Talk:Greenhouse gas/Archive 1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archive This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Contents

Natural/anthro GH/emissions

(William M. Connolley 23:07, 23 Feb 2004 (UTC)) Can this really be the first talk? So it is...

MrJones made 2 mods:

Greenhouse gases are gaseous components of the atmosphere that contribute to the greenhouse effect, believed to be the major cause of global warming.

This appears to confuse the natural GH effect and the added anthro effect. The original (reverted) was better: it omitted discussion and said just "see also GW". User:William M. Connolley

How is it confusing, sorry? How is the differentiation of human and natural emmisions relevant to the definition? And how does the original text make that distinction? I was just flagging up that not everyone believes that global warming and the greenhouse effect are the same thing.
(William M. Connolley 09:27, 24 Feb 2004 (UTC)) The original text doesn't make the distinction. It doesn't even raise the issue, except to shuffle it off into "see also GW". Which, I assert, is a good idea. Your text says: "contribute to the greenhouse effect, believed to be the major cause of global warming". This is easily read to say that all the GHG's do (in sum) is to cause GW.

Mr. Jones 08:07, 24 Feb 2004 (UTC)

The major natural greenhouse gases are water vapor, constituting most (about 60%) of such gasses on Earth, others being carbon dioxide (about 26%), and ozone. The remaining fraction, believed to have minor effect include methane and nitrous oxide. These gasses are so-called because they are widely believed by scientists to cause the greenhouse effect. However, not all agree.

Again, this is confusing natural and anthro GH. No one (no one at all? well certainly no one of any repute) argues that "these gases" cause the GH effect. User:William M. Connolley

Do you mean "do not cause"? How about "not all agree that the effect is significant, controllable or cause for concern?" Mr. Jones 08:07, 24 Feb 2004 (UTC)
I mean, no-one argues about whether they cause the (natural) GH effect or not: everyone agrees that they do. Your text contradicts this: it asserts that "not all agree" that these gases cause the GHE. User:William M. Connolley
Yes, sorry that was an unfortunate choice of words. What do you think of "not all agree that the effect is significant, controllable or cause for concern?"
(William M. Connolley 13:00, 24 Feb 2004 (UTC)) No. Because everyone *does* agree that the *natural* GH effect is significant. You need to distinguish very carefully between the natural GHE, which is significant (about 33 oC) and accepted by everyone, and the anthro effect, which is (mysteriously) more controversial.
Ah! Light dawns. :-) I'll see if I can explain this distinction in the article in a little while. If I got it wrong, I suppose others will too.

Mr. Jones 14:35, 24 Feb 2004 (UTC)

I also suggest putting " (see also global warming for the debate about its significance) ". How's that? Mr. Jones 12:45, 24 Feb 2004 (UTC)
Ditto my comments above.
" (see also global warming for the debate about the proportion of the atmospheric greenhouse effect attibutable to humans) "?
" (see also global warming for the debate about the possible recent increases in the atmospheric greenhouse effect) "?

Mr. Jones 14:35, 24 Feb 2004 (UTC)

(William M. Connolley 15:17, 24 Feb 2004 (UTC)) Why not the original "(see also GW)". Do you regard that as non-neutral?
Omission of assertions and failing to clarify assertions can be as misleading as false assertions. I'm not decided whether that's relevant here yet. Do you believe refering to the debate is not NPOV? Mr. Jones 19:22, 24 Feb 2004 (UTC)

If at all possible, let's keep the GW fighting on the GW pages. User:William M. Connolley

Oh, certainly. I wasn't fighting as such, just trying to move the article closer to NPOV.Mr. Jones 08:07, 24 Feb 2004 (UTC)
Doc, if you concede that you're fighting, maybe it's time you changed your tune. Why not start doing the NPOV dance? Try it, you'll like it! --Uncle Ed 17:56, 24 Feb 2004 (UTC)

(William M. Connolley 18:27, 24 Feb 2004 (UTC)) "Fighting" is just shorthand. If you've failed to understand me, then I'll try to expand: There are plenty of issues about GW, but these are best discussed on the GW and related pages. Stuff about GH effect is probably better on the... GH effect page. Odd, no? There is no need for the GHG page to be controversial. Or is there?

Right, I think I see what you're getting at. I don't think it needs to be controversial, as such. However, being a topic proximate to and refering to a controversial one it seems a little odd not to explain it, as that is most likely what is in the reader's mind. Mr. Jones 19:22, 24 Feb 2004 (UTC)


LOL, I knew what you meant; I just didn't want to lose a chance to rib you a bit... But, seriously, GHG is controversial because the press often confounds 2 types of greenhouse gases: those which keep us from freezing to death and those which "contribute to global warming". --Uncle Ed 18:30, 24 Feb 2004 (UTC)
(William M. Connolley 18:37, 24 Feb 2004 (UTC)) Well yes - this is the somewhat what I've been discussing above with MrJones. Although you're wrong, of course, to say there are 2 types of GHG: all GHGs contribute, to both. Its just that the extra effect from the extra concentration of the gases is more controversial. Perhaps you've been reading too many press reports?
Chemically they are identical, but being from different sources aren't they different? A polo mint made in Russia and one made in China are not of the same type, although one may well not be able to tell them apart by analysis: one is Russian and the other Chinese. Mr. Jones 19:22, 24 Feb 2004 (UTC)
(William M. Connolley 21:04, 24 Feb 2004 (UTC)) The CO2 *perturbation* is anthropogenic but the reservoir exchanges are large, so knowing whether a given molecule is "natural" or "anthro" doesn't help.

WV forms clouds

(William M. Connolley 18:57, 24 Feb 2004 (UTC)) Ed: when you say WV forms clouds, do you mean clouds are composed of WV, or that clouds are made (by transformation) out of WV?

"Whose likeness is upon this coin? ... Then render unto Caesar that which belongs to Caesar." (C'mon, doc, you know the answer better than I do.) --Uncle Ed 14:41, 25 Feb 2004 (UTC)


(William M. Connolley 15:46, 2004 Feb 25 (UTC)) It doesn't really matter now, since I deleted that whole section :-)

Sources for wv, co2, etc contributions.

