1- you're not very good at doing research, are you Dave? Not that very many parrots are. The source comes from the EPA and DOE. 2- and you just comfirmed that you're an idiot. "Anthropogenic (man-made) CO2 contributions cause only about 0.117% of Earth's greenhouse effect, (factoring in water vapor)." It's right there in your link.
There's nothing wrong with admitting that I don't understand something. But thank you for your 1994 link, as I have now read the sentence that you deleted, and here it is: "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." If by % contribution from CO2, you mean "heating rate", then you can read the sentence that I just posted above, the one you specifically did not post.
...interesting, since the r2 from the correlations I did earlier was .85, which would take in, then, CO2 and some portion of the water vapor contribution, which makes sense since, obviously, the hotter it gets the more water vapor you get. (Actually an oversimplification, since methane and HFC's also contribute.) Multiple lines of evidence coming together. Cool. Or hot, as the case may be.
Thanks! I found it now. No, it is not sourced from the EPA -- it is from public comments that have been sent to them. In other words, letters to the editor. Secondly, it was sent by "Bill Allen" -- who is Bill Allen? I can't really tell, he does not seem to have any qualifications listed. Thirdly, he ignores that your original study claims that CO2 lasts in the atmosphere about 200 years while H20 rains out in about ten days. Fourthly, in his table three, for example, he introduces a number of 95% for the how much of the "global warming effect" is caused by water vapor. This number is wrong. (I mean, how could it be right when we've already seen that CO2 is responsible for 80% in the stratosphere?) He introduces that number without support -- and actually cites others: âSolar Radiation Absorption by Carbon Dioxide, Overlap with Water, and a Parameterization for General Circulation Models,â Journal of Geophysical Research 98(1993):7255-7264 A quick check of their paper and their statement "refers ONLY to the solar radiation absorption, not the long wave absorption (which is much larger)." Yeah, my wife says that too. Yes, if you use the incorrect 95% number pulled out of context from a ten year old paper, which ignores a huge amount of energy absorption, and then multiply percents by percents to ostensibly come up with something that was supposedly meaningful.
You're right, plus CO2 combined with water vapor has higher radiative absorption than CO2 or H2O alone -- I have a table which shows this if you're interested (and if I can find it again!)
Because there have been over twenty studies of the oceans and there has been no decrease in CO2 in oceans found which would be true if it was emitting CO2. The only other place that it can be being emitted from is the land...
Also that it's not from the DOE at all, but from a letter to the editor, by a guy without any qualifications listed, who assumes an incorrect number taken out of context cited from a ten year old paper.
Dave you never cease to amaze me. Did you miss the memo that stratosphere temperature have been decreasing: "WMO (1999) concluded, on the basis of intercomparisons of the temperature records as measured by different instruments, that there has been a distinct cooling of the global mean temperature of the lower stratosphere over the past two decades, with a value of about 0.5°C/decade. " http://www.grida.no/publications/other/ipcc_tar/?src=/climate/ipcc_tar/wg1/223.htm If stratospheric temperatures are decreasing they obviously aren't the driving mechanism of the increasing ocean temperatures and thus we only need to be concerned about global warming occurring in the troposphere.