Cracks in the Global Warming Case?

[Mango]

Re: Cracks in the Global Warming Case?

Mooncliff,

Do you have a link that works for the NCDC? I can't find it.

I was just skimming the last page of this long Tulip argument and your comments stood out as eminently rational.

Thanks

[MulaMan]

Re: Cracks in the Global Warming Case?

I think a more interesting question is:

How many of those that think global warming does NOT exist also believe that Noah built an Ark 2,000+ years ago using wooden tools that was big enough to hold 2 of every species on planet earth?

Please provide your answers to the following:

1. How big was Noah's Ark?

Assume 1 square foot per animal. Estimates vary between 5 and 30 million species on earth. So Noah built a boat that was between 5 and 30 million square feet.

Big Boat. LOL.

Conclusion -> There was no Noah's Ark - try and explain that to a religous fanatic in America and you'll get similar arguments back as the AGW crowd.

This AGW stuff must be a disease of the brain, similar mechanism to religion, unable to reason around a specific topic but able to reason just fine on other topics. It is like a part of the brain gets 100% blocked off.

It is absolutely fasinating to me. I am dead serious, it is amazing.

and here is great web site for the AGW people.

http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/kids/index.html

[Diarmuid]

Re: Cracks in the Global Warming Case?

I think a more interesting question is:

How many of those that think global warming does NOT exist also believe that Noah built an Ark 2,000+ years ago using wooden tools that was big enough to hold 2 of every species on planet earth?

Please provide your answers to the following:

1. How big was Noah's Ark?

Assume 1 square foot per animal. Estimates vary between 5 and 30 million species on earth. So Noah built a boat that was between 5 and 30 million square feet.

Big Boat. LOL.

Conclusion -> There was no Noah's Ark - try and explain that to a religous fanatic in America and you'll get similar arguments back as the AGW crowd.

This AGW stuff must be a disease of the brain, similar mechanism to religion, unable to reason around a specific topic but able to reason just fine on other topics. It is like a part of the brain gets 100% blocked off.

It is absolutely fasinating to me. I am dead serious, it is amazing.

and here is great web site for the AGW people.

http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/kids/index.html

For all your pedantic efforts at irony, I am not sure that the site you provided, does not just about sum up your own knowledge on the topic, based on your previous posts, your name calling efforts at discourse. So before you point out the splinter in the fundamentalists eye, better to remove the beam in your own first.

[c1ue]

Re: Cracks in the Global Warming Case?

This AGW stuff must be a disease of the brain, similar mechanism to religion, unable to reason around a specific topic but able to reason just fine on other topics. It is like a part of the brain gets 100% blocked off.

Couldn't have said it better myself.

I thought you were one of the AGW believers? Or are clear sentences based on grammar and correct spelling another one of the casualties of 'AGW stuff'?

[MulaMan]

Re: Cracks in the Global Warming Case?

What do grammers got to do with reason?

Before some AGW fool tries to argue that Noah's Ark exists. I am not smart enough to come up with these arguments myself but I knew that they were out there:


How many years did it take Noah to build the Ark?

It is implied by Dr. Henry H. Halley, that prior to the flood, God made His decision to destroy sinful mankind when Noah was 480 years old (Gen 6:3). From that time, Noah was asked to build the Ark, at 500 years old, begot "Shem, Ham and Japeth" (Gen 5:32) and at 600 years old finally entered the Ark (Gen 7:6). Therefore, taking the difference in Noah's age from the "commission" to the flood was 120 years. Or roughly 120 years to build the Ark.

---

What are the dimensions of the Ark?

