http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/greenh...
Table 1 refers to greenhouse gas concentrations from this source.
http://cdiac.ornl.gov/pns/current_ghg.ht...
The original source does not give any source attribution. The numbers taken from the original source are transcribed incorrectly. The article quotes a 5% greenhouse gas contribution from CO2. The original paper gives 5% in clouds and 12% overall. Can an article that misquotes its sources be taken seriously?
Additional Details
4 days ago
grovesmuk: Your numbers for anthropogenic CO2 are far from those given in the scientific literature.Stuiver, M., Burk, R. L. and Quay, P. D. 1984. 13C/12C ratios and the transfer of biospheric carbon to the atmosphere. J. Geophys. Res. 89, 1731–1748.
Francey, R.J., Allison, C.E., Etheridge, D.M., Trudinger, C.M., Enting, I.G., Leuenberger, M., Langenfelds, R.L., Michel, E., Steele, L.P., 1999. A 1000-year high precision record of d13Cin atmospheric CO2. Tellus 51B, 170–193.
Quay, P.D., B. Tilbrook, C.S. Wong. Oceanic uptake of fossil fuel CO2: carbon-13 evidence. Science 256 (1992), 74-79
What is your source?
%26lt;%26lt;Monte Hieb has worked as chief engineer for the West Virginia Office of Miner’s Safety. I hope you understand that the coal mining industry is not a reliable source for debate on climate change. Clearly, Monte Hieb is not a climate scientist (though he seems to be an enthusiastic amateur fossil-hound with a really nice web site on W VA fossils.%26gt;%26gt;
You%26#039;ve already posted Monte Hieb%26#039;s position on water vapor.
Here are real scientists on water vapor. http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=1... (hat tip to Felix Salmon at RGE Monitor)
i know that you already know.
%26quot;look at the source.%26quot;
however, although you do, there are lots of folks who don%26#039;t care about the source, as long as it supports their prejudices.
[ and they all get to vote, unfortunately. :( ]
however, it would be good to point out that this is distraction.
even bush admitted that AGW is a problem, and should be addressed.
everytime we go back and revisit %26quot;is it a problem%26quot; it distracts forward progress.
but then the other side of the coin is, if we don%26#039;t revisit these old myths, there will be people who still think they are/might be valid.
Most of the citations for the 95% are sources like Global Deception: The Exaggeration of the Global Warming Threat by Dr. Patrick J. Michaels, Personal Communication-- Dr. Richard S. Lindzen, etc.
No bias there!
Just goes to show, when you set out trying to prove a conclusion, you can cherrypick the information necessary to prove it. Or just incorrectly cite sources to %26quot;prove%26quot; the point, as is the case in Table 1. The website is titled %26quot;Plant Fossils of West Virginia%26quot; and doesn%26#039;t give information on who runs it.
The site is also the host of the infamously misleading %26quot;global warming test%26quot; as well.
http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/GlobWa...
This is just a great example why you need to get your scientific information from valid scientific sources (i.e. NASA, NOAA, Hadley, AGU, etc.), not from random websites or blogs written by people with clear agendas and no expertise.