Tobin wrote:There is really nothing to respond to here Brad. Most of the respondents are talking about vitamins and you failed to answer my questions about significant numbers.
I'll just note in response to your question that CO2 is measured in parts per MILLION and CH4 is measured in parts per BILLION. CO2 and CH4 are not a million (or a billion) times more powerful than water vapor as greenhouse gases. That is why it is so important to understand how much of it is really in the atmosphere.
Is, or is not, CH4 a more powerful greenhouse gas than CO2?
“The ideal subject of totalitarian rule is not the convinced Nazi or the dedicated communist, but people for whom the distinction between fact and fiction, true and false, no longer exists.”
― Hannah Arendt, The Origins of Totalitarianism, 1951
Res Ipsa wrote:Is, or is not, CH4 a more powerful greenhouse gas than CO2?
Yes (on a molecular level), it also represents a microscopic part of the atmosphere (measured in parts per BILLION) and is combustible.
"You lack vision, but I see a place where people get on and off the freeway. On and off, off and on all day, all night.... Tire salons, automobile dealerships and wonderful, wonderful billboards reaching as far as the eye can see. My God, it'll be beautiful." -- Judge Doom
Res Ipsa wrote:Is, or is not, CH4 a more powerful greenhouse gas than CO2?
Yes (on a molecular level), it also represents a microscopic part of the atmosphere (measured in parts per BILLION) and is combustible.
So, the strength of a greenhouse gas doesn't just depend on its percentage in the atmosphere.
Now, what percentage of earth's atmosphere is water vapor?
“The ideal subject of totalitarian rule is not the convinced Nazi or the dedicated communist, but people for whom the distinction between fact and fiction, true and false, no longer exists.”
― Hannah Arendt, The Origins of Totalitarianism, 1951
Res Ipsa wrote:So, the strength of a greenhouse gas doesn't just depend on its percentage in the atmosphere.
Now, what percentage of earth's atmosphere is water vapor?
Yes it does depend on how much there is. In fact, I've repeatedly pointed that out. And I've also pointed out, CH4 is NOT a billion times more powerful than water vapor on a molecular level. That is why how much there is in the atmosphere is important and why I asked you the question about significance (which you have still failed to acknowledge).
"You lack vision, but I see a place where people get on and off the freeway. On and off, off and on all day, all night.... Tire salons, automobile dealerships and wonderful, wonderful billboards reaching as far as the eye can see. My God, it'll be beautiful." -- Judge Doom
Res Ipsa wrote:So, the strength of a greenhouse gas doesn't just depend on its percentage in the atmosphere.
Now, what percentage of earth's atmosphere is water vapor?
Yes it does depend on how much there is. In fact, I've repeatedly pointed that out. And I've also pointed out, CH4 is NOT a billion times more powerful than water vapor on a molecular level. That is why how much there is in the atmosphere is important and why I asked you the question about significance (which you have still failed to acknowledge).
Please read what I write. I didn't say that the amount is irrelevant. I said the amount isn't the only factor. Are you claiming that the percentage of a greenhouse gas in the atmosphere is the only factor that determines the greenhouse effect of doubling it in the atmosphere? Or is there more to it?
“The ideal subject of totalitarian rule is not the convinced Nazi or the dedicated communist, but people for whom the distinction between fact and fiction, true and false, no longer exists.”
― Hannah Arendt, The Origins of Totalitarianism, 1951
Res Ipsa wrote:Please read what I write. I didn't say that the amount is irrelevant. I said the amount isn't the only factor. Are you claiming that the percentage of a greenhouse gas in the atmosphere is the only factor that determines the greenhouse effect of doubling it in the atmosphere? Or is there more to it?
When you are talking about gases that represent mere parts per million and billion, it is very fair to state they have negligible effects on global warming. Water vapor represents often 4% of the atmosphere per volume. If there is a greenhouse gas of significance, that is the one. And as I've also pointed out, good luck getting people to rally around the cause of removing water from the atmosphere. It's a ridiculous notion.
