The dew point is reported all the time and it varies hour by hour. And where the most sun shines the dew point remains where, over 60F 70F. So how many parts of H20, just water vapor phase are in the atmosphere absorbing IR by the same process of CO2. Yes H20 absorbs a far greater range of wavelengths and most of the few CO2 wavelengths somewhat.

Well I have charted the h20 PPM by dew point. http://toms.homeip.net/global_warming/what-the-hell-is-air.html
The scientific frame work behind the chart is the Goff-Gratch equations to relate Temperture to the Saturation water vapor pressure. Then just Ideal gas law to ratio moles of h20 to moles of air at 101325 Pascals pressure.

Basically, a dewpoint of 60F has 17,434 PPM of H20, 70F is 24,705 PPM and 80 is 34,501 PPM If you go to my
http://toms.homeip.net/global_warming/unisys/toms-unisys.html page, I have the latest USA are Surface Dewpoint Plot.
The link to the current plot is this. http://weather.unisys.com/surface/sfc_con_dewp.gif

So as we go from the southern US into the tropics the dewpoint goes to 80F and higher. 24,705 PPM H20 and higer. Those latitudes are the fattest of the earth and the get the most direct, the energy per square meter of the planet.
So how does the 1 part in 10,000 of CO2 overwhelm the over 240 and more parts of H20 always in the atmosphere.

The disparity of the ratio is so huge, I cannot fathom how any one comes up with effects hundreds to thousands of times larger than the material.

If you wish a for an education on the physics and history of the greenhouse effect, Two PHD’s in physics have written an outstanding paper. Now these guys are German. http://www.tsch.de/recent_falsification_v2/

The article discusses “three research findings that are in the peer reviewed literature, but have been completely ignored by the IPCC and CCSP climate assessment communities, nor have been refuted in the literature. These are just three examples of the level to which the scientific method has sunk to in climate science.”

“Globe is warming, it is man made, it is going to be bad, and people should quick about taking responsibility for theire own future.”

The globe is warming. Well, yes it is, about 0.6 to 0.8 degrees C over a century. Consider that catastrophic or not, its up to you.

It is man made. Some of it may well be, we pave great chunks of the landscape in asphalt and concrete absorbing and radiating heat.

It is going to be bad. Why? If we believe Al Gore, it will be catastrophic. But in reality, the earth has seen higher avergae temperatures in the past and most species of plants and animals have survived. Past interglacial periods have been warmer than today. In this interglacial period there have been at least 3 warming periods prior to the current slight warming. In the Roman Warm Period, temperatures were higher than now. The Micean Warm Period was up to 5 degrees warmer than today. Yet here we are, unscathed by such warming. The polar bears evolved about 100,000 years ago, they survived the last glacial period and the warmer-than-today periods in our recent past. The biggest threat to non-human species is human caused environmental destruction like stripping firewood from woodlots to cook tonight’s dinner in 3rd world countries, or the mowing down of rainforests to satisfy the environmentalists demands for biofuels. Birds suffer from the huge wind mills we erect to satisfy the demands for green electricity. None of these things have anything to do with increasing temperature. The current “bad” thing is the new syndrome which seems to afflicting those who worry about global warming.

People should quick about taking responsibility for their own future. Yes they should. We should do just that. But Al Gore and other environmentalists want to take that responsibilty away from people and put it into the hands of some supra-national quasi-governmental agency that will govern what you and I are free to do. This is not taking responsibility for our own futures, this is abdicating responsibility.

In short, temperatures go up and they go down, the last 12 months have seen a relatively large COOLING. The IPCC has stated that nature has temporarily stalled warming, but they are sure that it will start up again in 10 years or so. Maybe, maybe not.

In the past 100 years or so, we have seen catastrophic and world ending global cooling, world ending global warming, cooling again, and now warming. We view the world with a very short memory. We don’t have climate records for the last 5 billion years. We see things change and assume that its all bad. Had the dinosaurs not died out, we would not be here. If the globe had not warmed substantially 15,000 years ago, Canada and a good portion of the USA would still be under several kilometres of ice. I consider those events to be good things. Species come and species go, without any help from Homo Sapiens. Gore says that 2,000,000 species will go extinct in the next 50 years, that’s about 40,000 per year, yet nobody can point find all the bodies. Sea levels are supposed to rise between 20 feet (Gore) and 80 feet (Hansen) but they don’t give a time frame, maybe in the next interglacial. Even the IPCC states that sea level rise might be 5 inches… in 1,000 years. Glaciers are melting, and some are growing. Oddly, the growing ones don’t get the same attention as their melting cousins.

