Also, when you expand the timeline to 100s of millions of years, there is hardly any correlation between temperature and CO2. I think I remember seeing a chart on this very site back in March or April when I was just a lurker. I'll try and find it later if anyone is interested.

About the water vapor, water cycle is counted in only days, max of weeks, when methane is decades and carbon dioxide centuries. That's why vater vapor isn't seen so bad thing, and besides, due to its quick cycle, water actually transmits heat to upper atmosphere, where it can radiate into space, and when rain falls, it cools down the surface. So, it's actually not an easy thing to say, that what all the effects of certain substance are.

there are 6 options.

Climate change is not man-made and we try and fix it - All the effects happen
Climate change is not man-made and we do nothing - All the effects happen

Climate change is man-made and we try and fix it - We reduce the severity
Climate change is man-made and we do nothing - All the effects happen

Climate change is not real and we try and fix it - Nothing happens
Climate change is not realand we do nothing - Nothing happens

Therefore even if we can do nothing about it, we should try as the only difference is when we try and fix it.

Not this again, I thought we had learned in the other thread that we can't agree with each other.

Global Warming is annoying because now it just means 1 more 'important' subject to study at school!!!!! ARGHHHHHHHHHHHHH!



Why cant the world get over it and just treat it as something natural occuring in the atmosphere and ecosystem. Why get your undies in a bunch over weather patterns.

Reduce waste, packaging should all be biodegradable for example.

Reduce car usage, public transit needs improvement in major countries (Canada especially)

Build windmills in the middle of major highways between medians.

Improve on LED technology for home lighting. (CFL's are ok for some people but contain mercury which is bad for the environment)

Put a max wattage on home electronics. Computers can use no more then 100 watts for example. Game consoles no more then 20... etc...

Some easy examples...

Global Warming is happening, but i believe the earth goes in cycles, I mean come on my dad was taught that an ice age was coming in the 1970s, and the graphs with the temperature going up are pure BS, its because the soviet stations in the north shut down during the fall, and the sun spot cycles also play in it.

Id tackle it by making the clean alternatives more efficient and cheaper, but not making any laws. But come on, even if everyone gets clean energy they'll bitch about something else.  

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.

my views haven't changed since last time:

 You know why I have the biggest problem with people who talk about global warming? It's because, invariably, some yutzpa will go "Global warming is proven undisputed FACT" this is the same problem I have with Atheism and the THEORY of Evolution being viewed as factual.

They have never been scientifically PROVEN. They are all THEORIES. They are theories that have been around for a while now, but they have never been proven. Yet they still are constantly being touted about as if they've somehow run an experiment on god's existence or making a planet hot, or watched a species for millions of years and come up with results on these that prove them.

Now for teh moment, we're just on global warming, so lets go with that:

Can we prove global warming exists? Sure

Can we prove that the source is Man's fault? No

Can we prove that the planet won't go back to normal on it's own? No

Can we prove that this ISN'T normal for the planet? No

Can we prove that, other than a few odd weather anomalies, global warming is actually having any disasterous effect on the earth? No

Can we prove what specifically needs to be done to ensure the earth's safety? NO

No scientist would ever be able to find these things out without having immortality and a time machine.

NOBODY FUCKING KNOWS HOW THE EARTH WORKS!! Until you can predict what the weather will be next year on this day, who the next president will be in 20 years, and what the winning lottery is tomorrow, you will never KNOW any of these answers. You can give me all the statistical data you want, but you will NEVER PROVE anything.

Debate global warming as a theory, fine. I got no problems with that. Even a likely and standardly accepted theory, but if you expect me to accept this all as fact, you've already failed the first test of credulity, because you've already either lied to me, or lied to yourself.