Genesis 6:15 And this [is the fashion] which thou shalt make it [of]: The length of the ark [shall be] three hundred cubits, the breadth of it fifty cubits, and the height of it thirty cubits. 16 A window shalt thou make to the ark, and in a cubit shalt thou finish it above; and the door of the ark shalt thou set in the side thereof; [with] lower, second, and third [stories] shalt thou make it. [KJV]
Most bibles assume an 18 inch cubit, therefore, the Ark would have the following characteristics:

	Length	Width	Height
Cubits	300	50	30
Feet	450	75	45
Meters	137.2	22.8	13.7

	Total Floor Area
Square Cubits	45000
Square Feet	101250
Square Meters	9406

	Volume
Cubic Cubits	450000
Cubic Feet	1518750
Cubic Meters	43006

How in the world could ALL animals fit into the Ark?


First, why take adult full-sized animals, when youthful smaller animals would accomplish the same thing? Second, why put fish or other aquatic animals/creatures on the Ark when surrounded by water? Third, why put burrowing animal/creatures like insects, snails and worms in the Ark? As you can see, logically rethinking the situation reduces the count considerably. An excellent resource is available to you written by John Woodmorappe entitled, Noah's Ark: A Feasibility Study . See the Publications page, Noah's Ark Books (#18) to review a copy at Amazon.com.





Here are a few points of interest:

• One pair (two) of each unclean animal. (Gen 7:2, 15)
• Seven pairs (fourteen) of the clean animals and birds. (Gen 7:2, 15) (p 8)
  • Clean animals are identified in Leviticus 11.
• Clean animals and birds used for food and sacrifice. (Gen 8:20)
• It is estimated that there were about 16,000 animals on the Ark. (p 13)
• Only 11% of the animals on the Ark were substantially larger than sheep. (p 13)
• The animals would have occupied 46.8% of the Ark's floor space. (p15)
• Dry food: 4378 tons (1990 metric tons) 6-12% Ark volume. (p 18)
• Drinking water: 1.07 million gal (4.07ML) 9.4% of Ark volume. (p 20)

More great reading for the AGW crowd here to work on thier arguments: http://www.arksearch.com/naemail.htm

[jneal3]

Re: Cracks in the Global Warming Case?

What do grammers got to do with reason?

Before some AGW fool tries to argue that Noah's Ark exists. I am not smart enough to come up with these arguments myself but I knew that they were out there:


How many years did it take Noah to build the Ark?

It is implied by Dr. Henry H. Halley, that prior to the flood, God made His decision to destroy sinful mankind when Noah was 480 years old (Gen 6:3). From that time, Noah was asked to build the Ark, at 500 years old, begot "Shem, Ham and Japeth" (Gen 5:32) and at 600 years old finally entered the Ark (Gen 7:6). Therefore, taking the difference in Noah's age from the "commission" to the flood was 120 years. Or roughly 120 years to build the Ark.

---

What are the dimensions of the Ark?

Genesis 6:15 And this [is the fashion] which thou shalt make it [of]: The length of the ark [shall be] three hundred cubits, the breadth of it fifty cubits, and the height of it thirty cubits. 16 A window shalt thou make to the ark, and in a cubit shalt thou finish it above; and the door of the ark shalt thou set in the side thereof; [with] lower, second, and third [stories] shalt thou make it. [KJV]
Most bibles assume an 18 inch cubit, therefore, the Ark would have the following characteristics:

	Length	Width	Height
Cubits	300	50	30
Feet	450	75	45
Meters	137.2	22.8	13.7

	Total Floor Area
Square Cubits	45000
Square Feet	101250
Square Meters	9406

	Volume
Cubic Cubits	450000
Cubic Feet	1518750
Cubic Meters	43006

How in the world could ALL animals fit into the Ark?


First, why take adult full-sized animals, when youthful smaller animals would accomplish the same thing? Second, why put fish or other aquatic animals/creatures on the Ark when surrounded by water? Third, why put burrowing animal/creatures like insects, snails and worms in the Ark? As you can see, logically rethinking the situation reduces the count considerably. An excellent resource is available to you written by John Woodmorappe entitled, Noah's Ark: A Feasibility Study . See the Publications page, Noah's Ark Books (#18) to review a copy at Amazon.com.