There are more important issues facing the world right now than global warming. Every day 30,000 people starve to death, on a planet where obesity is now an epidemic. 4.5 million children in 3rd world countries die every year from lung disease secondary to inhaling wood smoke from indoor cooking fires. Malaria and AIDS afflict hundreds of millions of people. Malaria is not a warm places disease, it is a poor places disease, it should be remembered that tens of thousands of people died from malaria in Archangle in Siberia, you need an ice breaker on the sea there for 6 months of the year. We could remediate most, if not all of these problems with a far smaller outlay of cash than Kyotophils demand we spend on averting about 0.08 degrees C over the next 50 years.

So, yes, I do agree that we do need to take responsibility for our own futures. By demanding that our governments and the UN address the real problems, not global warming.

If you want the most fundamental reason, it is that this isn’t the purpose of the peer review process.

Peer review is a means used by journals to filter out the worst of the rubbish – by checking that the results reported are new, interesting, appropriate to the journal’s topic, and appears to be competently done. Essentially, the question is “is this something our readers would want to read?” Except in a few special cases, it is not the usual practice to actually check the correctness of the work in detail, or to chase up every reference to see that it says what it is claimed to.

The way science is supposed to work is that scientists publish and then other scientists try to reproduce the result, falsify it, extend it, or improve it. If somebody can find something wrong with it, they publish that and science moves forwards. If it survives all challenges unscathed, the result becomes accepted and science moves forwards. But as a general rule, papers in scientific journals should only be considered to be tentative works-in-progress, not to be trusted – especially recent ones. Them publishing and us finding holes in it is the way it is supposed to operate. Presenting settled science is the role of textbooks.

Unfortunately, human nature is imperfect, and you often get academic hacks who play politics with it – who manoeuvre their way onto funding committees, onto journal editorial boards, who get a reputation as ‘the expert’ in a subject who is consulted on all matters pertaining to it, and then seek to bend the scientific process to their own advantage. (Not generally out of malice or greed, but simply because they think they’re right and want the right side to win.) They have a greater tendency than usual to take peer-review and conformity with consensus as sources of authority, since they control them and rely on them for their power. Usually they can be circumvented easily, but not always. And sometimes it can all go horribly wrong.

Basically, if anyone demands “peer-review” as a source of authority, it is virtually certain that they either don’t know how the peer-review process actually works, or they know all too well, but have it rigged in their favour. In either case, you shouldn’t pay much attention to them. Peer-review is a plus, but a weak one. Only the content of the argument – the quality of evidence and its ability to withstand a determined sceptical assault – really matters in science.

Well, we know through FOI requests that scientists have not participated in a peer-review process. They have just signed an acceptance document with no comments (http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=1589 et al).

Another reason is that, because there is no peer review process, the scientists miss obvious holes which we find, and then they have to correct (http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=1885).

So, if someome independent were not checking them, all these mistakes would just be ignored…

About the typos:
Yea, I know I make a lot of ‘em, its mostly due to poor light conditions during evening posts
Thats why I was complaining there is no edit button.

‘
old construction worker

Hmm what part of the CO2 drives the climate theory could Hansen defend?
CO2 leads temperature— no, CO2 lag temperature-observed data
Upper troposphere warming faster than the surface— no, not happening-observed data
Oceans are warming— no, oceans cooling as CO2 increased- observed data
Water vaper positive feedback — no, darn that Spencer–observed data”

Says it very succinctly, I think.
One last detail, is that, though there is the GHG/CO2 hypothesis, there is nowhere to be found any definitive paper showing experimental as opposed to climate model data which proves the warming is (a) all due to CO2 and (b) that all of the CO2 increase is due to man. Indeed, there is almost certainly an anthropogenic influence, but it is largely due to the fact the the population and change of land use has seen a dramatic increase over the last 100 years.
Steve McIntyre at ClimateAudit has been looking for this for a long time and over at the forum, jae has just started this thread
http://www.climateaudit.org/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=4&t=404
You might care to check it and CA generally for more information.

Keep on trying to learn and don’t be bothered if you don’t always agree with someone just try to learn from their position. Use science to attempt to find your own conclusion but don’t by any means count heads and let the majority rule. Remember that at one time the consensus was that the earth was flat and we now are suspicious that maybe it isn’t. I personally believe that it is spherical. make up your own mind after time in the books but check many sources.

Bill Derryberry