Submitted by Anonymous on Mon, 02/01/2010 - 20:04.
You will have greater credibility as a "skeptic" if you provide a factual representation of the science.
This study speculates that 30% of warming during the 1990s may have been due to increasing water vapor content of the stratosphere, not 100% of the warming from the 1980s & 90s, as you've indicated. That still leaves quite a bit of warming unaccounted for. It may be your conclusion that CO2 was not responsible, but the paper surely doesn't say that.
You indicate that the "IPCC crowd" (whoever they are) have no interest in considering water vapor as a driver, yet this paper was written by the co-chair of Working Group I (AR4).
The important implication of this paper is that a respected group of climate scientists are saying that pre-2000 warming was not entirely due to AGHGs. The source of the water vapor is uncertain, but at least there's some debate about it. I have the feeling you don't quite "get it". At long last AGW skeptics have scientifically defensible evidence to support their position.
![[SOHO Sun Spot Image]](http://sohowww.nascom.nasa.gov/data/realtime/mdi_igr/512/latest.jpg)
Finally... Scientific evidence consistent with AGW skepticism
You will have greater credibility as a "skeptic" if you provide a factual representation of the science.
This study speculates that 30% of warming during the 1990s may have been due to increasing water vapor content of the stratosphere, not 100% of the warming from the 1980s & 90s, as you've indicated. That still leaves quite a bit of warming unaccounted for. It may be your conclusion that CO2 was not responsible, but the paper surely doesn't say that.
You indicate that the "IPCC crowd" (whoever they are) have no interest in considering water vapor as a driver, yet this paper was written by the co-chair of Working Group I (AR4).
The important implication of this paper is that a respected group of climate scientists are saying that pre-2000 warming was not entirely due to AGHGs. The source of the water vapor is uncertain, but at least there's some debate about it. I have the feeling you don't quite "get it". At long last AGW skeptics have scientifically defensible evidence to support their position.