(William M. Connolley 21:10, 15 Jan 2005 (UTC)) Cortonin added some numbers from the clearlight page http://www.clearlight.com/~mhieb/WVFossils/greenhouse_data.html. I think those numbers (or at least the wv one) is/are junk. The source for the ones on this page is given on the greenhouse effect page, BTW.

So, why do I think the CL number for WV is junk? If you look at the CL page, it eventually sources the 95% claim to http://www.co2andclimate.org/climate/previous_issues/vol4/v4n4/focus1.htm. This is a dodgy source in itself, but reading on we find that the actual claim is:

Washington also challenges some of Singer’s facts. Where Singer states that water vapor accounts for 95 percent of the greenhouse effect, Washington claims this number should be close to 65 percent. While the difference seems large, it is really only a matter of semantics. Water vapor might only account for 65 percent, but atmospheric water droplets (i.e. clouds) make up the other 30 percent.

The 65% figure is close to the 60% in the article (and I doubt that the real number is known that accurately, as it varies by location) and the adding in an extra 30% for clouds is just weird. That means that the true source for the 95% claim is Singers book: Singer, F.S., 1998, Hot Talk, Cold Science: Global Warming’s Unfinished Debate, Oakland, Calif.: The Independent Institute. which is again a dubious-at-best source (I've never read it, mind you).

I don't think calling sources dubious because you haven't read them is a particularly productive approach. The greenhouse effect article that you refer to ranges estimates from 60-70, up to 88, and even 98% depending on which factors are considered. The 60% value is arbitrarilly selecting the lower bound of the 60-70% value which completely excludes clouds. Clearly, excluding clouds is not a realistic system, and the actual value must be significantly higher than that range when clouds are included. I converted the value in the opening paragraph into a range, according to the documentation presented. — Cortonin | Talk 05:32, 16 Jan 2005 (UTC)
(William M. Connolley 10:50, 16 Jan 2005 (UTC)) Read it again, the 98% value is not a realistic one. Including clouds within WV is silly: clouds *aren't* WV. The CL page is junk, and not a source. Its just some random bods page. If you want to source the 95% value, you can't use CL, you would have to go back to quoting Singers book, which is CLs source (although it takes some tracking back to discover that). But Singers book isn't a source either: you would need to read that to discover where he go his 95% figure from. Made it up, probably.
By that page is "junk" do you mean not your point of view? What specifically is "junk" about it besides you disagreeing with it? — Cortonin | Talk 20:09, 16 Jan 2005 (UTC)
I will include a compromise which mentions clouds explicitely. Using only a value from a model which excludes the existence of clouds, and failing to mention that to the reader, borders on dishonesty. When in doubt, it's better to provide more information and let the reader draw appropriate conclusions. — Cortonin | Talk 20:09, 16 Jan 2005 (UTC)
From the IPCC page on water vapour feedback: "Furthermore, water vapour feedback acts to amplify other feedbacks in models, such as cloud feedback and ice albedo feedback." "Incorporating cloud radiative effects and a fixed relative humidity perturbation (argued to be most appropriate to diagnosing GCM water vapour feedback)" — Cortonin | Talk 20:09, 16 Jan 2005 (UTC)
I have also corrected the 60% value to 60-70%, which matches the other wikipedia article it supposedly came from. — Cortonin | Talk 20:09, 16 Jan 2005 (UTC)
(William M. Connolley 21:43, 16 Jan 2005 (UTC)) 60-70% you're welcome to. CL is junk because its some bods personal research based on plucking a figure of 95% out of some book review he read. Including clouds is wrong *because they aren't a GHG*. They aren't even a gas, in fact.
Pop quiz: Where do clouds come from? That's right, condensation of water vapor. The problem begins when the paragraph states "causes 60-70% of the greenhouse effect on Earth", since clearly that's a lie. Clouds are a rather significant component of the greenhouse effect, and they're not included in that calculation. — Cortonin | Talk 21:18, 17 Jan 2005 (UTC)

(William M. Connolley 21:50, 17 Jan 2005 (UTC)) OK, progress. Clouds aren't a greenhouse gas. If they belong anywhere, then, they belong on the greenhouse effect page. Now, as to your "lie" stuff, try to be a bit more polite. The source of your figure for the cloud effect is quite unclear. Clouds make a +ve and -ve contribution to the radiative balance, and their overall contribution is a small negative effect (source: IPCC tar). So what is your source for the approx 30% value you quote?

The 88% comes from the greenhouse effect page. The 95% comes from the source you keep erasing. It's appropriate to place it as a range, especially considering the accepted uncertainty in the contribution of clouds. Specifically, the IPCC tar which you love to invoke, states, "The potential complexity of the response of clouds to climate change was identified in the SAR as a major source of uncertainty for climate models. Although there has been clear progress in the physical content of the models, clouds remain a dominant source of uncertainty" [1]. Your certainty about these values does not match the assessments of others. The statement belongs on this page, because this page starts off with incomplete statements about the contributions of certain greenhouse gases to the greenhouse effect. Clouds exist, and they're part of the greenhouse effect. Pretending they don't exist does not make a number more accurate than numbers which attempt to include them. It IS deceptive to keep erasing other values from other sources when the values presented represent an oversimplified model. So if it's "polite" you're looking for, then how about you stop reverting every contribution I make, because that's pretty darn impolite. — Cortonin | Talk 01:39, 18 Jan 2005 (UTC)
(William M. Connolley 10:00, 18 Jan 2005 (UTC)) The CL page is junk, as I explained above, which means you have no source at all for the 95% value. The 88% value which you've plucked from the GHE page is for WV and CO2 only, so can't be used as is, and is from Soon and Baliunas anyway, who don't have the expertise to calculate this themselves anyway. This is the *GHG* page, any discussion of effects from things that aren't gases belongs no the GHE page. And as I said, clouds are a small net *negative* forcing, not a positive one as you seem to believe. Yes indeed, the cloud forcing is a source of uncertainty, but the value you give from whatever mysterious source is quite unreasonable.
Clouds also play an important role in the Earth’s energy balance and in particular in the natural greenhouse effect. Clouds absorb and emit infrared radiation and thus contribute to warming the Earth’s surface, just like the greenhouse gases. On the other hand, most clouds are bright reflectors of solar radiation and tend to cool the climate system. The net average effect of the Earth’s cloud cover in the present climate is a slight cooling: the reflection of radiation more than compensates for the greenhouse effect of clouds. [2]

