As was recently pointed out by Chris L Peterson, posting
in news:sci.astro.amateur with respect to water vapor:

None of which is remotely relevant to the discussion of AGW. The effects
of a small change in CO2 concentration are well understood (extremely
well), as is the effect this has on the global temperature balance. If
mankind were doing something to increase the amount of water vapor, this
would be recognized as an anthropogenic greenhouse gas as well. However,
we're not directly adding water to the atmosphere, and the water vapor
content is stable. The same cannot be said for CO2 or methane, however.
CO2 is the primary forcer of warming, followed by methane. Water vapor
is not forcing warming at all. Only CO2 and methane are rising because
of direct human input into the system- and predictably, the temperatures
are rising right along with them. CO2 is considered the much more
serious issue, because of its long atmospheric lifetime. Of course,
under the current warming trends a catastrophic increase in methane is
likely, further forcing extreme warming.

On Wed, 13 Jan 2010 20:40:16 -0600, Sam Wormley
wrote:

As was recently pointed out by Chris L Peterson, posting
in news:sci.astro.amateur with respect to water vapor:

None of which is remotely relevant to the discussion of AGW. The effects
of a small change in CO2 concentration are well understood (extremely
well), as is the effect this has on the global temperature balance. If
mankind were doing something to increase the amount of water vapor, this
would be recognized as an anthropogenic greenhouse gas as well. However,
we're not directly adding water to the atmosphere, and the water vapor
content is stable. The same cannot be said for CO2 or methane, however.
CO2 is the primary forcer of warming, followed by methane. Water vapor
is not forcing warming at all. Only CO2 and methane are rising because
of direct human input into the system- and predictably, the temperatures
are rising right along with them. CO2 is considered the much more
serious issue, because of its long atmospheric lifetime. Of course,
under the current warming trends a catastrophic increase in methane is
likely, further forcing extreme warming.


Ok, we can turn the thermometer upside down
so you will be right, down is up.

On 1/13/10 10:11 PM, I M @ good guy wrote:
On Wed, 13 Jan 2010 20:40:16 -0600, Sam
wrote:

As was recently pointed out by Chris L Peterson, posting
in news:sci.astro.amateur with respect to water vapor:

None of which is remotely relevant to the discussion of AGW. The effects
of a small change in CO2 concentration are well understood (extremely
well), as is the effect this has on the global temperature balance. If
mankind were doing something to increase the amount of water vapor, this
would be recognized as an anthropogenic greenhouse gas as well. However,
we're not directly adding water to the atmosphere, and the water vapor
content is stable. The same cannot be said for CO2 or methane, however.
CO2 is the primary forcer of warming, followed by methane. Water vapor
is not forcing warming at all. Only CO2 and methane are rising because
of direct human input into the system- and predictably, the temperatures
are rising right along with them. CO2 is considered the much more
serious issue, because of its long atmospheric lifetime. Of course,
under the current warming trends a catastrophic increase in methane is
likely, further forcing extreme warming.


Ok, we can turn the thermometer upside down
so you will be right, down is up.


Learn the Difference Between Weather and Climate!

The difference between weather and climate is a measure of time. Weather
is what conditions of the atmosphere are over a short period of time,
and climate is how the atmosphere "behaves" over relatively long periods
of time (at least 30 years).

In various parts of the world, some people have even noticed that
springtime comes earlier now than it did 30 years ago. An earlier
springtime is indicative of a possible change in the climate.

On 1/13/10 10:19 PM, wrote:


CO2 has no, that is ZERO effect on global temperature.

Betcha didn't know that CO2 is a GREENHOUSE gas!

The Carbon Dioxide Greenhouse Effect
http://www.aip.org/history/climate/co2.htm

In the 19th century, scientists realized that gases in the atmosphere
cause a "greenhouse effect" which affects the planet's temperature.
These scientists were interested chiefly in the possibility that a lower
level of carbon dioxide gas might explain the ice ages of the distant
past. At the turn of the century, Svante Arrhenius calculated that
emissions from human industry might someday bring a global warming.
Other scientists dismissed his idea as faulty. In 1938, G.S. Calendar
argued that the level of carbon dioxide was climbing and raising global
temperature, but most scientists found his arguments implausible. It was
almost by chance that a few researchers in the 1950s discovered that
global warming truly was possible. In the early 1960s, C.D. Keeling
measured the level of carbon dioxide in the atmosphe it was rising
fast. Researchers began to take an interest, struggling to understand
how the level of carbon dioxide had changed in the past, and how the
level was influenced by chemical and biological forces. They found that
the gas plays a crucial role in climate change, so that the rising level
could gravely affect our future.

Do read: http://www.aip.org/history/climate/co2.htm

You might learn something new under the atmosphere!

On Jan 13, 11:27*pm, Sam Wormley wrote:
On 1/13/10 10:11 PM, I M @ good guy wrote:





On Wed, 13 Jan 2010 20:40:16 -0600, Sam
wrote:

As was recently pointed out by Chris L Peterson, posting
in news:sci.astro.amateur with respect to water vapor:

None of which is remotely relevant to the discussion of AGW. The effects
of a small change in CO2 concentration are well understood (extremely
well), as is the effect this has on the global temperature balance. If
mankind were doing something to increase the amount of water vapor, this
would be recognized as an anthropogenic greenhouse gas as well. However,
we're not directly adding water to the atmosphere, and the water vapor
content is stable. The same cannot be said for CO2 or methane, however.

