Doh! Now you see if you're going to post a link you really need to read the whole article (that is assuming you weren't just posting the bits from it that backed your argument..) And when you do you will see this little snippet:
Water vapor accounts for the largest percentage of the greenhouse effect, between 36% and 66% for water vapor alone, and between 66% and 85% when factoring in clouds.[8] Water vapor concentrations fluctuate regionally, but human activity does not significantly affect water vapor concentrations except at local scales, such as near irrigated fields. According to the Environmental Health Center of the National Safety Council, water vapor constitutes as much as 2% of the atmosphere.[31]
So, between 66-85% including clouds, and you'll note that clouds are what I have been referring to all along. Then of course this is a general pro-climate change article. In reports by Svensmark (in his book, The Chilling Stars) who is the acknowledged specialist in this field, he cites 90-95% and I don't know about you, but I prefer to listen to specialists...
You'll also note that it states at the end that water vapour (so this is not even including the droplets found in cloud formations) accounts for 2% of the entire atmosphere. As is well recognized, water vapour is a more effecient greenhouse gas than CO2 - so with CO2 at 0.04% and water vapour at 2%, disregarding everything else, including solar and cosmic ray activity, isn't it logical to assume that water vapour has 50 times more influence on climate change than CO2? And in fact much more when you factor in it's potency above CO2 as a greenhouse gas. Of course you mention equilibrium, and as there is no evidence at all as to how increases in anthropogenic CO2 could alter the equilibrium as a sole trigger within the natural system of climate change, we'll just have to ignore it won't we..
Various 'value adjusted' Ice core graphs..
Ahh, ice core samples....
Surely you're not suggesting that what was happening in Antartica regarding temperature and CO2 is representative of what was happening globally are you?? It's the only evidence scientists have, but it's very unlikely that it's an accurate reflection of what was happening in the rest of the World - and in fact what's happening in Antartica at the moment proves this.
The other important point is that their absolute accuracy cannot be verified as there are no standard measurements to compare them against - it's back to pick a figure and choose what you want it to prove again...
Anf if you want to talk about mean temperatures why not look at trends over the last 2,000 years rather than just at the point we came out of the Litte Ice Age in the mid 1800's? (From the lowest point on the graph you could find..) Oh, I know, it's because it doesn't support your argument..
Try this
So Global temperatures have been higher in the last 2,000 years on a number of occasions than they are today. So what you have described is not 'the overall trend showing the mean increasing.' but instead a return to normal Global historic temperatures..
And guess what? Anthropogenic CO2 didn't trigger those warm periods either...
I think you'll find that the creationist tag suits you more than it does me... someone who is prepared to believe in things that have no foundation in fact whatsoever...
Bookmarks