[LMB] CO2 - Re: Butter Bugs! Well, almost.... OT:
mark at allums.com
Fri Jun 27 03:06:23 BST 2008
Greg Hennessy wrote:
>> I have read, and I believe, and I will look up a reference if necessary,
>> that CO2 is responsible for about 2% of warming, and water vapor, about
>> 95%. Methane, fluorocarbons, and other things, the other 3%.
> Please do look up the reference, I think your numbers aren't even close
> to reality.
> Water vapor causes about 60 percent of the greenhouse
> effect, CO2 about 25 percent. The numbers are uncertain
> enough that you could add or subtract about 10 percentage
> points from either number and I would accept it as reasonable.
Here is where I started:
These are people who are global warming skeptics, some of them very well
respected scientists, others just fans of Pournelle's, or crackpots like
I will try and do better and get some sources from research or climate
data. I read an article about a year ago that said much the same as
you, and another that said much the same as what I have repeated. So,
apparently, opinions vary on this subject.
There is research on climate change that shows that temperatures have
been higher when CO2 was lower, and also the other way 'round. They use
Arctic and Antarctic ice, sediments in the seabed, plant fossils, and so
on. The data found indicates that CO2 has been much higher in the past.
On the other hand, CO2 levels have been rising over the last hundred
Here's a scholarly paper you might find of interest:
A study that was in the news recently was based on Finnish tree ring
data going back over 7000 years. The warmest century in recent history
was the 1900s. Interesting. However, temperatures appear to have
peaked in the mid-nineties, and are now on the way down. I won't bother
to reference this one because it was in the news so recently, just
Google "Finnish tree ring study", articles about it will be on the first
The previous paragraph was not about a CO2 study, but I thought that, as
long as we were in the neighborhood, I would point out something
interesting. It's *just one example of many*.
More information about the Lois-Bujold