Here are a few points of interest:

• One pair (two) of each unclean animal. (Gen 7:2, 15)
• Seven pairs (fourteen) of the clean animals and birds. (Gen 7:2, 15) (p 8)
  • Clean animals are identified in Leviticus 11.
• Clean animals and birds used for food and sacrifice. (Gen 8:20)
• It is estimated that there were about 16,000 animals on the Ark. (p 13)
• Only 11% of the animals on the Ark were substantially larger than sheep. (p 13)
• The animals would have occupied 46.8% of the Ark's floor space. (p15)
• Dry food: 4378 tons (1990 metric tons) 6-12% Ark volume. (p 18)
• Drinking water: 1.07 million gal (4.07ML) 9.4% of Ark volume. (p 20)

More great reading for the AGW crowd here to work on thier arguments: http://www.arksearch.com/naemail.htm

Wow. I stand corrected. Are we done here?

[ThePythonicCow]

Re: Cracks in the Global Warming Case?

Thanks for that article. It gives me a new mindset. Just ignore the crazies. I don't know whether it will help the country, but it will help to keep me sane.

Whom are you thanking, for which article?

It helps to quote a snippet of whatever you're responding to, especially on large threads with many posts.

P.S. -- I figured out the answer to my question, immediately after posting it ;).

Orforded was responding to: halcyon's

This reminds me of a useful article.

[ThePythonicCow]

Re: Cracks in the Global Warming Case?

All these point toward something besides a science based rationale.

So please by all means give up the fight. Take your AGW marbles and go home.

Your inflexible and equally uninformed and uninforming stance has not been of benefit to me - I won't speak for anyone else.

You speak for at least one other - myself.

I fear Anthromorphic Group Wrongheadedness more than I do Anthromorphic Global Warming.

[santafe2]

Re: Cracks in the Global Warming Case?

The hypothesis I put forward was merely an observation which contradicts the "settled science" but not the historical record. In a normal scientific endeavor, many hypotheses are put forward and validated or invalidated over time. As has been already noted: the existence of positive or negative feedback due to CO2 is not conclusive (IPCC) or small/negative (Lindzen), yet the models all assume large positive values of feedback. Thus the assumption of a negative feedback due to CO2 is not at all unreasonable given the complete lack of conclusive evidence thus far.

OK, I was getting very bored with this thread, but this answer is interesting. If you'd like to have a dialog regarding this issue, I'd like to continue as I have time to respond. A GHG like CO2 as a negative feedback loop seems like a non-starter to me but let's assume I'm incorrect.

Can you offer some evidence? I think my original post with regard to this period offered a warming of the ocean as the primary cause of CO2 increase during a period of temperature cooling. As oceans warm their ability to consume CO2 lessens and they begin to out-gas CO2. As temperature falls, oceans balance and begin to consume CO2. As I understand it, this is the way the earth worked prior to 6B+ humans.

If you have an alternate explanation, I'd like to hear it.

[c1ue]

Re: Cracks in the Global Warming Case?

What do grammers got to do with reason?

Perhaps grammar and spelling have nothing to do with reason, but equally perhaps attempting to demonstrate reason is impossible if your assertion of 'A' actually is read to be 'B'.

How hard is it really to first type into a word processor before posting?

Can you offer some evidence? I think my original post with regard to this period offered a warming of the ocean as the primary cause of CO2 increase during a period of temperature cooling. As oceans warm their ability to consume CO2 lessens and they begin to out-gas CO2. As temperature falls, oceans balance and begin to consume CO2. As I understand it, this is the way the earth worked prior to 6B+ humans.

The wherefores of the increase of CO2 levels in the atmosphere is not the question. As I've noted before, it seems reasonable that temperature changes in the ocean cause outgassing - though this does not preclude other causes.

The question is: if CO2 in the atmosphere is a primary driver for temperature and/or a positive feedback mechanism, then how can increasing CO2 permit temperatures to fall?

