[Vision2020] Global warming, water vapor, and our contribution

[Paul Rumelhart]

I've been doing some reading on global warming, since I was curious how 
big a source gas usage for travel was to the problem.  I ran across a 
couple of websites that seem to show that the problem (or rather, man's 
contribution to it) is smaller than I'd heard.  I was curious what 
others thought.

One site 
(http://www.clearlight.com/~mhieb/WVFossils/greenhouse_data.html) was 
arguing that water vapor had such a major impact on global warming that 
the total contribution that carbon dioxide played in the system was 
reduced to 3.618% after factoring water vapor in to the equations.  
Since the percentage of carbon dioxide from cars and trucks comes to 
about 33% of the total man-made carbon-dioxide and man-made carbon 
dioxide is only 3.225% of the total carbon-dioxide and that is only 
3.618% of the problem, the actual impact of cars and trucks on the 
problem comes out to be 0.33 * 0.03225 * 0.03618 * 100 = 0.0385% on 
greenhouse gasses as a whole.  That number would still have to be 
multiplied by the percentage effect that greenhouse gasses have on 
global warming, which I couldn't find a number for. 

Another site (http://www.oism.org/pproject/s33p36.htm) was arguing that 
global warming was from mostly natural causes, such as solar 
variability, and that the Earth has been much hotter in the past 3,000 
years.  In fact, we are still trying to get back to the mean temperature 
over that time period due to the "Little Ice Age" that happened in the 
1700's.  The added carbon from underground sources (such as oil and 
coal) are being made available for use by plants and the animals that 
depend on them.  Thus, increasing crop yields and forest growth, and 
increasing animal populations as well.

That's not to say that there aren't dangers from global warming, as 
explained on yet another site 
(http://www.ecobridge.org/content/g_tht.htm).  These include heat waves, 
disease, hurricanes, rises in sea level, increase in allergens, and 
rapid climate change brought on by changes in major ocean currents.

I'm beginning to wonder if we are putting our efforts in the wrong 
place.  What if we simply accepted global warming as a natural event and 
put our efforts and resources into responding to the problems caused by 
global warming instead?  Should we be putting our resources toward 
hurricane disaster relief, increased infrastructure to handle rolling 
blackouts, centers that are climate controlled to help with heat waves, 
or levees to handle seawater rises?

I get an image of Indiana Jones trying to stop the rock that is rolling 
towards him in the tunnel by pushing against it instead of jumping to 
one side.

There are still plenty of reasons why we should reduce or eliminate our 
fossil fuel needs, namely unstable political situations and normal 
every-day pollution.  Encouraging walking and daily commuting have their 
own rewards.  I'd like to get the green thinkers back on the subjects of 
harmful chemical pollutants and their effects on our environment and 
treat the carbon dioxide problem as a "wrath of the gods" type issue.

Thoughts?

Paul