(Editor @ 129.186) - I'm sorry if some of you are upset with what I added, but I think water vapor's huge role as a greenhouse gas is *seriously* toned down in this particular article. I would agree with the "impossible to determine the full impact of a particular gas" vibe you're suggesting for both water vapor and CO2, but there are some clear impacts that water vapor has on the greenhouse effect that make it impossible to simply discount it as an insignificant role in the greenhouse effect compared to CO2.

(William M. Connolley 21:55, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)) See http://mustelid.blogspot.com/2005/01/water-vapour-is-not-dominant.html (I wrote it).
How about you see "Water vapor is the dominant greenhouse gas" (link updated). I didn't write it, but it is published and certainly trumps your personal blog. — Cortonin | Talk 14:04, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Try this link [3] as the one above returns a "cookie error". This is just to the abstract, I don't have access to the full article. I find the following quote interesting: " To the extent that water vapor concentrations increase in a warmer world, the climatic effects of the other greenhouse gases will be amplified." -Vsmith 14:35, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Another abstract by one of the above authors: [4] with a bit of different info. Vsmith 14:43, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)

(William M. Connolley 14:58, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)) I too get cookie errors from C's link. But I've read both the abstracts. They don't "trump" my blog, because they are not talking about the same thing. There are subleties here that you need to pay attention to. I do agree with what they say though, in particular:

Water vapor is the dominant greenhouse gas and provides the largest known feedback mechanism for amplifying global warming. As the concentrations of other greenhouse gases increase due to anthropogenic activity, it is centrally important to understand the radiative response of water vapor to this forcing. All models currently predict a strong positive feedback from water vapor, arising from the exponential increase in saturation vapor pressure with temperature.

Words like that are fine for scientists, who known that "dominant" in this case means "largest". What my blog explains is that it doesn't mean "dominant" in the sense of being the forcing you need to worry about. As the quote above makes clear, you need to consider WV *as a feedback* which amplifies the CO2 etc warming. Notice, incidentally, how this abstract takes GW as a given - as do so many others - not as a thing to quibble about.

Words like that are fine for anyone who speaks English. It doesn't make much sense to keep putting forth that straw man (see rhetorical term paragraph) about dominant being used to refer to forcing. Of primary concern is trying to describe which greenhouse gases contribute the largest amount to the greenhouse effect, which alone has nothing at all to do with forcing. What you're implying is that when describing the gun, we shouldn't mention the bullet, because the trigger is what makes it fire, and that it will confuse people too much to mention bullets. What's most important in an encyclopedia article is describing what exists and what mechanisms there are, because mechanisms outlast and are more constant than forcings. Water vapor is clearly the dominant greenhouse gas, and your straw man should at best be included as a qualifier stating that CO2 is a more dominant forcing agent, and perhaps referencing the climate forcing article. — Cortonin | Talk 15:16, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)
(Editor @ 129.186) - I would tend to agree. I find it ridiculous that in an article about greenhouse gases that water vapor, which is always listed among C02 & Methane, would somehow be downplayed. If our role is to simply list the greenhouse gases on this page and not to edcuate the reader then two things about this article bother me: 1) the page spends far too much time centering on the negative aspects of the other greenhouse gases, 2) a 1990 IPCC report about the role of water vapor is the most recent source for this area. There are still ways for you to push the global warming agenda in this article by citing from numerous studies that claim El Nino was an effect and not a cause of rising global temperatures.
(William M. Connolley 16:17, 2 Mar 2005 (UTC)) The reason that 1990 IPCC data are used is that nothing better is available. This is a clue. The answer is: no-one is terribly interested in quantifying the exact numbers, since they really don't matter much, *since WV is a feedback not a forcing*. Another modeller I know has run some calcs using a current GCM, and removing various forcings instantaneously. He gets numbers very similar to IPCC '90. As for "downplaying" WV... the intro says The major natural greenhouse gases are water vapor... - what more do you want?
(Editor @ 129.186) - Well, for starters, how about putting in the quote you listed above? Water vapor is the dominant greenhouse gas and provides the largest known feedback mechanism for amplifying global warming. You could even go on to define "dominant" as per your blog. I just find it ironic that it's supposedly impossible to argue the merits of water vapor on the GHE, yet there are those that claim to have models explicitly accounting for temperature increases due to C02 emissions. It doesn't make sense.
(William M. Connolley 17:48, 2 Mar 2005 (UTC)) I'm not sure what you mean. The page says, correctly, that you cannot say gas X causes Y percent of the effect, and explains why. That doesn't mean models can't combine the effects correctly.
Why I even made a change in the first place is what appears to be a complete disregard of water vapor's role,
(William M. Connolley 17:48, 2 Mar 2005 (UTC)) Err, you *have* noticed the section called "the role of WV" haven't you?
and/or an explanation of how it is being manipulated by increases in CO2. I understand there is still some debate as to how and how much, but the whole reason I came to this article to begin with was to learn more about that specific aspect of climate modelling with respect to GHG. Maybe the GHG page isn't the best place for an explanation, however.
(William M. Connolley 17:48, 2 Mar 2005 (UTC)) OK... I'll edit the section called role-of-WV and you see if it looks any clearer.