If an initial energy input change causes temperature to increase - i.e. orbital tilt - with subsequent ocean outgassing leading to CO2 increases, then logically rising CO2 levels should further increase the rate of temperature increases.

After all, initial radiative budget increase of 'X' should be 'X + Y' if CO2 is both increasing as a GHG and as a positive feedback mechanism.

The evidence for this is scanty at best.

Furthermore if the original orbital tilt reverses - i.e. the radiative energy budget returns to previous levels - then rising CO2 levels should moderate the fall in temperature.

Or in other words the temperature fall should be slower than the temperature rise - assuming the radiative budget changes are consistent in both directions.

In fact the records show temperature falls are FASTER than the temperature rises.

Faster temperature falls with increasing CO2 seems very inconsistent with both CO2 as a primary GHG and also as a positive feedback mechanism.

It would be more likely that either CO2 is irrelevant or the overall feedback is negative.

And on the subject of feedback: a couple of examples of Roy Spencer

1) Dr. Spencer being attacked by an AGW - all the usual suspects: Exxon funding, its different this time, sea level rise, Antarctic Ice (note this was 2008 - before either the 2008 or 2009 increases became known)

A nice reprise of many of the 'arguments' presented in this thread thus far. I do like how Dr. Albert backtracks in saying that "IPCC is getting better". Yet the call for action started in the '80s?

http://www.toddalbert.com/files/2008...calAnimals.mov

2) Dr. Spencer examining the Lindzen and Choi paper postulating CO2 as part of a negative feedback mechanism:

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/11/0...er/#more-12444

Note that despite Dr. Spencer being a prominent 'denier', unlike the AGW crowd he focuses on the science rather than pushing a common agenda.

I have yet to see examples of AGW proponents critiquing each other's work.

The authors showed that satellite-observed radiation loss by the Earth increased dramatically with warming, often in excess of 6 Watts per sq. meter per degree (6 W m^-2 K^-1). In stark contrast, all of the computerized climate models they examined did just the opposite, with the atmosphere trapping more radiation with warming rather than releasing more.

The implication of their results was clear: most if not all climate models that predict global warming are far too sensitive, and thus produce far too much warming and associated climate change in response to humanity’s carbon dioxide emissions.

...

A GOOD METHODOLOGY: FOCUS ON THE LARGEST TEMPERATURE CHANGES

One thing I liked about the authors’ analysis is that they examined only those time periods with the largest temperature changes – whether warming or cooling. There is a good reason why one can expect a more accurate estimate of feedback by just focusing on those large temperature changes, rather than blindly treating all time periods equally. The reason is that feedback is the radiation change RESULTING FROM a temperature change. If there is a radiation change, but no temperature change, then the radiation change obviously cannot be due to feedback. Instead, it would be from some internal variation in cloudiness not caused by feedback.

But it also turns out that a non-feedback radiation change causes a time-lagged temperature change which completely obscures the resulting feedback. In other words, it is not possible to measure the feedback in response to a radiatively induced temperature change that can not be accurately quantified (e.g., from chaotic cloud variations in the system). This is the subject of several of my previous blog postings, and is addressed in detail in our new JGR paper — now in review — entitled, “On the Diagnosis of Radiative Feedbacks in the Presence of Unknown Radiative Forcing”, by Spencer and Braswell).

WHAT DO THE AMIP CLIMATE MODEL RESULTS MEAN?

Now for my main concern. Lindzen and Choi examined the AMIP (Atmospheric Model Intercomparison Project) climate model runs, where the sea surface temperatures (SSTs) were specified, and the model atmosphere was then allowed to respond to the specified surface temperature changes. Energy is not conserved in such model experiments since any atmospheric radiative feedback which develops (e.g. a change in vapor or clouds) is not allowed to then feed-back upon the surface temperature, which is what happens in the real world.

