If the previous AGW findings of Christianson & Gale (1999) are just more stories to you I do not see why I should provide you my main source!
I stated methane is another green house gas that causes global warming. On molecular level I stated that it is 10 times worse. You stated (without sources) that it is 30 times worse but that this effect would fade should methane be as widespread as CO2.
At which point I pointed to you why I was emphasizing methane as an interesting alternative AGW gas. The article then was removed due to the Debate's Saturday Malfunction issue.
So now I would like to re-post the removed article for it is my main source for this debate. But are you serious and interested? I do not wish to throw this out there to people who consider sources without reading that they are just "another AGW unfounded story!"
That is not an article. It is a book on history of warming... A story...Christianson, G. (1999). Greenhouse: The 200 year story of global warming. Walker and Company
You keep referring to it and are incorrect in the only fact you state. How about quoting other facts?
You say CH4 is 10 time stringer than CO2 molecvile per molecule. At current levels, CH4 is more than 30 time stronger. You are off aby a factor of 3. Why should I attempt to read the book, when that fact is so far off?
I have already stated I could find the first chapter in that book, and it didn't peak my interest to go out to pay money to read more of it.
Care to quote the pertinent parts?
My God man. It's not an article. It's a book:Originally Posted by DDD post #131
link: Greenhouse: The 200-Year Story of Global Warming
#143:Greenhouse is the illuminating history behind a scientific idea that fills's today's headlines. Christianson, author of Edwin Hubble: Mariner of the Nebulae, blends the research of a scholar with a novelist's storytelling skill. As the full range of its elements come into focus, global warming becomes both a memorable human drama and an integral part of our planet's history. An essential book for anyone interested in the history of science and the very nature of scientific inquiry and speculation.
Originally Posted by Lord of Planar post #143
I did address this. It is the FACT that even us climate skeptics accept what the IPCC and other alarmists mean when they say "radiative efficiency," and the accepted value is more than 30 times. Not the 10 times you speak of. You completely fail to elaborate any insight on this 10 times, other than "Simon Says."Originally Posted by DDD post #148
Why is this so hard to comprehend?
It would be interesting to see you provide a book or an article with 30 and I with 10. We can take it from there.
If you lost patience and no longer wish to continue, just know that my position was and is about making the audience aware of this gas. Most people speak of CO2 while methane is not mentioned as much. Methane too is damaging.
Wow...Originally Posted by DDD
I mentioned the IPCC. Have you ever turned to a single chapter of the AR4?
Here is one such chapter:
2.10.2 Direct Global Warming Potentials
When I introduced my graph, I explained in effect, this part. Here is part of the linked material:
Look at this carefully: RF is 0.01413 W m–2 ppm–1. This means at the 378 ppm starting point, adding 1 ppm, will increase radiative forcing by 0.1413 watts per square meter. However, the chart below, and what the radiative efficiency has become is ppb. An increase in one molecule per billion rather than one molecule per million. The chart in the link has CO2 at 1.4 x 10-5 of increased forcing for the added 1 ppb. Please notice CO2 is the first line under "Radiative Efficiency (W m–2 ppb–1)." CH4 (methane) is next, at 3.7 x 10–4. Now, if we divide 3.7 x 10–4 by 1.4 x 10-5, we get 26.4.The radiative efficiency per kilogram of CO2 has been calculated using the same expression as for the CO2 RF in Section 2.3.1, with an updated background CO2 mixing ratio of 378 ppm. For a small perturbation from 378 ppm, the RF is 0.01413 W m–2 ppm–1 (8.7% lower than the TAR value).
Looks like I'm wrong. It's more than 20 times greater, not more than 30. Closer to 30 than 20 though... Looking at molecule per molecule at starting levels.
Now look at my graph again. Please note how closely the IPCC numbers are to mine. My slope of 0.3664 on a ppm scale is 0.0003664 (3.664 x 10–4) on the ppb scale. Very damn close to the IPCC number... My CO2 number is very close as well. 0.0141, or 0.0000141 on the ppb scale, (1.41 x 10-5.)
You have never provided a link, as many times as I have asked.Originally Posted by DDD
I think it's all in your head.
This audience is well aware of methane.Originally Posted by DDD
You haven't posted any links to support you contentions.
Is this a play to you?
I would like to add.
CO2 from preindustrial periods have increased by 36.3%, and CH2 has increased by 145.7%. Yet... the IPCC and other experts claim for this period, 1.66 W/m^2 of warming for CO2, and 0.48 W/m^2 for CH4.
Explain that... with the assumption CH4 is stronger than CO2.
Also why would Christianson (1999) study state that methane is 10 times as worse while yours state 26 times? Could methane's radiative efficiency increased from 1999 up until 2007 until this study of yours took place?
Christianson, G. (1999). Greenhouse: The 200 year story of global warming. Walker and Company.