I think part of the difference of opinion here is that you (WMC) are editing from the perspective of greenhouse gases only being relevant from the perspective of explaining global warming. This is apparently the perspective of Michael Mann as well, given his quote about listing water vapor as a greenhouse gas as being "misleading". But this ignores an entirely different perspective of greenhouse gases, which is that greenhouse gases and the greenhouse effect predate humanity's existence by quite a few orders of magnitude. Greenhouse gases are an important natural phenomena, regardless of global warming, and this should be their first mention (since their natural function comes first in logical order before describing changes to them). Then what should be explained is the changes humans seem to have made to greenhouse gas levels, and then include the proposed feedback mechanisms which are thought to also change greenhouse gas levels. In particular with water vapor, its primary contribution seems to be that it helps keep us from freezing to death, and then the feedback mechanisms should also be described as an important role for understanding the potential impact of changes to greenhouse levels. — Cortonin | Talk 23:32, 2 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Cortonin put the nail on the head. Maybe my problem is with the organization. I understand that there is debate on this subject, but leading with "Anthropogenic greenhouse gases" over WV is confusing to someone doing a high school research paper, or just wanting to understand the science. Sure, get into the debate, but first establish what it is. GW debate aside, the greenhouse gases and greenhouse effect are naturally occurring phenomenon, and that doesn't seem to be established well in this article. I would seriously question the motives of ignoring water vapor's role altogether as Michael Mann suggests. That is clearly hijacking the term "greenhouse" (added with "gas" or "effect") for the purposes of pushing an agenda. Negating the natural greenhouse effect and defining the terms as solely attributable to human conditions and causes is nothing short of misleading and unethical. I don't know if I'd even consider Mann's comments worth noting, as they could be marred similarly (and quite easily) in the same fashion that Schneider's comments were taken out of context.
(William M. Connolley 09:57, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)) Errr... here's a test: which is the first GHG mentioned on the page? How is it described? Is that description appropriate to something causing approx 60-70% of the GHE? As to the first section being about anthro gases: this is entirely reasonable, as that probably why most people are on this page.


Dispute Resolution RFC, William M. Connolley

I started an RFC regarding user William M. Connolley, located here: Wikipedia:Requests for comment/William M. Connolley. If you are interested, please comment or sign as appropriate. — Cortonin | Talk 12:28, 18 Jan 2005 (UTC)

The question of spelling (Vapor/Vapour)

1. Water vapour is the spelling in the IPCC report and there is no sense changing it to US spelling. Appears just a snub. or were you wanting a spelling war?

The IPCC report's spelling is irrelevant for the purposes of this article. The individual in question is American, so I think it is confusing to have a discussion of his claims using non-American spelling. It creates the false impression that he is British.--JonGwynne 01:13, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)
This is hilarious! A few days ago I looked at this article and saw inconsistency in the spelling of vapour/vapor. I decided to make it consistent and as the dominant spelling was vapour I went with that, even tho' I'm an American and personally prefer the other. Then JG arbitrarily changes them all to vapor. The article was written by a group of people - not by this American he refers to. There is no false impression - just an obvious snub at the British writers involved in writing this article. Vsmith 02:25, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)

2. Don't know the basis for your normalizing - is this original research? I can decifer the math you used - don't know the significance.

The math is quite simple, multiply the increase by the GWP factor to see what the equivalent in CO2 would be. It helps put the changes in perspective. I wouldn't call it "original research", it is basic math. But if you want to leave it out, I don't mind.--JonGwynne 01:13, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)

3. The secondary percent by volume numbers really don't add anything, just an attempt to add clutter and make the numbers look insignificant or something. Not needed - probably just POV attempt to minimize or trivialize the values.
-Vsmith 00:39, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Well, that's your POV and you're welcome to it. But the current one-sided percentage increases are also POV so either we do both or neither. Which would you prefer? Since you seem to be worried about clutter, I'll start with neither as the baseline and then we can discuss it from there--JonGwynne 01:13, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Deceptive edit summary again. (Cleaned up for Vsmith) is not what you did. Vsmith 02:44, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)

(William M. Connolley 09:36, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)) I've added it to Wikipedia:Requests for comment/JonGwynne.


There are 1.82 million google hits for "vapour", and 7.24 million google hits for "vapor". Given that this is the internet, I believe it would be most appropriate to use the spelling which is most common, and in this case it is quite dominantly "vapor". (Dictionaries determine which spelling to list first by assessing most common usage, so this is the most appropriate method of deciding spelling preference.) — Cortonin | Talk 05:03, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)

(William M. Connolley 09:30, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)) Wiki has a policy designed to avoid spelling wars, and is *isnt* count the google hits.
Reference? — Cortonin | Talk 15:14, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)
(William M. Connolley 18:01, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)) You'll find it at: Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style#Usage_and_spelling
Well, in the case of a topic without a particular regional focus it doesn't really offer a lot of advice for "choosing" a spelling preference, it simply instructs people to try to avoid edit wars on the topic by just sticking with what's there. At this point in this article, "what's there" is a bit in flux as far as spelling preference, and this is why I suggested using the google counting method. — Cortonin | Talk 12:15, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Here's what I think is the overriding factor: The article makes reference to another wikipedia article called "Water vapor". The spelling in this article should conform to the other one so it isn't necessary to kludge the links to it and so there won't be any confusing if a reader wants to jump from this article to the other one. So, with that in mind, I'm going to change this article's spelling to "vapor" for reasons of consistency.--JonGwynne 21:18, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)