Now, this seems like it might actually be a GOOD thing for estimating feedbacks, since (as just mentioned) most feedbacks are the atmospheric response to surface forcing, not the surface response to atmospheric forcing. But the results I have been getting from the fully coupled ocean-atmosphere (CMIP) model runs that the IPCC depends upon for their global warming predictions do NOT show what Lindzen and Choi found in the AMIP model runs. While the authors found decreases in radiation loss with short-term temperature increases, I find that the CMIP models exhibit an INCREASE in radiative loss with short term warming.

In fact, a radiation increase MUST exist for the climate system to be stable, at least in the long term. Even though some of the CMIP models produce a lot of global warming, all of them are still stable in this regard, with net increases in lost radiation with warming (NOTE: If analyzing the transient CMIP runs where CO2 is increased over long periods of time, one must first remove that radiative forcing in order to see the increase in radiative loss).

So, while I tend to agree with the Lindzen and Choi position that the real climate system is much less sensitive than the IPCC climate models suggest, it is not clear to me that their results actually demonstrate this.

...

But since the Lindzen and Choi results were for changes on time scales longer than 36 days, next I computed similar statistics for 108-day averages. Once again we see feedback diagnoses in the range of 2 to 4 W m^-2 K^-1:

Finally, I extended the time averaging to 180 days (five 36-day periods), which is probably closest to the time averaging that Lindzen and Choi employed. But rather than getting closer to the higher feedback parameter values they found, the result is instead somewhat lower, around 2 W m^-2 K^-1.

By way of comparison, the IPCC CMIP (coupled ocean-atmosphere) models show long-term feedbacks generally in the range of 1 to 2 W m^-2 K^-1. So, my ERBE results are not that different from the models. BUT..it should be remembered that: (1) the satellite results here (and those of Lindzen and Choi) are for just the tropics, while the model feedbacks are for global averages; and (2) it has not yet been demonstrated that short-term feedbacks in the real climate system (or in the models) are substantially the same as the long-term feedbacks.

WHAT DOES ALL THIS MEAN?

It is not clear to me just what the Lindzen and Choi results mean in the context of long-term feedbacks (and thus climate sensitivity). I’ve been sitting on the above analysis for weeks since (1) I am not completely comfortable with their averaging of the satellite data, (2) I get such different results for feedback parameters than they got; and (3) it is not clear whether their analysis of AMIP model output really does relate to feedbacks in those models, especially since my analysis (as yet unpublished) of the more realistic CMIP models gives very different results.

[we_are_toast]

Re: Cracks in the Global Warming Case?

back to overview

Model Experiment about the Greenhouse Effect



In the experiment transport of heat we saw that the transfer of energy in the air via normal heat conductivity is not as easy as e.g. in water. The energy of light is transported in the air as electromagnetical radiation. Only a small fraction of this energy spectrum (visible light) can be experienced by our eyes. Other parts are invisible and damage e.g. our skin (as ultraviolet light) or we can feel it as warm radiation (infrared radiation). The temperature in the atmosphere is considerably governed by the capability of the air molecules to absorb this radiation.
An important fraction of the sunlight reaching the earth’s surface is absorbed, transformed into thermal energy and emitted again as infrared radiation. Greenhouse gases in the atmosphere are these gases who efficiently absorb this infrared radiation emitted by the earth in order to keep the heat in the atmosphere like in a greenhouse.

In order to investigate this phenomenon we carry out the following experiment:



Experimental setup:

Glass vessels containing air (right) and CO2 (left)
two lights of identical output
two pans with water
black cardboard
Temperature feeler (data registration by a computer)


Experiment:


A The lights in the experiments represent the sun, which emits light towards the earth.
B A pan filled 1cm with water is needed in order to absorb the thermal energy emitted by the lights, which would disturb the experiment. Normal bulbs emit a major fraction of their energy as heat but only the radiation should pass and is required for the processes below.
C1 The left hand side glass vessel is filled with pure carbon dioxide.
C2 The right hand side vessel is filled with normal air containing only about 0,037% of carbon dioxide. Therefore the absorbing effect of CO2 is by far stronger in the left vessel and the capability to act as greenhouse gas can be estimated through this experimental setup.
D Below the glass vessels (covered by the sign) is a layer of black cardboard, representing the dark surface of the earth. After switiching on the light, the temperature is measured in both bessels and plotted on the computer screen as a function of the time.

