8 ms·
As I write today, I'm referencing the following sites that a quick Google search turned up. I'm frustrated that I can't find another one I like, but this one i
by robotrout 17y ago
As I write today, I'm referencing the following sites that a quick Google search turned up. I'm frustrated that I can't find another one I like, but this one is very good.
http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/greenhouse_data.html http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/greenhouse_data.html
For one thing, the wiki article (which, again, is quoting realclimate.org, so is already tainted) is giving you a number of how much total contribution CO2 has on earth's greenhouse effect. It's not telling you how much effect _man-made_ CO2 is having, which is obviously less, as even they would admit that CO2 is not purely made my humans.
- petewarden 17y agoI would recommend comparing this to http://www.skepticalscience.com/water-vapor-greenhouse-gas.htm http://www.skepticalscience.com/water-vapor-greenhouse-gas.h... In particular, they give figures of 75 W/m2 for water vapor and 32 W/m2 for CO2. The link to the original paper where those figures came from is broken but here's a fixed one: http://www.atmo.arizona.edu/students/courselinks/spring04/atmo451b/pdf/RadiationBudget.pdf http://www.atmo.arizona.edu/students/courselinks/spring04/at... Look at Figure 3, they also go into some depth about the assumptions and observations behind those figures.
- robotrout 17y agoThat's very good. You can't have your cake and eat it too, as they try to do. Here, they admit it's by far, the dominant greenhouse driver, and yet, in the next breath, they jump back on the CO2 bandwagon.
- petewarden 17y agoWhat about their figures do you disagree with? It's fairly open and fundamental science, I'd be very interested in a half-decent paper knocking holes in it.