"You lack vision, but I see a place where people get on and off the freeway. On and off, off and on all day, all night.... Tire salons, automobile dealerships and wonderful, wonderful billboards reaching as far as the eye can see. My God, it'll be beautiful." -- Judge Doom
Res Ipsa wrote:Please read what I write. I didn't say that the amount is irrelevant. I said the amount isn't the only factor. Are you claiming that the percentage of a greenhouse gas in the atmosphere is the only factor that determines the greenhouse effect of doubling it in the atmosphere? Or is there more to it?
When you are talking about gases that represent mere parts per million and billion, it is very fair to state they have negligible effects on global warming. Water vapor represents often 4% of the atmosphere per volume. If there is a greenhouse gas of significance, that is the one. And as I've also pointed out, good luck getting people to rally around the cause of removing water from the atmosphere. It's a ridiculous notion.
I'm trying to answer your question about significance, one step at a time. I can't if you won't explicitly state what you are actually claiming. Please clarify: are you claiming that the percentage volume of a given gas that currently exists in the atmosphere is the only factor that determines how much the atmospheric temperature will warm if the concentration of that gas is doubled?
“The ideal subject of totalitarian rule is not the convinced Nazi or the dedicated communist, but people for whom the distinction between fact and fiction, true and false, no longer exists.”
― Hannah Arendt, The Origins of Totalitarianism, 1951
Res Ipsa wrote:I'm trying to answer your question about significance, one step at a time. I can't if you won't explicitly state what you are actually claiming. Please clarify: are you claiming that the percentage volume of a given gas that currently exists in the atmosphere is the only factor that determines how much the atmospheric temperature will warm if the concentration of that gas is doubled?
But that is the thing. We AREN'T talking about percentages!!! We are talking about green house gases that are measured in microscopic amounts in parts per MILLION and parts per BILLION. Even if you double or triple the amount of these gases (which would take CENTURIES) in the atmosphere, it isn't a meaningful amount in comparison to a green house gas like water vapor. Again, that is where understanding significant numbers is important here (and you still don't recognize it).
"You lack vision, but I see a place where people get on and off the freeway. On and off, off and on all day, all night.... Tire salons, automobile dealerships and wonderful, wonderful billboards reaching as far as the eye can see. My God, it'll be beautiful." -- Judge Doom
Res Ipsa wrote:I'm trying to answer your question about significance, one step at a time. I can't if you won't explicitly state what you are actually claiming. Please clarify: are you claiming that the percentage volume of a given gas that currently exists in the atmosphere is the only factor that determines how much the atmospheric temperature will warm if the concentration of that gas is doubled?
But that is the thing. We AREN'T talking about percentages!!! We are talking about green house gases that are measured in microscopic amounts in parts per MILLION and parts per BILLION. Even if you double or triple the amount of these gases (which would take CENTURIES) in the atmosphere, it isn't a meaningful amount in comparison to a green house gas like water vapor. Again, that is where understanding significant numbers is important here (and you still don't recognize it).
.04% is a percentage. Now, yes or no: is the ability of a greenhouse gas to warm the atmosphere dependent only on how much of it there is in the atmosphere?
“The ideal subject of totalitarian rule is not the convinced Nazi or the dedicated communist, but people for whom the distinction between fact and fiction, true and false, no longer exists.”
― Hannah Arendt, The Origins of Totalitarianism, 1951
Res Ipsa wrote:.04% is a percentage. Now, yes or no: is the ability of a greenhouse gas to warm the atmosphere dependent only on how much of it there is in the atmosphere?
It isn't a percentage. It's a fraction of a percent. Obviously it doesn't compute for you, but the 4 major gases N2, O2, H2O, and Ar make up virtually all of the atmosphere. The remaining trace gases don't even add up together to 1% of the atmosphere.
Unless you have something meaningful to say here, I'm going to ignore what you have to say. It is obvious to anyone with a remedial education that 400 PPM is an insignificant number in comparison to 4%. The fact you can't acknowledge that means either you are retarded or simply unable to acknowledge the facts. In either event, I find any further discussion with someone like you pointless.
"You lack vision, but I see a place where people get on and off the freeway. On and off, off and on all day, all night.... Tire salons, automobile dealerships and wonderful, wonderful billboards reaching as far as the eye can see. My God, it'll be beautiful." -- Judge Doom