Sketch of the experimental setup

(!Please click the picture in order to see an animation - takes some loading time!)

left: carbon dioxide the infrared radiation emitted by the cardboard, is absorbed by the CO2 and causes an increase of heat in the vessel.

right: air the infrared radiation emitted by the cardboard leaves the vessel without any significant absorption. The increase in tempearture is less.

Occuring processes:
1) The lights are switched on
2) Infrared light (heat) is absorbed by the water in the pan above the vessel and does not reach the air or the CO2 below.
3) The visible light emitted by the bulbs passes the water and reaches the black cardboard.
4) The cardboard becomes warmer and emits infrared radiation.
5) The infrared light is absorbed by the pure carbon dioxide (left) much stronger than by the air (right).
6) In the vessel with carbon dioxide the gas is heated due the absorption.

Result:

Temperature as a function of time:

Time	T (air)	T (CO2)
[min]	[°C]	[°C]
0	22	22
5	32	37
10	35	40
15	40	45
20	44	50

Diagram:
The blue series in front shows the course of temperatures in the right vessel.
The violet series behind shows the temperature course in the left vessel containing carbon dioxide.

Conclusions:

Due to the infrared radiation absorbed by the pure carbon dioxide this gas is heated by far stronger than the air consisting mainly from nitrogen and oxygen. The fraction of carbon dioxide in the air is acting as an greenhouse gas.

Direct and measurable.

[sunskyfan]

Re: Cracks in the Global Warming Case?

I am someone who basis their world view on Reason. I am also someone who has spent a great deal of time around Science types. I am also someone who grew up in the center of the Bible Belt.

Unfortunately, there is not much difference between a bunch of theologians ranting about the validity of the ark or the bible code and most Science types ranting about computer models and a complex multi-parameter control problem. The personality traits and ego infusion is pretty much the same. The ability of the "successful" players to say "I don't know" or "I was wrong" is pretty much zero. The production of Priests, Rabbis, and Ministers parallels most PHD programs right down to the ceremonies and cult like behavior of benediction and bequeathment of robes and power.

Global Warming is, at its core, a euphemism for Over-population at the subconscious core of humanity. Something that is obviously a problem but we just can't face because even the most liberal, off-the-grid, earth-loving hippie chick feels the right to have a baby. Do you ever notice that the effects of the data comes from where there are no people (the arctic or the Himalayan glaciers) and the predictions of catastrophe are in the highest population density places on Earth?

Climate change happens on Earth. That is a fact. Get used to it. Whether from solar variability or oscillations in atmospheric gas content due to vulcanos and/or human beings. Will human beings die as it happens? Yes. Will human beings die from some other over-population induced phenomena anyway? Yes. They already are and they are called cities.

So, until I see a political and cultural movement that actually takes on OP this is all silly talk. As for the future of communion ... "solyent green is people!".

[jneal3]

Re: Cracks in the Global Warming Case?

Direct and measurable.

This would have been fascinating if they had conducted the experiment not with pure CO2 but with a doubling of the concentration in air. Assuming someone somewhere has done that, is it safe to assume that those would be the kind of results used to form the basis for the parameter settings in the computer sims?

[we_are_toast]

Re: Cracks in the Global Warming Case?

This would have been fascinating if they had conducted the experiment not with pure CO2 but with a doubling of the concentration in air. Assuming someone somewhere has done that, is it safe to assume that those would be the kind of results used to form the basis for the parameter settings in the computer sims?

1st, I don't want to mislead you into believing that this is some novel new experiment. These types of CO2 experiments have been conducted for more than 100 years by scientists, and now high school science classes, and the results are well established.

