uk.environment

On Sep 24, 11:22 am, Whata Fool wrote:
> On Mon, 24 Sep 2007 12:55:09 GMT, "altheim" wrote:
> >Also... the water vapour argument is a con because atmosphere
> >can contain only so much water in the range between zero to
> >saturated. It has always been that way - it does not show a
> >consistent increase over time as CO2 does.
>
> Do you have a link to data that shows zero water vapor?
>
> The very fact that dry air warms faster than moist air is
> contradictory to global warming, which supposedly predicts
> warmer temperatures and more moisture.
>
> There is no argument that water vapor only provides more
> "greenhouse effect", water and water vapor is a stabilizing process
> that tempers the temperatures, provides a great deal of transport
> of thermal energy higher toward space, as clouds or liquid on the
> surface radiates broadband IR resulting in much greater cooling
> energy transfer, and completely overwhelms any "greenhouse
> effect" of CO2 and the other trace gases.
>
> The talk of one or two degrees warming is silly when the
> temperature can vary by 10 or 20 degrees with differences in
> relative humidity, cloud cover, wind speed and direction, and
> ground moisture, or even proximity to large bodies of water.
>
> In other words, the science is not concerned with science,
> it is only concerned with what a thermometer reads, as if that
> is an intrinsic measurement of energy.

Get your head outta yer ass and take a look around.