Global warming-fact or fiction and how do you propose we tackle it?

[famousringo]

Linkzmax said:

famousringo said:

 

I don't see how the bolded assertion refutes anything. The causal relationship of each event on the other is implied as the explanation describes a feedback loop between temperature and CO2 levels. It doesn't really matter which cause has more of an effect on the other, as the loop keeps feeding on itself.

I'm puzzled by your assertion that manmade CO2 emmissions are miniscule. I guess this chart would be why:

 

Do you have different data on global CO2 levels which contradicts this?

I wasn't only speaking about CO2, but while it is higher than ever before that doesn't prove that the majority of the contributions areman-made.

http://mysite.verizon.net/mhieb/WVFossils/greenhouse_data.html seems a bit outdated, as some of its sources have been updated, but it points to ~5% of greenhouse gases being man-made, and only ~.3% once you include water vapor which is by FAR the biggest greenhouse gas.

http://illconsidered.blogspot.com/2006/02/climate-scientists-hide-water-vapor.html 

I love this resource. It really does cover prett ymuch everything.

"There is no climate model or climate textbook that does not discuss the role water vapor plays in the Greenhouse Effect. It is the strongest Greenhouse gas, contributing 66% to 85% to the overall effect when you include clouds, 36% - 66% for vapor alone. It is however, not considered as a climate "forcing" because the amount of H2O in the air varies basically as a function of temperature. If you artificially increase the level of H2O in the air, it rains out immediately (in terms of climate response times), similarily, due to the abundance of sea surface, if you somehow removed water from the air it would quickly be replaced through evaporation. This has the interesting consequence that if one could somehow instantly remove all CO2 from the atmosphere, the temperature would begin to drop, causing percipitation to remove H2O from the air causing even further drops, in a feedback effect that would not end until no water was left unfrozen on the ground.

CO2 put into the air by burning fossil fuels, on the other hand, has an atmospheric lifetime of centuries before natural sinks will significantly absorb any excess from the air. This is plenty of time to have substantial and even longer lasting effects of the climate system."

 Your link's references don't check out on the 95% figure. In fact, it looks like he's deliberately misrepresenting the facts. Here's one of his citations for his 95% figure:

http://www.eia.doe.gov/cneaf/alternate/page/environment/appd_d.html 

"Given the present composition of the atmosphere, the contribution to the total heating rate in the troposphere is around 5 percent from carbon dioxide and around 95 percent from water vapor. In the stratosphere, the contribution is about 80 percent from carbon dioxide and about 20 percent from water vapor. It is important to remember, however, that it is currently believed that the impact of water vapor produced from surface sources such as fuel combustion on the atmospheric water vapor concentrations is minimal."

The article also contains a table which suggests that CO2 is responsible for 12% of the total greenhouse effect. 

The important thing is that the change in the magnitude of the greenhouse effect is being driven by other gases. Even if those 5% or 0.3% numbers were correct, once such a change starts occuring, feedback loops in a destabilized climate can magnify the effect. Small-seeming numbers can be very significant indeed.