Re: excellent article on global warming


"Eeyore" <rabbitsfriendsandrelations@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:49FD0B5A.4E35F55B@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Some REAL science at last, notably illustrating that the effect of CO2
in the atmosphere is nearly already at saturation level and more can
contribute very little to temperature rise.

Graham

http://brneurosci.org/co2.html

" The 255K data point is not just zero CO2, it is zero water vapor as
well. In reality, there would always be some water vapor present, even
if there were no CO2. This means that the actual temperature for zero
CO2 would be higher than 255K, which would change the shape of the
curve. For example, if the CO2=0 value was 271 (halfway between 255 and
the current temperature), the prediction changes to 288.55K, or about a
1.39 degree increase for doubling of CO2. This can be seen in the blue
curve (see enlarged graph below). The result is not much different than
the 1.76, but the important point is that as the estimates become more
realistic, the predicted temperature does not increase, but decreases
slightly. "

Clearly incomplete bunk that does not explain the total mechanisms,
otherwise how do you explain Venus or that the earth as a whole was much
warmer during the pliocene? One paper by some nut does not a theory make.

If we accept the saturation theory, how does that correlate to temperature?
I see a couple of equations, but no or proof of same, just a "pull it out
of your ass" graph. Furthermore what is the effect of methane and other GW
gases?

In the mean time the Arctic, Greenland and the Antarctic keep melting and
ice breaking up. Explain that. Me thinks you are "out to lunch."



.

Quantcast