Dave -
I have known about this for some time - it started a
while back with the study about the affect of vapor
trails left in the sky by jet planes... those vapor
trails actually have a significant affect on
temperature on the ground.
I should point out that the study you reference in
that link... does not show the baseline estimate of
water vapor prior to industrialization, whereas it
does show this data for all the greenhouse gasses.
That means you can't draw a conclusion from that study
unless you have that baseline... the study is flawed.
If water vapor concentrations haven't changed in 200
years, then the affects we are seeing are in fact from
CO2, not water vapor.
Look, put it this way, man has changed in the last 200
years, the fundamental mix of CO2 in the atmosphere by
30%. Your link discusses & admits this. Do you think
this is something we should not care about?
Regards,
Alan
'53 BN1 '64 BJ8
--- Dave & Marlene <rusd@velocitus.net> wrote:
> Alan,
>
> There are other ligitimate points of view on
> CO2/global warming. Here is
> one:
>
http://www.clearlight.com/~mhieb/WVFossils/greenhouse_data.html
> I guess that it depends on the horse you wish to
> support. Not all have
> been brainwashed into the "green thing". Note
> particularly that water
> vapor is by far the most significant factor in the
> green house effect.
> Something that your sources apparently choose to
> leave out. In my
> opinion, you and the greens are ignoring facts that
> put global warming
> in proper perspective. Believe what you will. It
> will be argued forever.
>
> Dave Russell
>
> Blue One Hundred wrote:
> > Mike -
> >
> > There are two types of polution - visible (unburnt
> > hydrocarbons) and invisible (CO2 - green house
> > gasses).
> >
> > The proportion between the two varies depending on
> how
> > "clean" you car is, but at the end of the day the
> > total wieght of carbon your car puts in the
> atmosphere
> > is directly correspondent to your gas mileage.
> >
> > California laws and regulation are totally focused
> on
> > the "visible" pollution... but totally ignores
> > invisible pollution (CO2 - greenhouse gas). So
> all it
> > means are the greens are erroneously focused on
> > visible pollution... when in the long run its the
> > invisible pollution that matters.
>
> > Regards,
> >
> > Alan
|