small one, will have a cumulative effect. - CF - 11/18/2008 1:51:38 PM
        
        You'll have to be more specific about the "cumulative effect" you refer to (n/t) - zed - 11/19/2008 1:53:03 AM
        
        re: You'll have to be more specific about the "cumulative effect" you refer to - ER - 11/19/2008 3:48:18 AM
        
        re: You'll have to be more specific about the "cumulative effect" you refer to - gbaikie - 11/19/2008 4:49:25 AM
        
        You'll have to be more specific about the "cumulative effect" you refer to - ER - 11/19/2008 12:20:29 PM
        
        re: You'll have to be more specific about the "cumulative effect" you refer to - gbaikie - 11/19/2008 8:37:43 PM
        
        re: more specific - TB - 11/19/2008 6:36:35 PM
    - re: You need to read more carefully - pwokenyaw - 11/17/2008 11:04:32 PM
      - re: You need to read more carefully - gbaikie - 11/18/2008 1:09:47 AM
- re: Lies, Opinions and a Few Facts about AGW - gbaikie - 11/17/2008 9:04:51 PM
  - "Anyone that know anything about theory of CO2... - ER - 11/18/2008 5:40:36 AM
    - The actual numbers, like anybody cares. - TB - 11/18/2008 3:59:13 PM
      - re: The actual numbers, like anybody cares. - gbaikie - 11/18/2008 11:51:39 PM
        
        continuing - gbaikie - 11/19/2008 12:36:27 AM
      - New Scientist articles, comments on AGW - S - 11/18/2008 7:49:24 PM
      - Thanks, TB. - ER - 11/18/2008 6:41:39 PM
        
        "runaway" greenhouse effect - TB - 11/19/2008 4:29:27 AM
        
        re: "runaway" greenhouse effect - ER - 11/19/2008 2:59:01 PM
        
        Agendas - TB - 11/20/2008 8:03:43 PM
        
        Never mind, I just re-read it, and my questions were answered. (n/t) - ER - 11/18/2008 6:47:47 PM
      - 50% from clouds - pwokenyaw - 11/18/2008 6:24:18 PM
        
        I messed up, I meant 50% from water vapor. (n/t) - pwokenyaw - 11/18/2008 6:25:24 PM
    - re: "Anyone that know anything about theory of CO2... - gbaikie - 11/18/2008 7:59:03 AM
- So AGW is a right-wing conspiracy? - ER - 11/17/2008 8:37:21 PM
  - AGW methodology - S - 11/17/2008 9:16:53 PM
- re: Lies, Opinions and a Few Facts about AGW - Post Sputnik - 11/17/2008 8:34:56 PM
- re: Lies, Opinions and a Few Facts about AGW - gbaikie - 11/17/2008 8:31:42 PM
  - Safe storage - S - 11/17/2008 8:52:26 PM
    - re: Safe storage - gbaikie - 11/17/2008 9:16:39 PM
      - re: Safe storage - Marcia - 11/18/2008 4:38:45 AM
        
        re: Safe storage - Marcia - 11/18/2008 5:26:21 AM
        
        Safe storage? - S - 11/18/2008 7:47:06 PM
        
        re: Safe storage - lance - 11/18/2008 2:16:08 PM
        
        re: Safe storage. - Thanks! - Marcia - 11/19/2008 9:55:07 PM

Recent posts

On this day in Space/Science

The whole thread (61 posts)