Interesting read, would be interested in hearing a peer review, I just don't know what to think, Certainly there is change afoot, but I do wonder if it is a case of human arrogance to suggest we have had that big an effect.
Ask yourself what are they trying to sell. Gibson Smith is former head of BP, BP sells fossil fuels, of course he will try to bamboozle people with outdated and discredited theories.
Interesting, have you got a source for this as I would love to read more.Yes water vapour is the biggest cause of the green house effect and the planet would be 33 degrees cooler without it.
The above article attributes 25 of the 33 degrees to water vapour so about 76 % .
NASA use the figure of 75% but they do like to ignore clouds and water vapour and only talk about greenhouse gases.
However NASA (Gavin Schmidt of the Goddard Institute) have now realised that the computer climate models are running too hot - they have overestimated the warming due to CO2 and underestimated natural causes.
So it is very likely that water vapour is responsible for more than 75% - this diagram suggests 95%
View attachment 980361
The 33 degrees is not disputed by either side of the AGW v Natural warming debate - the only arguments are how much is water vapour+clouds vs green house gases and how much of each are man made.Interesting, have you got a source for this as I would love to read more.
Increasing CO2 increases water vapourYes water vapour is the biggest cause of the green house effect and the planet would be 33 degrees cooler without it.
The above article attributes 25 of the 33 degrees to water vapour so about 76 % .
NASA use the figure of 75% but they do like to ignore clouds and water vapour and only talk about greenhouse gases.
However NASA (Gavin Schmidt of the Goddard Institute) have now realised that the computer climate models are running too hot - they have overestimated the warming due to CO2 and underestimated natural causes.
So it is very likely that water vapour is responsible for more than 75% - this diagram suggests 95%
View attachment 980361
Chicken and Egg - which came first ?Increasing CO2 increases water vapour
I've seen the comment elsewhere that if, say, the IPCC got their way and the world started seriously reducing CO2 emissions, after 10 years of effort, two or three volcanic eruptions would negate it all.
Chicken and Egg - which came first ?
Al gore famously produced a graph of the vostok ice core samples showing temperature and CO2 both rise during an interglacial and fall during an ice age.
What he conveniently omitted to explain was that CO2 lagged temperature by 600-800 years.
So when the atmosphere warms ,it is capable of holding more water vapour and as the seas warm more CO2 is released in to the atmosphere.
With £Trillions in the Oil Industry, £Trillions in the Energy industry and £Trillions in the food industry.
Do you seriously think Climate Change Policy is about pollution ?
It's all about moving lots and lots and lots of money into the pockets of a very small number of people at the expense of everyone else - who just so happen to be MPs and ex MPs.
Like Lord Deben.
Do they not call this a feedback loop ?Chicken and Egg - which came first ?
Al gore famously produced a graph of the vostok ice core samples showing temperature and CO2 both rise during an interglacial and fall during an ice age.
What he conveniently omitted to explain was that CO2 lagged temperature by 600-800 years.
So when the atmosphere warms ,it is capable of holding more water vapour and as the seas warm more CO2 is released in to the atmosphere.