OK. Since JG doesn't seem to want to read the Manual of style referenced above (or else he simply decided to ignore it), here is the pertinent section: If an article is predominantly written in one type of English, aim to conform to that type rather than provoking conflict by changing to another. (Sometimes, this can happen quite innocently, so please don't be too quick to make accusations!). As stated above, on Jan 23 I corrected the spelling inconsistency and changed all vapor spellings to vapour which was the dominant spelling on the page. JG persists in reverting to vapor while inventing his own style guide. As this quite obviously was not an innocent mistake I can only assume that he is trying to pick a fight by starting a British/American spelling edit war. I feel this combative, in your face editing attitude should be added to the comments on the RFC Wikipedia:Requests for comment/JonGwynne. -Vsmith 00:00, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Let me see if I can explain this again. The reason I changed it was to create consistency with the article on the subject of water vapor. Why should the article have one spelling and the references to it use the other. It is confusing and inconsistent and so I fixed it. If the original article was entited "water vapour", then that's the spelling we should have used in this one. This was nothing to do with me, I didn't write the article on water vapor. Your assumption that I am "trying to pick a fight" by introducing consistency is simply absurd.--JonGwynne 03:20, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)
(William M. Connolley 10:57, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)) I support Vsmiths interpretation. JG, stop picking fights for no good reason. If you've got science to add to the article, do, otherwise go do something more productive.
The only person picking a fight here William is you. You're the one who runs off to the RFC to catalog your laundry-list of imagined grievances. Vsmith's interpretation is irrelevant since it fails to consider the overriding factor that I will spell out a third time since it seemes to slip right past you the first two: there is already an article on water vapor. Do you understand that? I'm simply using that article's spelling for the sake of consistency. Does that seem clear to you?--JonGwynne 12:51, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Stop the phoney nonsense: the 1st and 2nd time you changed it it was stated as Americanizing, the third was hidden in a deceptive edit summary, then when that didn't work you decided to use the consistency theme because of an invisible vapor in a link. You are simply provoking a conflict. -Vsmith 14:04, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)
The only "phoney nonsense" here is what you're bringing. While you are correct that the first time I changed it, my intent was to make it consistent with the writings of the man whose work was being referenced, I had no objection to it being switched back as it was clear that this wasn't sufficient grounds for the change. I was fine with that. However, upon reconsidering the issue, it became obvious to me that the overriding issue here is the wikipedia article on water vapor. It simply doesn't make sense to use one spelling in the original article and a different spelling in an article which directly refers to it. Just because you are unable to admit when you're wrong doesn't mean you are entitled to suject the rest of us to this nuisance reversion. In case you need further clarification, look at the original page's links to the water vapor article. Whoever it was who added them had to go the trouble of creating the kludged links "water vapor|water vapour" in order to preserve the inconsistent spelling. There are other examples of articles with the "vapor" spelling - vapor & vapor pressure to name just two. In this situation, I'm right, you're wrong and the sooner you can come to grips with that fact, the sooner we can get back to more important things. --JonGwynne 17:28, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Parts-per spelling

While on the grand scheme of things "vapor" versus "vapour" doesn't really matter so much, you've all glazed over one thing that really does matter. Amidst this revert war, we seem to have some changes to ppvm and ppvb being changed back and forth, which perhaps may be related to the different usage of "million" and "billion" across the pond. More importantly than which one we use is that we need to clarify what it actually means numerically. My suggestion is that someone who knows which version is correct under which interpretation of million/billion should place a description of what that actually means in terms of a power of 10 somewhere shortly beneath the first usage. — Cortonin | Talk 12:15, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)

As far I know, 1000ppvb = 1 ppvm. Does anyone here disagree?--JonGwynne 12:51, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)
I think whichever unit is used, it makes sense to use the same units rather than some ppvm and some ppvb. Just as we try to be consistent with temperature units, despite K/C/F. (I see carbon dioxide uses ppmv and there is Talk:Carbon_dioxide#Why_not_ppm? about it there also. Concentration#"Parts-per"_Notation says usually ppmv (note at bottom of section); the NIST link suggests using powers of 10. However, the IPCC Units states ppmv (parts per million (106) by volume) or ppbv (parts per million (109) by volume). IPCC TAR mostly uses ppmv and has only a few references to ppbv. The NIST does note that terminology used in laws should be followed, and in nations which are part of the UNFCCC then the IPCC terminology could be seen as a "law". SEWilco 06:23, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Spelling Resolution Proposal

Will you two stop fighting over the spelling of vapor/vapour if we take a vote on it? I'd like if both of you could agree to abide by the result of the vote. We can give it, say, a week of time for people to vote. Can we get an agreement to this from both of you? — Cortonin | Talk 10:16, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I suggest that we abide by the Manual of Style which JG is ignoring. See my comments above (and read them carefully). What you are suggesting is a loaded popularity contest based on your Google search. _Vsmith 12:47, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)
(William M. Connolley 12:57, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)) Ditto.
No, I'm suggesting a simple vote of the existing Wikipedia editors to establish a wiki-consensus to avoid and eliminate a rather meaningless conflict. Does that sound so bad to you? — Cortonin | Talk 18:08, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)
I am strongly opposed to a vote. The policy on this is clear; the page was standardized on British spelling, JG Americanized it twice. After having the policy pointed out to him, he used another rationalization that was also incorrect to continue reverting. A vote would partially validate this bad behavior, and the page doesn't need any more controversy. I know that JG is new to Wikipedia but the policy has now been explained to him. I will consider any further reversions to American spelling as vandalism, trolling and disruption. I have no vested interest in editing this page, other than to honor the manual of style. Duk 20:11, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)
(William M. Connolley 21:23, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)) The policy is indeed clear, and was designed at least in part to prevent wars of this kind. Cortonin has had this pointed out to him. As for JG, if you haven't seen it, you might care to view Wikipedia:Requests for comment/JonGwynne (and the associated one for me, of course).
I tried to resolve the matter, but if you wish to continue in conflict, I hope you enjoy it. — Cortonin | Talk 01:14, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Cortonin, how can we work on resolving conflicts if we don't observe simple rules? If someone wants to change the spelling on one page to match other pages, they have a conflict with the manual of style. That is where this conversation belongs. Duk 03:53, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)
You mean like the style guide which says "the original contributor's usage should be followed."? Perhaps you could look at the first [5] two [6] years [7]. In fact, up until just this past October [8], the dominant spelling was "vapor". Until someone [9] (namely WMC) started converting the spellings over to "vapour". And in fact, despite this, if you look at just one month ago [10], you will see that the spelling was still 8 to 3 in favor of "vapor", the original spelling of the article. Then Vsmith came along here [11] only 9 days ago, and converted the dominant spelling "vapor" into "vapour", in violation of the style manual's instructions. So if you REALLY wanted to obey the style manual, you would just put all the spellings back to "vapor" to match the original usage in this article, and end this ridiculous edit war (since you obviously didn't like the idea of a vote). — Cortonin | Talk 05:32, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Cortonin, I am sorry, haven't done the homework that you have done. If you are right, and the article was incorrectly changed from prodominantly American to British spelling recently, then I apply exactly the same criteria as if it were the other way around. Thanks for mentioning this. Duk 12:16, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)
(William M. Connolley 12:34, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)) I certainly agree we should be following policy, so lets check carefully before we do any more reverts on this. I'm happy to accept the "original" spelling, if that can be determined. However, we need to be careful about accepting Cortonins words at face value. I don't think I've converted any instances of vapor to vapour (at least before the recent war), and the link Cortonin provides demonstrates exactly that.
Looks as though I was in error on Jan. 23, should have done the detailed checking that Cortonin did back then. My apologies for that part. I'd best go undo my error. -Vsmith 12:54, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Ok, I did some more homework; I think Cortonin made good points. The article started out with American spelling. The first British spelling was added four months later (more than a year before WMC started editing it). From then on it contained a mixture of the two (I haven't verified every edit). Eventually, on January 23, Vsmith standardized it from mostly American spelling to British spelling. If this summary is accurate then I think Vsmith should re-standardize it to the American spelling Duk 13:03, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Done. Again, my apologies for not checking closer and/or my inability to count :-) -Vsmith 14:31, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Thank you all for resolving the matter. WMC, please try to avoid statements like, "we need to be careful about accepting Cortonins words at face value." For that matter, you should even try to avoid thinking like that. This is directly counter to Wikipedia policy of "assume good faith", and an entirely unnecessary statement when my statements are well documented, on either simple matters as this one, or on more complex matters involving article topics. — Cortonin | Talk 19:30, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)