On 1/13/10 11:09 PM, Catoni wrote:
On Jan 13, 11:27 pm, Sam wrote:
On 1/13/10 10:11 PM, I M @ good guy wrote:

On Wed, 13 Jan 2010 20:40:16 -0600, Sam
wrote:

As was recently pointed out by Chris L Peterson, posting
in news:sci.astro.amateur with respect to water vapor:

None of which is remotely relevant to the discussion of AGW. The effects
of a small change in CO2 concentration are well understood (extremely
well), as is the effect this has on the global temperature balance. If
mankind were doing something to increase the amount of water vapor, this
would be recognized as an anthropogenic greenhouse gas as well. However,
we're not directly adding water to the atmosphere, and the water vapor
content is stable. The same cannot be said for CO2 or methane, however.
CO2 is the primary forcer of warming, followed by methane. Water vapor
is not forcing warming at all. Only CO2 and methane are rising because
of direct human input into the system- and predictably, the temperatures
are rising right along with them. CO2 is considered the much more
serious issue, because of its long atmospheric lifetime. Of course,
under the current warming trends a catastrophic increase in methane is
likely, further forcing extreme warming.

Ok, we can turn the thermometer upside down
so you will be right, down is up.

Learn the Difference Between Weather and Climate!

The difference between weather and climate is a measure of time. Weather
is what conditions of the atmosphere are over a short period of time,
and climate is how the atmosphere "behaves" over relatively long periods
of time (at least 30 years).

In various parts of the world, some people have even noticed that
springtime comes earlier now than it did 30 years ago. An earlier
springtime is indicative of a possible change in the climate.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

How about cooler and wetter summers three years in a row... one summer
felt like a continuation of spring... like summer never really
arrived. Does that count ?

Can't say for your location, but in Iowa one result of
global warming is an increase in rainfall and an increase
in relative humidity and dew-point. That has the effect of
decreasing high temperatures during the daytime and
increasing low temperatures at night (less cooling).

Here's some data from Iowa State University
http://www.meteor.iastate.edu/facult...entations.html

More from University of Iowa

http://www.engineering.uiowa.edu/fac.../schnoor_j.php


(But we did save money by only using the airconditioner for six
days. )

On Jan 14, 12:01*am, Sam Wormley wrote:
On 1/13/10 10:19 PM, wrote:



CO2 has no, that is ZERO effect on global temperature.

* *Betcha didn't know that CO2 is a GREENHOUSE gas!

Betcha don't know that CO2 is a MINOR greenhouse gas and a TRACE
constituent of the atmosphere (0.00038!). Betcha didn't know that the
HUMAN contribution to that minor amount is a small fraction of that.
Betcha didn't know that the infrared energy bands in CO2 are quite
narrow compared to say water vapor (a major greenhouse gas). That
makes the likely effects of CO2 minuscule. Betcha didn't know that
the "greenhouse" model has only been shown for greenhouses not whole
planets. Hence your historical errors are meaningless. Next you'll be
blaming AGW on Phlogiston outputs from fossil fuels!

Moron.

You might learn something new under the atmosphere!

You never have. All you've learned how to do is prevaricate.

On Jan 13, 11:27*pm, Sam Wormley wrote:
On 1/13/10 10:11 PM, I M @ good guy wrote:



On Wed, 13 Jan 2010 20:40:16 -0600, Sam
wrote:

As was recently pointed out by Chris L Peterson, posting
in news:sci.astro.amateur with respect to water vapor:

None of which is remotely relevant to the discussion of AGW. The effects
of a small change in CO2 concentration are well understood (extremely
well), as is the effect this has on the global temperature balance. If
mankind were doing something to increase the amount of water vapor, this
would be recognized as an anthropogenic greenhouse gas as well. However,
we're not directly adding water to the atmosphere, and the water vapor
content is stable. The same cannot be said for CO2 or methane, however.

On 1/14/10 6:55 AM, wrote:


H2O is 97% of the greenhouse. CO2 has Zero effect


Leonard, you are showing your ignorance here.

Betcha didn't know that CO2 is a GREENHOUSE gas!

The Carbon Dioxide Greenhouse Effect
http://www.aip.org/history/climate/co2.htm

In the 19th century, scientists realized that gases in the atmosphere
cause a "greenhouse effect" which affects the planet's temperature.
These scientists were interested chiefly in the possibility that a lower
level of carbon dioxide gas might explain the ice ages of the distant
past. At the turn of the century, Svante Arrhenius calculated that
emissions from human industry might someday bring a global warming.
Other scientists dismissed his idea as faulty. In 1938, G.S. Calendar
argued that the level of carbon dioxide was climbing and raising global
temperature, but most scientists found his arguments implausible. It was
almost by chance that a few researchers in the 1950s discovered that
global warming truly was possible. In the early 1960s, C.D. Keeling
measured the level of carbon dioxide in the atmosphe it was rising
fast. Researchers began to take an interest, struggling to understand
how the level of carbon dioxide had changed in the past, and how the
level was influenced by chemical and biological forces. They found that
the gas plays a crucial role in climate change, so that the rising level
could gravely affect our future.

Do read: http://www.aip.org/history/climate/co2.htm

Leonard--You might learn something new under the atmosphere! But
for some reason you don't want to! Pity really.

Benj wrote:


Learn the Difference Between Weather and Climate!

Learn the difference between hot and cold.

Idiot.

I can tell that you didn't need to know about science in order to be
more knowledgeable than those smart ass liberal Ph. D.'s with their
book learnin. Looks like they wasted their money on that fancy
education while you were so smart that you didn't need no book
learnin' at all!! You sure is smart! I betcha you're a Republican.