Talk:IPCC list of greenhouse gases
(William M. Connolley 08:45, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)) IPCC, and the GW pages, use gases.
I see we're arguing about this page . Bear in mind that this page was created during one of the Vast Edit Wars and there may be a good argument for deleting the thing William M. Connolley (talk) 09:52, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
The summary statement says "This is a list of anthropogenic greenhouse gases as used by the IPCC TAR."
However, it is a list of LLGHG (long-lived greenhouse gases). Not the same thing. For example, water vapor is a Greenhouse gas, but not a LLGHG. And methane is a LLGHG, but not all methane is anthropogenic. While there is substantial overlap in the names, the radiative forcing values refer (I believe) to the total amount of the gas, not just the anthropogenic portion.
I think the edit is straightforward, but as there are a lot of people with a lot of interest and knowledge in these areas, I thought I'd mention it in the talk page first.--SPhilbrickT 23:58, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
I accept these are the IPCC published numbers. But they are very strange. Take for example "HCFC-141b 18 ± 0.068 ppt" Does this mean the true figure is in a range of 17.932-18.068ppt or one of 17.432-18.568ppt? It is unhelpful rounding the central estimate and showing the precision of the unrounded estimate.
My other point is that the ppm and ppb numbers for CO2, CH4 and N2O are not comparable with the ppt for CFCs etc. CFC-12 at 538 ppt at first sight suggests that half the atmosphere (538/1000) is one particular CFC. It isn't. So more explanation is needed.--Rumping (talk) 08:09, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
- On the second point, it seems ppt means parts per (short) trillion not parts per thousand. Awful, if this table is supposed to be a reference.--Rumping (talk) 09:37, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
I don't know why for the first chart one format is used, and for the remaining charts another format is used. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Yuan Lin (talk • contribs) 23:12, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
Water Vapor is missing from the list.
- Correctly so: this is the IPCC list of GHG's. And since WV isn't really a forcing, it isn't so interesting William M. Connolley (talk) 20:49, 10 September 2010 (UTC)
- Err, not so if the influence of H2O as a green house gas is much more significant than say CO2. Since CERN has recently shown the SUN's magnetic field affects the relationship between cloud creation and cosmic rays, water should be on the list. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 126.96.36.199 (talk) 19:18, 28 December 2011 (UTC)
I have altered a recently added comment on this. The inclusion of the 95%/90% claim seems undue weight, since it is not an important anthropogenic component. I am tempted to remove any mention that water vapor is omitted, but left it in for discussion. Thoughts? --TeaDrinker (talk) 17:47, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
- I took it out. This is the IPCC list; there is no real reason to mention WV or to note that they don't. The 95% figure is trash, anyway William M. Connolley (talk) 18:09, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
- WMC is right, this is the IPCC list. Adding a comment that something is missing is verging on, or blundering into OR. Water vapor as a GHG isn't missing from Wikipedia, it is well-covered. Not to mention (as I was reminded by reading my earlier comment) that it isn't even correct to say that water vapor is missing. The list is a list of long-lived greenhouse gases. Water vapor does not qualify. --SPhilbrick(Talk) 18:13, 20 March 2012 (UTC)