Geez Justis Your solution to reduce/curb GHG IS TO MAKE a GHG...

Geez Justis

Your solution to reduce/curb GHG IS TO MAKE a GHG gas.

And you can't see a flaw!

Your breakdown above is, as it states is ►► (except water vapour) ? This is not a problem for you?

The gas H²O is the principal component to the global greenhouse gas

95% - 96% of it.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

A large critical critique of the global warming scientism narrative - is that there is simply no data for how much H²O there was in the atmosphere, in the last hour; the last week; the last year; the last century; the last millennium; the last epoch' OR the last 500 million years ago when the worlds carbon deposits were laid into the earth's mantle.

H²O is 95% roughly of all GHG! Over this time, where has this? 90%? 98%? There are periods of total glaciation of the planet, in the last 500 million years. Which would have precipitated all H²O out of the lower atmosphere?

Point is we KNOW absolutely nothing about it!

So we have a huge theory predicated on an increase of 11.9 ppm (your data above) of 368 ppm (your data above) of 4% (non H²O gases) * 0.99438 (your data above) = 0.1284% of the GHG that man has added to the atmosphere since industrialisation. [Their estimates]

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - --

No only that i.e. not knowing how much H²O vapour there was in the atmosphere at any time, is in that there is a complete lack of data on what state the H²O is in, in any particular time. Nor do we have data on what H²O is at any altitude, for unlike CO² which disperses fairly randomly throughout the atmosphere, H²O does not, and so at each level into the stratosphere the greenhouse/albedo rate changes too. So too H²O can also be in ice, snow, sleet, hail, cloud (of over thirty types of cloud), or water and each of these have various greenhouse blanket effects OR albedo reflective indices. So H²O is the primary warmer, it is infuriatingly the primary cooler too! And on this we have absolutely no data in the last hour; the last week; the last year; the last century; but for the most menial records, the last millennium; the last epoch' NOR the last 500 million years ago!

None, whatsoever!

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

You are the forum statistician, and you'd know that no that statistics would normally be confidently quoted at less than a 95% confidence level. Most of the GHG you defer to represents about 4% - 5% of all the quantifiable data & effect,

How do you accept the results, without 95% of the H²O data? How do you accept the results, without 95% of the data systemically excluded from the core samples? How do you accept the results, when 95%-96% of the H²O data sample is so heinously rude and insolent when compared to the static, tired and rather dopey but well behaved other CO² 4%-5%

These are the first-order issues of complexity that cannot be solved net alone collated! Trying to quantify the asymmetry in a higher level of deduction is a farce.

Not to mention that the blanket effect is probably an 'emergent effect'! An emergent effect is something that arises that differs materially from the components. So no matter how much we understand CO², and we have GREAT data, and no matter how much we understand H²O vapour, and we have absolutely 5h1t to non-existent data, we cannot make suppositions from those independent components as to how the collective phenomenon/something will countenance itself.

It is important for real science to recognise that there are often no answers. It is arrogant to believe otherwise. It is a crime to influence the world with this non-understanding! Surely..

I'll give you the answer this time. ANS:- Yes it is!

Not until "SCIENCE" truly answers the science...

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Just as being nice to the arrogant is no better than being arrogant toward the nice, being accommodating toward anyone committing a nefarious action condones it...

AGW scientism is such a nefarious action - we must not accommodate it !