CO2 is the basis for the computer models, BUT CO2 is a trigger mechanism which leads to many, many complex interactions between the upper atmosphere, the oceans, permafrost, sea ice, glaciers, ... Anyone who implies there is a direct linear relationship between CO2 and surface temperatures is promoting the pseudoscience plastered on this thread. In the last 10 years or so, the major climate models have been pretty accurate, with the error falling in underestimating the rate of increase in temperatures.

Here's another direct measurement;

How are infrared spectra obtained, and what do they look like? An infrared spectrometer consists of a glowing filament that generates infrared radiation (heat), which is passed through the sample to be studied. A detector measures the amount of radiation at various wavelengths that is transmitted by the sample. This information is recorded on a chart, where the percent of the incident light that is transmitted through the sample (% transmission) is plotted against wavelength in microns (um) or the frequency (). Remember that energy is inversely proportional to wavelength. If we define wavenumber (a.k.a. "reciprocal centimeters") = 1/ (), we have a parameter that is directly proportional to energy. Figure 6 shows the infrared spectrum of a gaseous sample of carbon dioxide. Note that the intensity of the transmitted light is close to 100% everywhere except where the sample absorbs: at 2349 (4.26 um) and at 667 (15.00 um).

If you look at the theory, look at the direct measurements, look at the experimental evidence, and you'll see why there is overwhelming consensus among the thousands of scientists studying the subject. Only through the alchemy of the pseudoscience, promoted by deniers, can they hope to confuse the issue enough to cast doubt with a public trying to understand a very complex, but critical subject.

You'll notice, in EJ's latest piece on oil, iTulip has proclaimed the non peak oil arguments are debunked, and will probably show little tolerance for those who start making arguments that oil is created through some chemical process deep inside granite and we only need to drill in the right place to find it. There is far, far, more evidence debunking the psudoscience of the deniers of AGW than there is for the deniers of peak oil. I'm a bit confused why, after EJ stated his fear that we are entering an age of unreason ( a point I very strongly agree with), iTulip allows this thread to remain in the News area of the site, rather than moving it to rant and rave. There are no cracks in the global warming fact, I hope we're not seeing the start of cracks in iTulips desire to promote reasoned analysis over unreasoned psudoscience.

[c1ue]

Re: Cracks in the Global Warming Case?

You'll notice, in EJ's latest piece on oil, iTulip has proclaimed the non peak oil arguments are debunked, and will probably show little tolerance for those who start making arguments that oil is created through some chemical process deep inside granite and we only need to drill in the right place to find it. There is far, far, more evidence debunking the psudoscience of the deniers of AGW than there is for the deniers of peak oil. I'm a bit confused why, after EJ stated his fear that we are entering an age of unreason ( a point I very strongly agree with), iTulip allows this thread to remain in the News area of the site, rather than moving it to rant and rave. There are no cracks in the global warming fact, I hope we're not seeing the start of cracks in iTulips desire to promote reasoned analysis over unreasoned psudoscience.

Yes, run home to poppa. Can't handle it on your own.

Maybe iTulip Ex Machina will save you.

Does CO2 absorb energy? Yes

Does CO2 cause temperatures worldwide to rise? Not clear

As has been explained in exhaustive detail, the Catastrophic AGW forecasts are actually based on 2 items:

1) Let's accept that CO2 causes global temperatures rises by absorbing heat. This is good for maybe 1 degree C. IPCC says it is all manmade CO2, others point out the Ice Age we are recovering from, historical record keeping anomalies, etc. Either way 1 degree C rise in 100 years is not catastrophic even if CO2 were indeed the cause.

2) CO2 not only causes global temperatures to rise but increases positive feedback in the climate such that the actual temperature rise will be 5 to 7 degrees C. This positive feedback is completely unproven, has been undemonstratable, and even IPCC itself says it is an assumption.

Show us a nifty high school experiment demonstrating 2).