(William M. Connolley 20:41, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)) You accused me of changing the spelling. That accusation was wrong, and demonstrably so, by the very edit you referred to. Have the grace to admit your mistake.
You started a category called "The role of water vapour" in an article with a dominant spelling of "vapor". This very well may have been unintentional, as I know I don't check for which continent the spellings are from in an article before I begin typing. But my only point was that it wouldn't be correct to conclude that the spelling "vapour" was original or dominant in the article, and thus, this edit war should never have occurred. At the very least, such things should be checked before starting an edit war over it. Examine and consider validity with assumption of good faith first, and ONLY then if an edit can't be worked with should you revert. — Cortonin | Talk 02:29, 2 Feb 2005 (UTC)
(William M. Connolley 21:18, 2 Feb 2005 (UTC)) Oh good grief read your own words: you accused me of started converting the spellings over to "vapour". I did no such thing. You effort to blame me for all the ills of the world makes no sense.
I apologize if you found that offensive, as I said the phrasing was not intended to imply intentionality or guilt, simply primacy of cause and effect. Rather than "started converting the spellings over to vapour" I should have written "created the header with the spelling vapour, probably unintentionally, making that spelling appear more dominant in an article which previously had the spelling vapor." I apologize for my imprecision or any offense. — Cortonin | Talk 21:26, 2 Feb 2005 (UTC)
(William M. Connolley 17:28, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)) Thanks.

redundant columns in table

The table works, but, don't need the % column with all those zeros. Percent is really pph or parts per hundred and redundant w/ ppm. The sci notation column was just adding confusion and clutter, if a casual reader doesn't grasp ppm values then I doubt they would get the meaning of sci notation either. And those were unitless ... ? Vsmith 16:12, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I agree with you about the scientific notation. Percentages would be better. I disagree with you that the percentage tables are "redundant" though. I realize that 1% is just another way to say pph but not everyone else does. It is both helpful and, in my opinion at least, necessary to put the size of the increase in context by showing what percentage of the atmosphere it represents.--JonGwynne 16:49, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Percentage is not a useful unit to use because you can make no conceptual comparison of a number with a large number of 0's to the left. That's why scientific notation exists. Scientific notation lets you easily compare the relative atmospheric concentrations of each compound, and get a feel for the relative orders of magnitude. This is a standard across all fields of science, and should be used here. ppmv, ppbv, and pptv are less clear for two reasons. First, they are less standard across all fields of science (while they may be standard in atmospheric science, most readers are not experts in this field). Second, the comparison of these values is not immediately obvious, and requires the reader to sit down and try to calculate, since the reader must try to discern the meaning of the change between m, b, and t, and must try to discern whether this results in three left-shifts or three right-shifts of the data. This is unnecessary added confusion when the simple interpretation can be placed right beside those values in terms of an atmospheric concentration expressed in scientific notation. It is standard, clear, and unambiguous. There is nothing to lose by including it. — Cortonin | Talk 15:02, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)
The problem is that not everyone reading this will be comfortable with scientific notation. For them, the easiest way to compare orders of magnitude are by have the number of decimal places laid out for them. For these people, 0.01 it obviously ten times larger than 0.001. I understand the problem with the large number of zeroes but they can't be avoided with dealing with such small percentages. Maybe two columns, one with sci-notation and one with plain percentages? --JonGwynne 11:37, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Scientific notation is standard in essentially every scientific field and in every country. It's even standard in most high school science educations. Invoking three different classifications of "ppmv", "ppbv", and "pptv", which are sufficiently complicated to the novice to require a decoder chart on the bottom, is just more cryptic and less clear, and is completely unnecessary when the equivalent information can be represented just as easily by scientific notation. It's not important what's commonly used in the field of atmospheric science, since this site is not an atmospheric science paper. The goal is to present the information clearly to a new reader to this topic, and scientific notation does that much more readily. This has nothing to do with POV, this has to do with clarity and simplicity. Please don't waste time fighting against that. — Cortonin | Talk 18:09, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)

(William M. Connolley 21:20, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)) The std measure for CO2, and other atmospheric constituents, is ppmv or ppbv. Thats why the chart should give them in this form. Especially since the source of these numbers is the IPCC report, which uses this form.

Which is more important, being the same as the IPCC, or presenting the information in the greatest clarity to the reader? — Cortonin | Talk 21:37, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)

The Chart

First, the gridlines have to stay in so that it is readable on all browsers. Second, there need to be context columns of some kind to put the increases in an objective context rather than just the subjective context of the IPCC advocates.--JonGwynne 11:37, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)

What browser are you using Jon? Works fine in Opera and Netscape. The wide grided version conflicted with the image in Netscape. Grid lines - esp. wide ones - are an unnecesary distraction for a short table. Extra columns redundat and not needed, see above discussion, -Vsmith 12:26, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)
I'm using IE. The chart without lines is unreadable because the columns don't line up. The "extra columns" are not redundant and they are useful information and should stay.--JonGwynne 12:49, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Just checked with IE in school lab (don't have the monster at home:), and the columns line up perfectly. Again refer to discussion above and in the extensive discussion at Talk:Carbon dioxide for your number playing. -Vsmith 16:47, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Dunno what to tell you. It doesn't work for me. Maybe it is the version. Maybe it is my resolution. Maybe it is my video driver. Let me repeat: the chart is unreadable without grid lines. Grid lines aren't a problem so I'll keep putting them back if you take them out. And what's this nonsense about taking gasses stuff out of the chart? This is an article about greenhouse gasses. They're greenhouse gasses. They belong in the chart. If they're important enough for the IPCC to talk about them, they're bloody well important enough for you to leave them in. --JonGwynne 01:55, 12 Feb 2005 (UTC)
OK - keep border @ 1, but there is too much redundancy and too many errors in the other trace gas amounts in your table. I will add corrected data for minor gases later (maybe, after I think on it a bit and have time to sort them out). Right now I'm tired :-) Vsmith 05:29, 12 Feb 2005 (UTC)
I triple-checked the numbers. They are correct. Oh, BTW, I'm removing the reference to Mann's statements about water vapor. Until someone can do better that a political extremist site like commondreams.org repeating a story from the "Environmental News Servive", it can stay on the fringes where it belongs and out of wikipedia.--JonGwynne 01:09, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Updating the numbers

(William M. Connolley 21:44, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)) To speak of the numbers themselves rather than their presentation: I notice the chart is sourced to IPCC rad forcing 1994. Probably that was me. But anyway: there is a table in the IPCC TAR so they may as well be updated to 1998. The numbers would be a bit higher now, true. So I recalculated the CO2 % as 31 not 40 (up from 278) though if you use the current 377 ish its 35% ish. But... on balance its probably better to have a consistent set of numbers for 1998 from a reliable source. Also, said source http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc_tar/wg1/221.htm says that Volume mixing ratios for CO2 are in ppm, for CH4 and N2O in ppb, and for the rest in ppt. which was not quite consistent with the table. I *didn't* update perflouromethane cos I don't know which one that is. The SF6 value changed a lot, if anyone wants to check that.

Perfluormethane seems to be a mis-used term, tetrafluromethane - or CF4 would be better. I note the TAR lists a 1750s value of 40ppt or half the current value. I wonder what the pre-industrial source was? Vsmith 15:05, 12 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Persistent vandalism by Vsmith and WMC

Why do you guys persist in removing important information from the chart? Your changes are unnecessary, inappropriate and unwarranted. Not only that, but the changes do not reflect the IPCC data on this subject. Where are you getting these changes?--JonGwynne 00:55, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)

We don't need to reproduce the entire TAR, do we? The most significant gases are there. Also we don't need the redundant extra column for those non-preindustrial gases. This has been all discussed at length previously and calling users vandals just because they disagree with your POV is not helpful - tone down the blather and be honest in your edit summaries. You did a lot more than just revert your tables. Hmm... I see you've been back with another not a revert as I write this - looks like a partial revert to me. Vsmith 02:01, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)

OK - let's work with your tables a bit. Fixed a unit error, remove a redundant column in 2nd table (covered it with comment above table), work to make headings and tables more readable. More to do as there is still some confusing parts (need to separate the really trace gases from those of significance - later. The water vapor paragraph is valid and pertinent. Vsmith 03:17, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)
If you want to find a reputable source for the Mann quote, be my guest. But the retelling of tales from the "Environmental News Service" by commondreams.org hardly qualifies. If Mann really said these things, there should be a more authoritative record of it. Feel free to look.--JonGwynne 12:43, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)
(William M. Connolley 11:44, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)) I would prefer to remove the more minor gases (as I did...). The info is available from the TAR and I can't see the point in putting it all in. The radiative forcing from some of the CFC's is within the error bars of the CO2 (or methane) forcing. Its in the TAR because that wants to be complete. And as Vsmith says, flinging around unwarranted accusations of vandalism isn't going to help you.
I doubt the IPCC gives much thought to what you would "prefer to remove". In an article about greenhouse gasses, what it is relevant is the greenhouse gasses the IPCC took the trouble to list, not that tiny subset you would "prefer" to discuss. --JonGwynne 12:42, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)
(William M. Connolley 14:02, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)) It is indeed ironic to find JG, who has done his best to undermine the IPCC conclusions, now citing IPCC as the ultimate source of all info. If this represents a conversion no his part, I would welcome it, but I think he is just using the bits he likes. We are *not* trying to reproduce IPCC here.
Well, at least you're closer to the proper use of the word ironic here. But, you're still missing the point. I have no stake in the IPCC's conclusions either way. In other words, it is nothing to do with what I "like". Just because you judge facts according to whether or not you "like" them, doesn't mean the rest of us do. The point, whether you want to admit it or not, is that if you want to cite IPCC data, you have to be prepared to do it accurately or else you will be corrected. The real irony here is that such a hardcore IPCC propagandist like you who receives their proclamations as though they were delivered by a burning bush would be censoring their data. Despite your feeble excuses for censorship and vandalism, the matter for discussion is greenhouse gasses and, if you're going to list them, you's best do it accurately. Oh yeah, and legibly. The tables are not readable without gridlines. I don't know why and I don't particularly care. But whatever else happens, the lines will stay.--JonGwynne 14:56, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Ah, I see they're up to the old tricks again. For the life if my I can't figure out why they insist on censoring the IPCC's own data. You'd think they would be in favor of a complete and accurate discussion of greenhouse gasses, but I guess not. Evidently accuracy and truthfulness mean nothing to them. Not surprising considering their views aren't based on science but rather on faith.--JonGwynne 23:47, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Thanks to Cortonin for fixing JG's mistake

Thanks to Cortonin for fixing JG's mistake with the %: [12]. % is an odd unit though to relate ppm to - perhaps better just deleted? And why waste space on a table of what-ppm-means, when we can just link the first occurence of ppm? --WMC

Or better yet, why use a notation which is sufficiently obscure that it requires a table just to translate it to the common visitor? Scientific notation is standard and prevalent, and works just as well (if not better) as a concentration notation, since scientific notation allows more clear mental comparisons of the relative concentrations. — Cortonin | Talk 15:23, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)
If only people would realize that percent is just a shorthand for parts per hundred and not some special unit it would make the ppm notation much more understandable. I agree the explanation section is unneeded - I got rid of part of it a day or so ago. Ppm is quite standard and a switch to sci. notation would still need some units as just a "naked number" by itself conveys limited info. And surely anyone able to grasp scientific notation can understand ppm. -Vsmith 15:48, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)
It's a fraction by volume. A fraction is hardly naked. Ppm is still used when discussing low concentration polutants (which yes, this happens to be), but is much more rare outside of this limited usage. Scientific notation is by far the dominant notation in science for both very large and very small values. In fact, if you check the recommendations of the National Institute of Standards and Technology located here, you will see that they consider ppm, ppb, and ppt "deprecated" and "not uniform", and that the preferred way of expressing numbers is to use powers of 10 (aka, scientific notation). The recommendations of NIST generally do a good job of expressing clear and unambiguous ways to explain things, and we would be wise to follow them for the sake of the readers. — Cortonin | Talk 16:29, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)
(William M. Connolley 09:35, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)) Thanks for the kind advice. But I (and I hope the wiki climate pages) will stick with the IPCC, which follows the standards for climatology, in using ppm/b/t.

"greenhouse effect" due to "greenhouse gases"

The problem comes when you start talking about percentages of the greenhouse effect. Yes, clouds are not a gas, but while the article is about greenhouse gases, the opening paragraph is discussing percentage contributions to the greenhouse effect, and for this, clouds are a significant contributer. So it does not make sense to exclude the contributions of clouds to this effect in a tally process. When CO2 is removed, and the others are kept in, to get the 9% value, clouds are included in the amounts left in. So it doesn't make sense to then turn around and exclude clouds from the water vapor amounts. — Cortonin | Talk 22:39, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)

(William M. Connolley 09:04, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)) We've been through all this before: see above.
Yeah, I read the above. The points I just raised were not addressed any better above than you just did now. If you're going to erase it as you just did, then please address those points, because the description in the opening paragraphs is incomplete until we do. — Cortonin | Talk 15:49, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I don't think it's quite right to call it a "cloud-free case", since in the 36%, that's 36% of the greenhouse total, which includes clouds, which is reduced upon the removal of water. So it's more accurate to say "not including clouds" than to say "cloud-free case." — Cortonin | Talk 04:58, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Complete list page

(William M. Connolley 21:31, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)) On reflection, JG is correct to point out that the wiki page contains links to the gases, which is useful.

So why not merge that page with this one and put the better list in its proper place?--JonGwynne 21:49, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)
(William M. Connolley 22:00, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)) Don't push your credit, because you have none. All that was discussed before. You lost. Give it up.
Rest your neck dude. I was just asking a simple and civil question, you didn't have to get all <fill in the blank> about it. And since when is wikipedia a "game" than one "wins" or "loses"? Just because some people think it is, doesn't mean that this is the case.--JonGwynne 22:13, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)
(William M. Connolley 22:35, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)) You were thinking about restarting the edit war that you lost before: that is the sense of "lost" I meant.
Dude, maybe you should take a few deep breaths and do some yoga or something. You seem to be looking for confrontation where none exists. Remember, there is no spoon. --JonGwynne 23:04, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Global warming potential

The section on Global warming potential largely duplicates that article, to no obvious purpose. I suggest merging the article into that section. As and when the section gets too big, the article can be recreated, and the section be written as a summary of that larger article, instead of a duplication. Rd232 22:30, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

Sounds good to me, GWP is rather redundant with this section. You might want to place a merge to note on that page for those who may watch it and not this one. Vsmith 22:51, 28 July 2005 (UTC)
I still feel a bit unhappy with this. GWP is a thing in itself. The article has the potential to expand, one day, to include how they are calculated and what use they are. William M. Connolley 10:53:24, 2005-07-29 (UTC).
A potential that can quite adequately be met by recreating the article, as and when the section here gets too big. I really don't see the point of having the same thing in two places just because of what might happen "one day". It's easily reversible as and when, and in the mean time merging is clearly better, IMO, because tidier and less likely to lead to contradiction across articles. Rd232 11:43, 29 July 2005 (UTC)
yes, I understand that, which is why I'm only "unhappy" rather than "defending it to the death"... :-) William M. Connolley 14:36:00, 2005-07-29 (UTC).

There's also Global warming, Climate change, and even Paleoclimatology. I don't know what to do about it or I'd do it but it seems there's a lot of overlap in a lot of places. --kop 05:31, 18 September 2005 (UTC)

Of course there should be overlap as these issues deal with the same topic. But all these terms mean something different. Not each should tell the whole story of global warming, but the term should be well defined as it can be expected from an encyclpedia. For more details it should link to a more general article. I assume Climate change could be the more general term where the main climatological processes should be explained. I regard it as more general than Global warming. The term Climate change could also cover cooling effects etc.. Paleoclimatology should simply define the definition of this science. Global warming potential (GWP) should also be kept seperately as this a term, which will get more and more relevant. Especially as IPCC will change and use GWP instead of radiative forcing as the base "climate currency". Therefore I very much like the idea that somebody also describes the state of the art of calculating GWP and refers to papers for deeper insights. RiM
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../g/r/e/Talk%7EGreenhouse_gas_Archive_1_4908.html"