Warm, and Safe.
This entry was posted on Sunday, December 16th, 2007 at 7:24 am by Matt Davies.
You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed.
Share and Enjoy: 
| 
| 
Loading ...
Leave a Reply
It is a condition of your use of the comment features associated with the blogs that you do not: Use the site to post or transmit any unlawful, threatening, abusive, libelous, defamatory, obscene, vulgar, pornographic, profane or indecent information of any kind, including without limitation any transmissions constituting or encouraging conduct that would constitute a criminal offense, give rise to civil liability or otherwise violate any local, state, national or international law. You alone are responsible for the material you post or send. Refer to the
Terms of Service.
(9 votes, average: 4.22 out of 5)
Carbon dioxide is a minor contributor to the green house effect and global warming. Water
vapor is the overwhelmingly predominant contributor. But please don't take my word for it. These statements can be verified by
searching the web for keywords such as: Water Vapor Global Warming or Water Vapor Greenhouse. The search will yield abundant well qualified opinions on the topic. Of particular interest is:
http://mysite.verizon.net/mhieb/WVFossils/greenhouse_data.html
The public and politicians are very poorly informed about the role of water vapor in global
warming. That says something quite serious about the absence of integrity in the academic
and media communities.
Ralph Coffin
Altadena Ca
Ralph—you should at least do a quickie background check on the author before you quote his screed as being "well qualified opinions". Monte Hieb works for the coal industry, is not a climatologist, and his opinions do not seem to be held in particularly high regard.
Yes, water vapor may be one contributing factor to global warming (although clouds seem to have a cooling effect), but it hardly rates up there with CO2 and methane. The general consensus is that we have to stop digging carbon out of the ground and putting it into the atmosphere—whether it be coal, oil, or natural gas.v
-jp
jp resorts to smear tactics to denigrate Mr. Heib's well written article.
Several dictionarys define a "climatologist" as anyone who studies climatology, which can be anybody.
jp also fails to define who it is that holds Mr. Heib's work in low regard. Presumably, that is jp, but who else?
jp's opinion that water vapor "hardly rates up there with CO2 and methane" is in direct contradiction to Mr. Heib's conclusions, but jp doesn't supply any supporting research to even come close to Mr. Heib's well documented article.
Certainly, jp owes us more that just referring to some amorphous "general consensus" if he is to be taken seriously.