That was a bit of a long post don't you think?
Anyway, the absolute truth is that water vapor indeed, does make up that vast, vast majority of the greenhouse gasses. And, Thank God, otherwise the earth would not be warm enough to support life as we know it.
If your tendency is to see the atmosphere as a glass which is 99.99% full, the impact of addinig or removing .001% appears to be irrelvant.
My tendency - which also more corresponds with the reality - is to visualize the atmosphere and the entire ecosphere as a balance. It happens to be a balance that has some self-correcting mechanisms, but if you add too much weight on one side too fast, you throw off the whole thing. The amount of weight may or may not be .001%. If humans are piling on more weight to what may already be some natural warming the possibility that we will throw off the whole thing for a very long time clearly exists.
Will have to read the remainder of the post later. Will also find you some links to back up what I just wrote.
By the way, I am definitely enjoying our exchanges.
I am enjoying the exchange also. I think of the exchange as a good motivator to seek the "Truth" with respect to "global warming".
Since I am an amateur gardner, I am familiar with greenhouses and coldframes. These special structures are designed to capture solar heat reflected from the soil that would otherwise be lost. The undersurface of the glass panes reflect heat back into the air beneath them, thereby warming that air. That warm air then heats the soil. The unseasonally warm soil allows seeds to germinate earlier than "normal".
In a way, the "global warming theory" considers the Earth to be a giant "greenhouse" with the atmosphere serving to capture reflected solar heat, thereby allowing surface temperatures to be warm enough to support life as we know it. I am not aware of any scientific disagreement on this point.
But the "global warming theory" then postulates that measured increases in atmospheric concentrations of CO2 (carbon dioxide) have lead to increased temperatures on the Earth -- and finally postulates that a continuation of this the warming will cause dangerous, if not catastrophic, effects.
I am an amateur scientist, so I was eager to test the first postulate: Is it true that, in a mannner similar to a real greenhouse, the measurable increase in CO2 in our atmosphere has produced a measurable increase in the temperature of the atmosphere.
If so, then the continuing build-up of CO2 in the atmosphere implies that the temperature of the earth will rise due to an increased "greenhouse effect".
If not, then the continuing build-up of CO2 is of no importance.
With that background, I found this study by Dr. Spencer of NASA to be very interesting:
I am enjoying the exchange also. I think of the exchange as a good motivator to seek the "Truth" with respect to "global warming".
Since I am an amateur gardner, I am familiar with greenhouses and coldframes. These special structures are designed to capture solar heat reflected from the soil that would otherwise be lost. The undersurface of the glass panes reflect heat back into the air beneath them, thereby warming that air. That warm air then heats the soil. The unseasonally warm soil allows seeds to germinate earlier than "normal".
In a way, the "global warming theory" considers the Earth to be a giant "greenhouse" with the atmosphere serving to capture reflected solar heat, thereby allowing surface temperatures to be warm enough to support life as we know it. I am not aware of any scientific disagreement on this point.
But the "global warming theory" then postulates that measured increases in atmospheric concentrations of CO2 (carbon dioxide) have lead to increased temperatures on the Earth -- and finally postulates that a continuation of this the warming will cause dangerous, if not catastrophic, effects.
I am an amateur scientist, so I was eager to test the first postulate: Is it true that, in a mannner similar to a real greenhouse, the measurable increase in CO2 in our atmosphere has produced a measurable increase in the temperature of the atmosphere.
If so, then the continuing build-up of CO2 in the atmosphere implies that the temperature of the earth will rise due to an increased "greenhouse effect".
If not, then the continuing build-up of CO2 is of no importance.
With that background, I found this study by Dr. Spencer of NASA to be very interesting: