Accuracy in Media

WASHINGTON — While conflicts in Syria, Iraq and Ukraine are dominating headlines (or should be) across the world, the United Nations (U.N.) released a report warning people about global warming. Or, in other words, the U.N. warned the world about global warming’s latest new reincarnation called “climate change.”

global-warming-red-signReuters reported that U.N. said the ozone layer is beginning to recover after years of being dangerously thin. The U.N. said that the ban on carbon dioxide and other gases in 1987 contributed to the progress.

The World Meteorological Organization and the U.N. Environment Programme said that it is an encouraging step, but said, “This should encourage us to display the same level of urgency and unity to tackle the even greater challenge of tackling climate change.”





Ready to fight back against media bias?
Join us by donating to AIM today.

Comments

  • The pause explained.

    A physics-based equation, with only two drivers (both natural) as independent variables, explains measured average global temperatures since before 1900 with 95% correlation, calculates credible values back to 1610, and predicts through 2037. The current trend is down.

    Search “AGWunveiled” for the drivers, method, equation, data sources, history (hind cast to 1610) and predictions (to 2037).

    Search “consensusmistakes” to find out why thermalization makes CO2 change NOT a driver.

  • CB

    “A physics-based equation, with only two drivers (both natural) as independent variables, explains measured average global temperatures since before 1900”

    If your still un-named drivers are stronger drivers of planetary temperature than CO₂, name a single previous time in Earth’s history they caused polar ice caps to form with CO₂ as high as we have today.

  • Those not too stubborn to do the search know the two drivers that explain average global temperatures since before 1900 with R^2 more than 0.9 (95% correlation). Do you know what R^2 greater than 0.9 means?

    Since it has been demonstrated that CO2 has no significant influence on climate, and the decline of ice is associated with warming from ice ages, and the temperature rise from the LIA appears to have ended in 2001, any relation between CO2 and ice caps is mere coincidence.

    The best long-term indicator of melting land ice is the increase in sea level. According to a graph in Wikipedia (not credibly contested), sea level has been rising approximately 7 inches per century for about 8000 years. For nearly all of that time, CO2 has been substantially constant at about 280 ppmv.

    If you actually care about this stuff, take the blinders off and do a little objective research; beyond looking at graphs of cherry-picked data.

  • CB

    “Those not too stubborn to do the search know the two drivers”

    Don’t be coy… state what they are, then name a single previous point in Earth’s history they caused polar ice caps to form with CO₂ as high as we have today.

    Why haven’t you done that already?

  • Michael Stone

    You actually wrote, > quote > (“Since it has been demonstrated that CO2 has no significant influence on climate”). < unquote. You call that accuracy?

    Who told you that misinformation and why are you posting it here on Accuracy in media?

    You must know that is not true.

  • It’s true.

    You have been egregiously deceived.

    Do the search to see the demonstration. Do you know what R^2 greater than 0.9 means?

  • Michael Stone

    Yes I know what that means. It means professional global warming deniers write that formula as if it means an atmospheric CO2 level of 340 to 400+ parts per million doesn’t have any effect on the temperature of the planet and they are trying to fool people into believing they know what they are talking about….
    The fact is when atmospheric CO2 levels were below 150 ppm an ice age was in process and when it dropped to less than 120 ppm the planet was almost totally covered with massive sheets of thick ice…
    On the other hand; when the atmospheric CO2 level was at or over 400 ppm, the planet was in a strong global warming event and that is where we stand now with dramatic global climate changes and on the verge of runway and irreversible global warming which if it continues we will have the sixth mass extinction of life on Earth.

  • OK, you don’t know what R^2 greater than 0.9 means so I will tell you. It is a measure of how accurately an equation matches measurements. No one else has done this well on all measured average global temperatures.

    The science is fine but apparently the consensus is doing something wrong because some think that it is a ‘travesty’ that measured average global temperature (AGT) is about 0.3 K lower than their models say it should be. They are pathetically misguided in other areas too as discussed at “consensusmistakes”.

    Apparently you lack the broad science skill to challenge the misinformation that has you terrified. The AGT trend is down but the huge random uncertainty in measured values has resulted in a flat trend since before 2001. Expect a sharp drop in future AGT with ever rising CO2 level.

    I have been tracking the growing separation between the rising CO2 and not-rising AGT for several years. Search “endofgw” to see the graph. How wide will this separation need to get before you begin to question your perception?

  • Michael Stone

    Yeah Danny boy and your scientific math formula is well proven science and the proof is the Arctic Region has not warmed at all during the past 20 years and the Arctic’s perennial ice is greater than it has been since records were kept on that issue…… Oh wait, maybe not!

    Your math formula is well proven because the world’s ocean temperatures’ have not risen during the past 20 years and coral reefs are not bleaching out and dying due to higher water temperatures….. Oh wait, maybe not!

    Your math formula is so superior to what science has determined is correct for more than 100 years, that it proves that science and physic which pertains to how the Earth’s atmosphere gases work is wrong and you are going to write it all up in a scientific paper, have it peer reviewed by S. Graves, Zlop, and Anthony Watts and present it to the scientific community and have it published in Journal Science… Your science will turn the scientific world upside down…. Oh wait, maybe not!

    You have proven that atmospheric CO2 levels can continue to rise to much more than just a measly 400 ppm and it won’t hurt anything and so it’s perfectly okay to burn millions of years old sequestered carbon and tell the scientific community to kiss your donkey.

    There is no use arguing it with a dithering dunce like me about it, a nitwit who is too stupid to grasp the important meaning of your math equation. So please do not bother replying to a fool who is not worth your valuable time…. Tell it to someone who may give a rip.

  • Herb Daniels

    You are really stupid to not understand that a big pile of CO2 in the middle of a block of ice would not affect the ice in any way shape or form.

    You’ve been debunked too many times yet you repeat the nonsense.

  • Herb Daniels

    Actually reality has proven Danny right.

    The temperature has long since separated from the CO2 level, and the only way AGW theory could possibly be correct is if the two marched in tandem.

    The fact that CO2 levels have risen and the temperature has not is more scientific proof than anything else.

    Reality is proof, not theory, no matter how smart the theory may sound.

  • Michael Stone

    Okay Danny boy if you say so… Start writing that science of yours’ all up and have it published in Science Journal and you will be on your merry way way to being the most important scientist on the planet… Fame, glory, riches and possibly a Knighthood. Get busy boy.

  • Voodude

    A single previous point? Most of the whole era, the Ordovican, which is part of the Paleozoic era, there were polar ice caps, and TEN TIMES the CO2 that we have, today.

    And here is the research cites you’re looking for, that say so:

    “Although Phanerozoic glaciations usually coincided with times of estimated low atmospheric CO2, the Late Ordovician (440 Ma) glaciation is a significant exception. CO2 levels during that time may have been as much as 10 times greater than present.”

    CROWLEY, TJ, and SK BAUM. “Toward reconciliation of late Ordovician (? 440 Ma) glaciation with very high CO2 levels.” JGR. Journal of geophysical research. Part D, Atmospheres 96.12 (1991): 22597-22610.
    **************************

    “…that polar ice-caps existed during the Ordovician, and that the…”

    “…Ordovician and at present, is possibly due to the presence of polar ice-caps. That has been indicated i.a. by EWING & DoNN (1956, 1958). If no polar ice-caps were present, the oceanic current system would have been considerably different, large part of the oceans might have been…”

    “This will explain both the absence of a glaciation in connection with the Caledonian foldings, and the presence of sharp climatic zoning in the Ordovician.”

    “The presence of polar ice-caps has a great stratigraphic importance. The climatic changes will increase and decrease the volume of water bound in the ice-caps, and that would lead…”

    Spjeldnaes, Nils. “Ordovician climatic zones.” Norsk Geologisk Tidsskrift 41.1 (1961): 45-77.

    http://foreninger.uio.no/ngf/ngt/pdfs/NGT_41_1_045-077.pdf

    **************************

    “at the end of the Ordovician, probably reflecting a large expansion of polar ice caps. The magnitude of this excursion indicates a degree of glaciation comparable to that at the height of the Quaternary glacial episodes.

    The secular ?13C trend may reflect a progressive increase in marine organic productivity and/or enhanced organic deposition in the Ordovician oceans, particularly noticeable at the time of the terminal Ordovician glaciation”

    Qing, Hairuo, and Jan Veizer. “Oxygen and carbon isotopic composition of Ordovician brachiopods: Implications for coeval seawater.” Geochimica et Cosmochimica Acta 58.20 (1994): 4429-4442.

    **************************

    “… caused by increase of the polar ice caps, bioproduction and decrease of oceanic water temperature, etc. Based on these relationships, the Gondwana glacial events are correlated…”

    “…conclusions : (1) all four Gondwana glaciations identified by tillites, microconglomeratic clays, etc. and dated biostratigraphically are recognised in the Baltic area through clear positive carbon isotope excursions at the same levels; (2) three smaller carbon isotope excursions in the Caradoc and Ashgill together with algal abundance data suggest the presence of several colder climate episodes during the late Ordovician.”

    Kaljo, Dimitri, et al. “Implications of Gondwana glaciations in the Baltic late Ordovician and Silurian and a carbon isotopic test of environmental cyclicity.”Bulletin de la Société géologique de France 174.1 (2003): 59-66.

    **************************

  • CB

    “Most of the whole era, the Ordovican, which is part of the Paleozoic era, there were polar ice caps, and TEN TIMES the CO2 that we have, today.”

    Well now you’re actually being dishonest about the timing of the late Ordovician glaciation. The vast majority of the Ordovician was a hothouse climate, with the glaciation occurring toward the very end, from 445 mya to 443 mya.

    If you don’t even know when the glaciation occurred, how in the world do you hope to know how high CO₂ was at the time?

  • CB

    “You are really stupid to not understand that a big pile of CO2 in the middle of a block of ice would not affect the ice in any way shape or form.”

    No, CO₂ does not melt ice by being applied to it like a heating element.

    CO₂ traps the infrared, blackbody radiation leaving the planet and therefore keeps it from cooling down. This increase in temperature in the air and the water is what melts the polar ice caps.

    This is middle school science.

    Why don’t you know it?

  • Herb Daniels

    Your sarcastic negativism will not solve any problems. Michael Stone you are way better off admitting your gullible nature. Try thinking for yourself.

  • Herb Daniels

    That’s the theory, but the satellite NASA sent up in 2005 and returned to earth in August 2009 measured 80% of infrared light escaping the atmosphere.

    Global warming is supposed to be based on less than 20% infrared light escaping the clouds…. It’s not really happening like they thought it would when they made all the predictions….

    Now all the excuses…. Last winter the record low temps all over the world were explained with the wacky notion that all the cold ran away from the north pole (along with Santa Clause)…. because the north pole was already too warm from global warming…. It wasn’t even true, the north pole was even colder….

    Now it’s the heat is all hiding in a small part of the ocean…. even though the rest of the ocean is freezing over faster than ever before during mankind’s short period of record keeping….

    As if that would actually prove anything. It would only prove to the mass stupidity of those who don’t have any science background.

  • Michael Stone

    Sorry Herbie, but any advice you may offer is as worthless as spit. You have well proven what you are and it ain’t good.

  • Herb Daniels

    “you are worthless as spit” that’s the best you can come up with…. just admit you are a loser.

  • CB

    “the satellite NASA sent up… measured… infrared light escaping the atmosphere.”

    Yes! NASA can actually measure the Earth’s infrared, blackbody radiation from space. The absorption bands of CO₂ are clearly visible.

  • gwsmith

    Why? Because it’s only partially true. After a certain point CO2 can hold no more heat and lets it pass on into space. Why are you obsessed with the idea that CO2 is the driver and it is absolutely impenetrable? I think your agenda is masking the truth.

  • Herb Daniels

    that doesn’t prove anything at all. Don’t you ever get embarrassed?? You can’t even see yourself showing the opposite of what you are trying to show by accident…LOL

    NASA can only measure infrared from space when they have the equipment there to do it, and I pointed out the results which blow away the central theory supporting global warming….

  • cunudiun

    Michael, I can’t believe you still haven’t realized that Dan knows better that all those science books. He’s been telling us that for months!

  • cunudiun

    During the Ordovician, solar output was much lower than current levels. Consequently, CO2 levels only needed to fall below 3000 parts per million for glaciation to be possible. The latest CO2 data calculated from sediment cores show that CO2 levels fell sharply during the late Ordovician due to high rock weathering removing CO2 from the air. Thus the CO2 record during the late Ordovician is entirely consistent with the notion that CO2 is a strong driver of climate.

    For more see http://www.skepticalscience.com/CO2-was-higher-in-late-Ordovician.htm

  • cunudiun

    Yes it actually does prove something. It proves the theory that the one running off at the mouth calling other people “really stupid” is almost always the stupid one.

  • cunudiun

    She’s not saying it’s “absolutely impenetrable”. In fact below CB posts a graph showing how it is not absolutely impenetrable, how CO2 has a characteristic signature of which frequencies of infrared light penetrate it and which do not, and that signature is clearly visible from space. So we know that it is CO2 that is primarily responsible for absorbing longwave radiation and blocking it from leaving the earth.

  • gwsmith

    Again, up to a point, and that point has not been experienced to any great extent. Thus it does not prove that CO2 is “primarily” responsible for heating the earth, only that it has the capacity to absorb and reflect heat to certain degrees. And this still says nothing about other factors which kick in to mitigate the warming once certain points are reached. Way too much is still unknown to hang it all on CO2.

  • gwsmith

    And the only one I see dong that continually is CB.

  • Michael Stone

    What on Earth gives you the false notion that I don’t realize what he has been doing? What have I said in replies to his lies? LOL. Four times.

    And I have 5 replies to him here and 22 on other threads and you only gave me 1 uppers and I upped all of your posts.

    No more uppers for you two guys. 10 day suspension. Make it 12 days! And Gary is on my S list now too.

  • CB

    lol!

    If you automatically got a thumbs-up with every post, it wouldn’t mean very much, would it?

    I think Cunudiun might have forgotten an /s tag, though you should know him well enough by now to understand the gist of his post…

    In the event that i’m intruding on a private conversation, let me just say, “RABBLE RABBLE RABBLE!!! NO SOUP FOR YOU!”

  • Gary Slabaugh

    I ought to be too. I have been very selfishly remiss.

  • CB

    “She’s not saying it’s “absolutely impenetrable”.”

    At a certain point above the Earth’s surface, infrared radiation from the ground actually cannot penetrate through the CO₂.

    If the atmosphere were a pane of glass that could only absorb radiation without transferring it elsewhere, additional CO₂ wouldn’t cause any more warming.

    …of course, the atmosphere isn’t a pane of glass and does transfer absorbed energy elsewhere. The small amount of IR in the main CO₂ absorption frequency in the graph I posted actually comes from the atmosphere itself, not the ground.

    This “problem” Mr. Smith brings up is known as “the saturation fallacy” and hasn’t been an issue for scientists since the 19th century:

    http://www.skepticalscience.com/saturated-co2-effect.htm

    Sky can tell you more about it than I can.

  • CB

    “the only one I see dong that continually is CB”

    lol! I wouldn’t be caught dead dong something so rude!

    I might give you the opportunity to make yourself look stupid, but I have stated many times I do not believe it’s possible for you to be as stupid as you pretend to be.

    …so then what explains your behaviour?

    If you weren’t suffering from a self-destructive mental illness, why aren’t you interested in evaluating the threat climate change poses to your well-being?

  • CB

    “Again, up to a point”

    What is that point?

    CO₂ makes Venus 300 degrees hotter than Mercury despite being farther from the sun.

    If CO₂ could increase the temperature of Venus 300 degrees, why couldn’t it increase the temperature of Earth 300 degrees?

  • gwsmith

    Again, there is no proof that the driver is CO2. Your premise that CO2 is responsible for Venus’s higher temperature is only hypothetical, but you present it as if it was factually established. Science is never established. You completely ignore other factors such as cosmic radiation and magnetic fields.

  • cunudiun

    We know that CO2 is primarily responsible. Here are the numbers: http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Radiative-forcings.svg

  • gwsmith

    Either you’re kidding or else you’re too egotistical to see your own face. Go back and read your own posts. Virtually everyone contains one degree of put down, insult, or slur, followed by a LOL of some kind. Your post here is a prime example, “If you weren’t suffering from a self destructive mental illness”?… Rude? Crude? Or simply oblivious?

  • cunudiun

    “The atmosphere consists almost entirely (96%) of carbon dioxide (CO2), a greenhouse gas responsible for the incredibly hot, greater than 400ºC conditions on Venus, surpassing the melting point of lead.”
    Astronomy Today

    This is established science, whether you want to recognize it or not.

  • gwsmith

    You’ve got to be kidding! A liberal activist author simply saying it is so on a liberal website with no curability is what your proof is?

  • cunudiun

    Maybe you missed this part: Source: The figures used to generate this plot were obtained from the IPCC Working Group I Fourth Assessment Report Summary for Policymakers, page 16.

  • Voodude

    I don’t. I count on the scientists, whom I cited. Your argument is with them.
    Maybe I can grant a little bit of leeway, do to some differing opinions…
    FIVE TIMES THE CURRENT C02, maybe, instead of ten.

  • cunudiun

    See Herb Daniels about 3 posts back.

  • cunudiun

    Michael, I’m deadly serious. Dan Pangburn does know more than all the science books ever written. How can you be so dense?

  • cunudiun

    Careful CB. People will accuse you of saying mean things to people.

  • cunudiun

    The worst I can find in her last half-dozen posts are some very pointed questions, very mild compared to the names people are calling her.

  • Michael Stone

    LOL… You wouldn’t know how to be selfish Gary..

  • Michael Stone

    I’m just havin fun CB…. It helps to take our minds off of the GW and Arctic methane issue and the fact there are so dam many pro GW deniers who have screwed it all up. ….

  • Michael Stone

    Oh no Herbie, I could tell it like it actually is but don’t want to be barred.

  • Michael Stone

    I was joking guys, you are both forgiven. Forget the suspension, this ain’t the NFL.

    Now; about the uppers…

  • Michael Stone

    How can I be so dense? When I was 10 a horse kicked me in the head. It’s not my fault.

  • cunudiun

    My point was at some frequencies the atmosphere does in fact act like a pane of glass (i.e. penetrable, not impenetrable) and at others it doesn’t, and the pattern of those frequencies exactly matches the signature of CO2 (along with some other greenhouse gases) and therefore proves that whatever impenetrability there is is due to CO2 (and the other GHGs). Saturation is a separate issue related to how much additional impenetrability comes from additional CO2. IMHO. Am I still missing something?

  • cunudiun

    I’m going to remind you about that horse someday. Maybe during our next argument about the gwp of methane.

  • Voodude

    At best, in all the literature, I could find researchers that said that it was NOT ten times the present CO2 level… it was only 8x or 5X. All the rest gave no values at all for CO2, just handwaving, up here, down there, but no one was willing to say HOW MUCH.

    Pointing to “skepticalscience” is worthless. Point to journal-published, peer reviewed papers, and quote portions to make your point (like I did). Otherwise, you’re not worth my time.
    *************************
    “Gondwana attains its glacial maximum when CO2 is roughly the same or slightly higher than the preindustrial level. Once glaciated, it maintains a large ice covered area, under higher CO2 levels, up to 4 to 6 times of the preindustrial value, followed by an abrupt disappearance of ice beyond this threshold.”

    It’s a model. However, even this model shows – in the Carboniferous-Permian period of the Paleozoic era, that polar ice caps persist, with 4x up to 6x the pre-industrial CO2 levels.

    Zhuang, K., G. R. North, and J. R. Giardino (2014), Hysteresis of glaciations in the Permo-Carboniferous, J. Geophys. Res. Atmos., 119, 2147–2155, doi:10.1002/2013JD020524.
    **************************

    “The integrated datasets are consistent with increasing pCO2 levels in response to ice-sheet expansion”

    Increasing CO2, ice-sheet expansion. The value of the CO2 is not stated or even estimated, but the “expansion” (not initiation) of the ice-sheets is unequivocal.

    “The cause of this ice age is uncertain, and a paradoxical association with evidence for high atmospheric CO2 levels has been debated.”

    Uncertain. Debated. It seems some scientists think the “science isn’t settled”.

    “The observed change in ?13C through the Hirnantian Stage in Estonia and Anticosti Island can be interpreted to reflect atmospheric pCO2 levels that were relatively low immediately prior to the ?13Ccarb excursion and then increased as ice sheets expanded (Figs. 5 and 6). Ultimately, this period of elevated pCO2 is followed by global deglaciation.”

    Ultimately… how many thousands of years did high CO2 and polar ice caps exist?

    “Our data are consistent with the notion that a long-term drop in pCO2 due to increased silicate weathering (Kump et al., 1999; Saltzman and Young, 2005; Young et al., 2009) possibly also combined with reduced poleward ocean heat transport (Herrmann et al., 2004) resulted in the initial stage of glaciation beginning prior to Stage 1 in Fig. 9. As expanding ice sheets reduced the fraction of continental silicates available for weathering, pCO2 began to rise and ?13Ccarb continued to increase due to carbonate weathering in low to mid latitudes (Stage 2 in Fig. 9). The elevated pCO2 levels eventually led to deglaciation, as recorded by the rapid transgression above an unconformity in both Estonia and Anticosti Island (start of Stage 3 in Fig. 6).”

    Glaciation beginning prior to stage 1 of Figure 9.

    “The resultant second episode of glaciation was short lived and deglaciation may also have been related to changes in pCO2 levels, but the available data are not at high enough resolution to determine this.”

    Young, Seth A., et al. “Did changes in atmospheric CO2 coincide with latest Ordovician glacial–interglacial cycles?.” Palaeogeography, Palaeoclimatology, Palaeoecology 296.3 (2010): 376-388.

    **************************
    Oh, I’m sorry. It is only FIVE TIMES the preindustrial atmospheric level, that polar ice caps survived.

    “address the paradox of Late Ordovician glaciation under supposedly high pCO2…” (8x to 22×)

    The researchers suggest that pCO2 wasn’t as high as 8x to 22x, but only 5x to 8x of the “pre-industrial CO2 level”.

    “?8× PAL to ?5× PAL during the Hirnantian” …but they used a General Circulation Model…

    Even so, “The onset of Hirnantian glaciation was likely controlled by mechanisms and feedbacks that lead to falling pCO2.” -not that falling CO2 lead to anything, but mechanisms and feedbacks that lead to falling pCO2.”

    A hint of “CO2 follows temperature”…

    Vandenbroucke, Thijs RA, et al. “Polar front shift and atmospheric CO2 during the glacial maximum of the Early Paleozoic Icehouse.” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 107.34 (2010): 14983-14986.
    ****************

    “Some authors have shown that, considering the Ashgillian paleogeography, a drop in pCO2 below a threshold of 8x to 10x PAL (Present Atmospheric Level) may induce a decrease in temperature in high latitudes so that the installation of an ice-sheet…”

    It’s a model, but even they determined a threshold of 8x to 10x the present CO2 level.

    Lefebvre, Vincent, et al. “The Late Ordovician crisis: the Large Igneous Province hypothesis tested by global carbon cycle modeling.” EGU General Assembly Conference Abstracts. Vol. 12. 2010.

    **************************
    “Although Phanerozoic glaciations usually coincided with times of estimated low atmospheric CO2, the Late Ordovician (440 Ma) glaciation is a significant exception. CO2 levels during that time may have been as much as 10 times greater than present.”

    CROWLEY, TJ, and SK BAUM. “Toward reconciliation of late Ordovician (? 440 Ma) glaciation with very high CO2 levels.” JGR. Journal of geophysical research. Part D, Atmospheres 96.12 (1991): 22597-22610.
    **************************

    “The sea-level curve consistent with our sequence-stratigraphic model indicates that glacioeustatic sea-level changes and the positive carbon isotope excursion were not perfectly coupled. Although the start of the isotope excursion and the initial sea-level drawdown were coincident, the peak of the isotope excursion did not occur until after sea level had begun to rise. Carbon isotope values did not return to baseline until well after the Anticosti ramp was reflooded. The sea-level–?13Ccarb relationship proposed here is consistent with the “weathering” hypothesis for the origin of the Hirnantian ?13Ccarb excursion.” No mention of any specific level of CO2

    Jones, David S., et al. “Terminal Ordovician carbon isotope stratigraphy and glacioeustatic sea-level change across Anticosti Island (Québec, Canada).”Geological Society of America Bulletin 123.7-8 (2011): 1645-1664.

  • Michael Stone

    I would like to have you elaborate on your comment of, (“After a certain point CO2 can hold no more heat and lets it pass on into space.”). What is the certain point and where did you learn that?

    I do not believe CB or anyone else here has ever stated that the greenhouse gases in our atmosphere trap ALL of the heat which rises from the planet.

    Now from what you have written it is apparent that you do agree some rising heat is trapped by CO2 and or by and with other potent greenhouse gases in our atmosphere.

    So tell me please, if the atmospheric CO2 level was at 300 parts per million, would that level of CO2 trap the same amount of rising heat as an atmospheric CO2 level of 400 ppm?

    I am sure you would be happy to answer that fair and easy to understand question…. Thank you.

  • Michael Stone

    Please see my reply to you three posts below this one. Thank you.

  • cunudiun

    What are you trying to find here? Something that invalidates the fact that CO2 causes warming? You won’t. First of all, as many of your sources point out, there are many gaps in our knowledge about things that long ago. Omigod! “The science is unsettled,” you say. Yes, I guess that proves all of science is unsettled, because if any one thing is not known perfectly, then that means nothing is known. Right? Wrong. You ignore the third sentence of the abstract of your CROWLEY, TJ, and SK BAUM reference, which at least partially agrees with SkepticalScience — that the lower insolation level partially accounts for the unexplained phenomenon. In fact, precisely the purpose of their paper is to account for the apparent exception to the correlation between CO2 levels and climate represented by the Ordovician. They speculate about factors such as the different positions of the continents back then and reach certain tentative conclusions, but nowhere do they suggest that the reason is because no such correlation exists. That possibility is not even on the map. I agree that it is difficult to find many non-pay-walled peer-reviewed studies about CO2 levels during this period on the internet, but if your aim is to find some kind of holy grail disproving all of what has been known about climate science, then, ha, good luck. I’ll congratulate you on your Nobel Prize when you get it.

  • CB

    “Am I still missing something?”

    Yes! So, you’re quite correct that greenhouse gasses absorb better at some frequencies than at others, but they don’t absorb 100% of the radiation at these frequencies until the amount of gas reaches a certain threshold.

    So, for example, if you fire infrared light at a tube full of CO₂ and just keep adding more and more CO₂, eventually the CO₂ will absorb all the infrared light matching its absorption spectrum and you won’t have any light in those bands coming out the other side. They become completely opaque.

    This is known as “saturation”.

    There is enough gas in the atmosphere to actually make this occur! …but the Earth isn’t a simple system where you’re firing great lasers of infrared light at tubes of gas. The atmosphere also emits blackbody radiation. That’s what is causing the small amount of radiation coming through in the graph I posted, not IR sneaking through from the ground.

    Does that make sense?

  • CB

    Dan Pangburn knows how to groom a poodle.

    Dan Pangburn is a genius.

  • CB

    “I count on the scientists, whom I cited.”

    Uh huh, and which scientist tells you the period from 485 mya to 443 mya was characterised by an ice house climate?

  • Herb Daniels

    that would be yourself according to your own words idiot.

  • Herb Daniels

    That’s a coward for you…

  • cunudiun

    Same goes for “idiot”.

  • Herb Daniels

    How about moron? Your entire original comment is just a trick way of doing exactly the same thing you are complaining about… derogatory commenting …

    It’s what people do when they lose the debate, loser.

  • cunudiun

    Unfortunately, not yet. I’m playing with the MODTRAN model, and can’t make some IR stop coming out of the top of the atmosphere no matter how high I make the CO2 ppm. Wait, are you saying that the CO2 is opaque to the original IR emitted at the surface of the earth and that what is escaping at the top is due entirely to atmospheric re-radiation? I could buy that. (Note: That model won’t work in IE. You have to use a different browser like Firefox.)

  • cunudiun

    No. I did what is natural to do when I see someone who has lost the debate (you) continuing to ignore the arguments of their opponents, spewing new misinformation to distract from the fact that what they have already said fell short, and crowing pompously about how they know more than their opponents, when in fact they are steeped in such a level of ignorance that it is laughable they would even dare to open their mouth. You haven’t made an attempt to study seriously anything you write about, e.g. NASA’s infrared measurements, and you twist the truth of what other people have said in order to erect ridiculous straw men to knock down, e.g. polar vortex. Your entire body of climate “knowledge” is gleaned from sources who came to this not because of science but rather because of politics. They found the “science” to fit the conclusions that were politically acceptable to them instead of open inquiry based on an examination of the facts. That you would even presume to put your own ignorant ideas on a par with those of people who have actually made an effort to study the science shows that either you are too ignorant to have any inkling of the level of your ignorance or else you just don’t give a shit and are having some kind of perverted fun wasting everybody else’s time.

  • CB

    “Wait, are you saying that the CO2 is opaque to the original IR emitted at the surface of the earth and that what is escaping at the top is due entirely to atmospheric re-radiation?”

    Precisely!

    Sky will correct me if I’m wrong, but that’s my understanding of the saturation fallacy.

    Nice app, BTW. U Chicago is hardcore.

  • cunudiun

    There’s a whole series of very interesting apps reachable from there. U. of Chicago climatologist David Archer made frequent use of these modelling tools in a Coursera.org (free online university) course I took on the science of climate change. Really interesting, and sobering, stuff.

  • Starfire

    Speaking of interesting, accuracy in media, or what-have-you. (While the world burns.)
    I thought I was imagining things when I saw this story. It was on a free tv channel we get here in Boonieville; from Northern Canada. They claimed to be broadcasting CBC’s “The National.”
    Land for free in New Brunswick!
    http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/new-brunswick/new-brunswick-straw-house-community-offers-free-land-1.2765195

  • Barb_R

    “…which scientist tells you the period from 485 mya to 443 mya was characterised by an ice house climate?”

    What does an ice house climate have to do with it, CB? Are you claiming that no ice can exist outside of an ice house climate?

  • Barb_R

    “CO? traps the infrared, blackbody radiation leaving the planet and therefore keeps it from cooling down.”

    Yep, just like it does on Mars. Oh wait …

    P.S. I’ve switched to Mars as an example since it is in the news lately, which made me curious about its atmosphere. Can you believe that CO2 in the Martian atmosphere is over 2,000 times higher than it is on Earth? It must be hot, hot, hot there, eh? /snork

  • Barb_R

    “…I do not believe CB or anyone else here has ever stated that the greenhouse gases in our atmosphere trap ALL of the heat …”

    No, you’re right. What CB has stated is that CO2 is the MAIN driver of temperature. I believe the emphasis on MAIN is hers, but I can double check that if you’d like.

  • Michael Stone

    Do whatever makes your big nose twitch dogface, what you may do has no bearing upon what I like.

    If CO2 is no the MAIN driver of Earth’s surface temperature what is?

    Your salary is determined by how many replies you receive isn’t it?

  • Michael Stone

    You didn’t research the issue enough dogface.. Mars atmosphere is very, very thin even though it’s atmosphere is near 96% CO2 there is very little CO2 in it’s atmosphere, unlike Venus which has a very thick atmosphere of CO2 of near 96%..

    In addition there are massive dust storms on Mars which fill the atmosphere with dust that last for months at a time and such dust storms occur several times a year and are quite common. Therefore much of the sunbeams are reflected from reaching the surface of Mars.

    Another addition is: Mars is more than twice as far from the sun as is Venus and due to all of those things Mars is a rather cool planet. There are also ice caps on Mars.

    I suggest you try switching your obtuse and ignorant arguments to the planet youranus.

  • Michael Stone

    Hey dogface are you the manipulator of a sockpuppet named ~~gwsmith~~? I mean I asked him the question and you replied with the childish answer. Why did you do that Doggy, did you forget which computer you were using? .

  • Barb_R

    ” If CO2 is no the MAIN driver of Earth’s surface temperature what is?”

    Is this a serious question? Water vapor, of course. I cite CB’s favorite source, whose main mission is Muslim outreach, NASA:

    http://www.nasa.gov/topics/earth/features/vapor_warming.html

  • Barb_R

    ” I mean I asked him the question and you replied with the childish answer.”

    And you have never replied for CB, eh?

  • Michael Stone

    Excellent point Doggy, you earned an upper vote.

    It is the only post I have ever seen you write that was correct…. I concede and apologize for my obtuse and ignorant comment of you having another stupid sockpuppet.

  • Michael Stone

    “Water vapor of course”…. Wrong Barby… If our atmosphere had the same amount of water vapor or even more water vapor and little or no other of the potent greenhouse gases such as CO2, or CH4, Or N2O in the atmospheric greenhouse gases, the planet would be a ball of ice once again as it was about 735 million years ago.

    Even though CO2 IS the MAIN driver of the planet’s surface temperature on Earth, CH4 and N2O are far more potent than is CO2 as heat trapping gasses, but there is far more CO2 in our atmosphere in ppm than the other two greenhouse gases. Therefore CO2 is the MAIN driver of our planet’s surface temperature.

    That could change rather quickly when a few trillion tons of CH4 enter our atmosphere and the amount of N2O now in the atmosphere from agriculture farming has now become a very serious issue as N2O is over 300 times as potent trapping rising heat than is CO2.

    http://www.nitrogendesigns.com/14/n20-replacing-co2-as-no-1-greenhouse-gas-threat.html

    “A recent study from Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences has found that atmospheric carbon dioxide may be the least of our worries. Nitrous oxide is on the rise in the air and waters, and each molecule has a warming potential 300 times greater than CO2.”

  • Michael Stone

    That is an excellent link. I have no reason at all to dispute what the article says. However it does not state that water vapor is the driving force for the surface temperature of the Earth.

    When anyone says water vapor is a POTENT greenhouse gas it is very misleading. Water vapor is only potent as it amplifies the heat trapping ability of potent greenhouse gases such as CO2, CH4 or N2O for examples.

    Some of the comments from the you have linked state, > (“Water Vapor Confirmed as Major Player in Climate Change.”)…. Indeed water vapor is a MAJOR PLAYER, but not by itself and it is not the MAIN driver of the planet’s temperature, CO2 is.

    Another comment from the article, > (” Andrew Dessler and colleagues from Texas A&M University in College Station confirmed that the (*heat-amplifying effect*) of water vapor is potent enough to double the climate warming caused by increased levels of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere.”). < End quotes from the article.

    The AMPLIFYING EFFECT of water vapor on other potent greenhouse gases. Actually water vapor is the reason for the different types of clouds in the atmosphere which reflect sunrays.

    I don't understand why you continue to argue that AGW CO2 emission are not causing serious global warming now, because you are flat out wrong and too stubborn and obtuse to admit it.

    It is rather obvious that you are not stupid, so what is your motive for writing ignorant and stupid comments?

    I can only believe that you are one of those hired writers of a public relations firm who are paid by the fossil fuel industry to hire people like you to spread lies about global warming. So I do not like or respect you.

  • CB

    I’ll say it: You’re mentally ill.

    I wouldn’t say your advice is worthless, it’s simply misdirected. You’re addressing yourself in the wrong person (see comments about “gullible nature”).

    You said the following:

    “The temperature has long since separated from the CO2 level”

    If you think there’s no correlation between temperature and CO₂, point to a single previous time in Earth’s history polar ice caps were able to withstand CO₂ as high as we have today.

    If they’ve never done it before, why would you expect them to now?

  • CB

    “What does an ice house climate have to do with it, CB?”

    You tell me, Barb. Google “ice house climate”. Then, come back and tell me the definition and give me an example.

    You have access to thousands of years of accumulated knowledge right at your fingertips.

    Stop using the internet as a humiliation machine.

  • Barb_R

    Aw Mikey, you’re sounding awfully grumpy today. Did da widdle boy miss his nappy today?

    That’s probably why you forgot the main difference – or maybe it was because you can’t explain why it is applicable to Mars but not to Earth – and that is because Mars doesn’t have a whole lot of water vapor in its atmosphere. You know, the same water vapor that accounts for 50% of the greenhouse gases in the Earth’s atmosphere? Yeah, that one.

    Lighten up, Mikey. You’re getting way too serious.

  • Barb_R

    Apology accepted.

  • Barb_R

    ” So I do not like or
    respect you.”

    Well, that pretty much ends it, then, doesn’t it. Too bad. I though you and I had a … connection. LOL!

  • Barb_R

    “Nitrous oxide is on the rise in the air and waters, and each molecule has a warming potential 300 times greater than CO2.”

    OHNOOHNOOHNO!! We’re all gonna die!

    Sorry Mike, but the warmists have cried “wolf” too many times. LOL!

  • Barb_R

    “You have access to thousands of years of accumulated knowledge right at your fingertips.”

    Which I have repeatedly given to you, but you have repeated declined to acknowledge.

    Remember the Silurian Period, CB? It was a hot house climate, yet “lingering glacial conditions prevailed near the South Pole.” ** Lingering. Hmmm. I wonder if that means that the ice hung around during a hot house climate …?

    So again, CB, what difference does it make if it’s an ice house climate or a hot house climate?

    ** Source: the Paleopmap Project.

  • CB

    “I wonder if that means that the ice hung around during a hot house climate …?”

    You would wonder that!

    …because you haven’t bothered to do the research.

    Get back to me when you’ve got a definition of “ice house climate” and “hot house climate” that would be intelligible to a Paleoclimatologist.

    Until you do, with a reliable source to back up your definitions, you’re on your naughty seat. I see no point in indulging someone so intellectually lazy and dishonest.

  • Michael Stone

    Uh-huh you do not want to learn the truth… That article I linked for your benefit to help you learn is a very credible report by very credible scientists and that reply your came back with is exactly why I have no respect or like for you or any other of the professional GW deniers.. You have all done much damage.

  • Michael Stone

    Grumpy? LoL. You do not know me at all.

    I am very well aware of the composition of Mars atmosphere. My reply to you about the atmosphere of Mars was solely based upon your comment of > quote > (“P.S. I’ve switched to Mars as an example since it is in the news lately, which made me curious about its atmosphere. Can you believe that CO2 in the Martian atmosphere is over 2,000 times higher than it is on Earth? It must be hot, hot, hot there, eh? /snork.”). < unquote.

    I didn't forget anything, I fully explained to you why Mars has a high percentage of CO2 in it's extremely thin atmosphere but Mars surface temperature is cool.

    There really was no sensible reason for you to bring the subject up in the first place as it has zip to do with how the temperature is on Venus, Mercury or Earth. None of those three planets have monstrous long term dust storms and all are much closer to the sun.

    As usuall you just have to run your mouth about something no matter how ignorant, childish or foolish it is.

    Oh, how did you know that I do have a relaxing afternoon nap almost every day?

  • zlop

    Any gas, in large quantity, that does not freeze out,
    would warm Mars. Mars is not warm, for the lack of CO2 or H2O.

    To increase ground pressure,
    Add N2, O2 Argon, Neon .. …

  • Herb Daniels

    What you did was right a virtual book filled with nothing but your own derogatory comments because you have lost the global warming debate.

  • Herb Daniels

    There is the response of CB who admits losing the global warming debate.

    Out of logical arguments, CB goes back to the old dependable accusations of mental illness towards those who have just finished out debating CB…

    CB does that to everybody. If I had a nickel for all the people CB fake hate accused of mental illness on the account of CB being out debated on global warming, I could retire….LOL

  • banger377

    Nice photo, but I think it’s a lie. CB’s arguments sound very homosexual. Tranny?

  • Barb_R

    “… that would be intelligible to a Paleoclimatologist.”

    I didn’t realize that you were a Paleoclimatologist! Awesome for you!

    As for insisting for definitions of hot house climate and ice house climate, don’t be silly. We both know the definitions.

    Are you trying to tell me that there are no transitions from ice house to hot house? Does your higher power, that great Paleoclimatologist up in the sky, snap his/her/its fingers and *poof* instant transition from one to the other?

    That, CB, is why it doesn’t matter.

  • zlop

    We are dealing with an Extortion Racket. There is a lot of money involved, hence the Arrhenius scam.
    noagenda 654 has inter locking details, near the middle http://www.noagendashow.com/

  • Barb_R

    And I was replying to your statement: “CO? traps the infrared, blackbody radiation leaving the planet and therefore keeps it from cooling down.”

    If you are going to make sweeping statements like that, of course I’m going to point it out. Be specific.

  • zlop

    Better be nice to Citizens Band, or you might
    receive the Socrates judgment, in a FEMA camp.

  • zlop

    CO2 has not been substantially constant.
    “CO2 the greatest scientific scandal of our time”
    http://www.21stcenturysciencetech.com/Articles%202007/20_1-2_CO2_Scandal.pdf

  • Voodude

    Somewhere between 505-438, never said “icehouse” but POLAR ICE CAPS abounded for MILLIONS OF YEARS with CO2 5X to 22X current.

    Oh, I’m sorry. It is only FIVE TIMES the preindustrial atmospheric level, that polar ice caps survived.

    “address the paradox of Late Ordovician glaciation under supposedly high pCO2…” (8x to 22×)

    The researchers suggest that pCO2 wasn’t as high as 8x to 22x, but only 5x to 8x of the “pre-industrial CO2 level”.

    “?8× PAL to ?5× PAL during the Hirnantian” …but they used a General Circulation Model… a simulation of climate, not an actual proxy…

    Even so, “The onset of Hirnantian glaciation was likely controlled by mechanisms and feedbacks that lead to falling pCO2.” -not that falling CO2 leads to anything, but mechanisms and feedbacks that lead to falling pCO2.”

    A hint of “CO2 follows temperature”…

    Vandenbroucke, Thijs RA, et al. “Polar front shift and atmospheric CO2 during the glacial maximum of the Early Paleozoic Icehouse.” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 107.34 (2010): 14983-14986.

    That is one, here is another***********************

    “… reflect atmospheric pCO2 levels that were relatively low immediately prior to the ?13Ccarb excursion and then increased as ice sheets expanded (Figs. 5 and 6). Ultimately, this period of elevated pCO2 [in which the ice sheets expanded] is followed by global deglaciation.”

    Oh, but there is a SECOND EPISODE of the appearance of POLAR ICE CAPS:

    “The resultant second episode of glaciation was short lived and deglaciation may also have been related to changes in pCO2 levels, but the available data are not at high enough resolution to determine this.”

    HOW MANY MEGA-YEARS was this “short-lived” glaciation?

    Young, Seth A., et al. “Did changes in atmospheric CO2 coincide with latest Ordovician glacial–interglacial cycles?.” Palaeogeography, Palaeoclimatology, Palaeoecology 296.3 (2010): 376-388. Funny, this is the ONCE CITATION THAT YOU USE to refute my point of the Odovician high-CO2 polar ice caps.

    ***********but wait, there are more citations**********

    “Some authors have shown that, considering the Ashgillian paleogeography, a drop in pCO2 below a threshold of 8x to 10x PAL (Present Atmospheric Level) may induce a decrease in temperature in high latitudes so that the installation of an ice-sheet…”

    It’s a model, but even they determined a threshold of 8x to 10x the present CO2 level.

    Lefebvre, Vincent, et al. “The Late Ordovician crisis: the Large Igneous Province hypothesis tested by global carbon cycle modeling.” EGU General Assembly Conference Abstracts. Vol. 12. 2010.

    **************************

    “Although Phanerozoic glaciations usually coincided with times of estimated low atmospheric CO2, the Late Ordovician (440 Ma) glaciation is a significant exception. CO2 levels during that time may have been as much as 10 times greater than present.”

    CROWLEY, TJ, and SK BAUM. “Toward reconciliation of late Ordovician (? 440 Ma) glaciation with very high CO2 levels.” JGR. Journal of geophysical research. Part D, Atmospheres 96.12 (1991): 22597-22610.

    **************************

    “The sea-level curve consistent with our sequence-stratigraphic model indicates that glacio-eustatic sea-level changes and the positive carbon isotope excursion were not perfectly coupled. Although the start of the isotope excursion and the initial sea-level drawdown were coincident, the peak of the isotope excursion did not occur until after sea level had begun to rise. Carbon isotope values did not return to baseline until well after the Anticosti ramp was reflooded. The sea-level–?13Ccarb relationship proposed here is consistent with the “weathering” hypothesis for the origin of the Hirnantian ?13Ccarb excursion.”

    Jones, David S., et al. “Terminal Ordovician carbon isotope stratigraphy and glacioeustatic sea-level change across Anticosti Island (Québec, Canada).”Geological Society of America Bulletin 123.7-8 (2011): 1645-1664.

    **************************

    “…that polar ice-caps existed during the Ordovician, …”

    “…Ordovician and at present, is possibly due to the presence of polar ice-caps. That has been indicated i.a. by EWING & DoNN (1956, 1958). If no polar ice-caps were present, the oceanic current system would have been considerably different, large part of the oceans might have been…”

    “This will explain both the absence of a glaciation in connection with the Caledonian foldings, and the presence of sharp climatic zoning in the Ordovician.”

    “The presence of polar ice-caps has a great stratigraphic importance. The climatic changes will increase and decrease the volume of water bound in the ice-caps, and that would lead…”

    Spjeldnaes, Nils. “Ordovician climatic zones.” Norsk Geologisk Tidsskrift 41.1 (1961): 45-77.

    http://foreninger.uio.no/ngf/ngt/pdfs/NGT_41_1_045-077.pdf

    **************************

    “at the end of the Ordovician, probably reflecting a large expansion of polar ice caps. The magnitude of this excursion indicates a degree of glaciation comparable to that at the height of the Quaternary glacial episodes.

    The secular ?13C trend may reflect a progressive increase in marine organic productivity and/or enhanced organic deposition in the Ordovician oceans, particularly noticeable at the time of the terminal Ordovician glaciation”

    Qing, Hairuo, and Jan Veizer. “Oxygen and carbon isotopic composition of Ordovician brachiopods: Implications for coeval seawater.” Geochimica et Cosmochimica Acta 58.20 (1994): 4429-4442.

    **************************

    “… caused by increase of the polar ice caps, bioproduction and decrease of oceanic water temperature, etc. Based on these relationships, the Gondwana glacial events are correlated…”

    “…conclusions : (1) all four Gondwana glaciations identified by tillites, microconglomeratic clays, etc. and dated biostratigraphically are recognised in the Baltic area through clear positive carbon isotope excursions at the same levels; (2) three smaller carbon isotope excursions in the Caradoc and Ashgill together with algal abundance data suggest the presence of several colder climate episodes during the late Ordovician.”

    Kaljo, Dimitri, et al. “Implications of Gondwana glaciations in the Baltic late Ordovician and Silurian and a carbon isotopic test of environmental cyclicity.”Bulletin de la Société géologique de France 174.1 (2003): 59-66.

    **************************

  • Voodude

    There you go, again, using the LOGICAL FALLACY of the “straw man”, putting words up that I never said, so you could shoot them down. I never said, nor did the citations I used, ever said “ice house climate” and I never narrowed my claim to any specific time in the past (as you have said 485-443). You came up with the challenge to CITE A SOURCE where, ever in the past, POLAR ICE CAPS HAVE SURVIVED with CO2 as high as we have, now. I cited MANY sources. I met the criteria that you asked for, REFUTING YOU.

  • Voodude

    CB issued the haughty challenge, arrogantly defying anyone from citing any time when the earth had POLAR ICE CAPS with CO2 as high as we have it now. I simply cited journal-published, peer reviewed science -the kind that “deniers” supposedly never have- that proves CB wrong. Not just wrong about the present level of CO2, but levels 5X to 22X current; not just once, but many times have POLAR ICE CAPS SURVIVED HIGHER LEVES OF CO2, and not just with proxy data, but with General Circulation Models of the time periods.
    I don’t ignore “insolation” – I don’t CARE what the cause was. Point is, CB is wrong, there are times when POLAR ICE CAPS SURVIVED HIGH CO2.

  • CB

    “CB’s arguments sound very homosexual.”

    Why are you talking about homosexuality instead of climate science?

    If you think there’s no correlation between CO₂ and temperature, why haven’t you named a previous point in Earth’s history it got cold enough for polar ice caps to persist with CO₂ as high as it is today?

    If they’ve never done it before, why would you expect them to this time around?

    What besides suicidal mental illness is keeping you from gauging the threat this would pose to your well-being?

  • Voodude

    During the Ordivician, POLAR ICE CAPS survived 5X to 22X the current amount of CO2, and not just once, many times. CB has been proven wrong.

  • CB

    Barb is actually citing the page that suggests water vapour is a multiplier of the warming effect of CO₂:

    “Water vapor feedback can also amplify the warming effect of other greenhouse gases, such that the warming brought about by increased carbon dioxide allows more water vapor to enter the atmosphere.”

    http://www.nasa.gov/topics/earth/features/vapor_warming.html

    What in the world!? If that’s not proof of mental illness, I don’t know what would be…

  • Voodude

    ” how in the world do you hope to know how high CO? was at the time?”
    I don’t CARE to know. Journal-published, peer-reviewed science – the kind you DARED anyone to cite, proves that YOU WERE WRONG.

  • banger377

    I’ve wasted a lot of time in the past, doing that, for buffoons like you.

    Packer.

  • cunudiun

    So this invalidates anything else about human-produced CO2 being primarily responsible the global warming we are experiencing today, other than one possible one statement made by CB. I’ll take no for an answer, and applaud CB for helping bring that out.

  • Michael Stone

    NO Barby; you could not have been replying to that statement because I never have written any such statement.

    You replied to my comments concerning the atmosphere of Mars.
    You really should stop making a total fool of yourself.

  • Michael Stone

    Hi CB, howz it going for you? I cannot get to the comments on the DC site to even read them, they have blocked me with no posted message or notification.

    Baryboob here also replied to the comments I posted about N2O and this link I posted.

    http://www.nitrogendesigns.com

    That is a fine, educational article. If you haven’t seen it I believe you will find it both interesting and useful when arguing with the brain damaged souls here on the net.

  • Voodude

    Once again, the Straw Man makes his comeback. You put words in my mouth, and then, “defeat” what I *didn’t* say, and then, you congratulate yourself. It is a classic logical fallacy, but CB is better at it than you are.

  • cunudiun

    Well then sorry to intrude upon your personal games with CB. I had for some reason assumed there was some larger purpose to all this, some bearing on the the effects of human-produced CO2 on climate change or something like that. Since you say this has nothing to do with it, I’ll just bow out and and leave you to your own devices.

  • CB

    Nitrogen is an interesting subject. I don’t know too much about the sources of N₂O, but I do know it’s a powerful warming gas.

    I know nitrates are critically important for agriculture, and that it’s possible to create them with earth gas through the Haber process, but I’m pretty sure it’s possible to create them in other ways as well.

  • Michael Stone

    Yes, this paragraph from one article is what stuck me as very important

    “A recent study from Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences has found that atmospheric carbon dioxide may be the least of our worries. Nitrous oxide is on the rise in the air and waters, and each molecule has a warming potential 300 times greater than CO2.” Unquote.

    EDIT…. here are much better articles on the subject

    http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/ghgemissions/gases/n2o.html

    http://pubs.usgs.gov/fs/fs155-99/fs155-99.html

  • CB

    N₂O has a 114 year lifetime! o_O

    I didn’t know that… very dense too… hmmm…

  • CB

    “I’ve wasted a lot of time in the past”

    Do it again, would you?

    If you think there’s no correlation between CO₂ and temperature, name a single previous point in Earth’s history when polar ice caps were able to withstand CO₂ as high as we have today.

    If they’ve never done it before, why would you expect them to this time around?

    What besides a suicidal mental illness is keeping you from evaluating the threat climate change poses to your well-being?

  • zlop

    When there is insufficient information, probability is used to approximate. Process is binomially distributed? then there are non-linear distributions, moments . ..

    Error power is used to determine standard deviation.
    There are other ways to approximate system characteristics, EMD, wavelet, wavelet -arima . ..

  • banger377

    The real threat is cognitively disabled people in positions of power. You aren’t Bernie Sanders are you?

    I’ve given you enough facts and links. How about you responding to my question, for a change. Again, What are you afraid is the end result of GW, if it were true? The hockey stick? (Snicker,.)

  • Barb_R

    You’re right, Mike. It was CB who made the statement, “CO? traps the infrared, blackbody radiation leaving the planet and therefore keeps it from cooling down.”

    My apologies for the inaccurate attribution.

  • CB

    “I’ve given you enough facts and links.”

    Be a lamb and do it again. I must have missed it the last time. Name a single previous point in Earth’s history polar ice caps were able to withstand CO₂ so high.

    Here is 800,000 years of CO₂ concentrations taken from polar ice cores, going back to the oldest significant ice on Earth:

    ftp://ftp.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/paleo/icecore/antarctica/epica_domec/edc-co2-2008.txt

    Find me a single point in the dataset where CO₂ goes over 290PPM.

    If polar ice caps can withstand CO₂ so high, why don’t polar ice caps record a single example of CO₂ so high?

  • banger377

    I’ll be glad to reply when you answer my question.

    What are you afraid will happen? if it warms up? The hockey stick?

  • CB

    “What are you afraid will happen? if it warms up?”

    If temperatures go too high, the land ice will melt and raise sea levels 75 meters worldwide:

    “Together, Greenland and Antarctica contain about 75% of the world’s fresh water, enough to raise sea level by over 75 meters, if all the ice were returned to the oceans.”

    earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Features/PolarIce/polar_ice2.php

    If that’s not the most likely outcome we face, just with the CO₂ already in the air, why isn’t there a single previous example in Earth’s history of polar ice caps withstanding CO₂ so high?

  • There is sufficient information.

  • zlop

    Insufficient to determine exact events. For example, ocean level measurement error is 10 centimeters, yet the monthly change is given in millimeters.

  • OK.

    How is that relevant to the validity of the paper at AGWunveiled?

  • zlop

    There is sufficient information, to determine a 2 independent variable (surface pressure and Solar radiation) equation, for surface temperature.

    CO? must play a part, as reasoned from the lowering of clouds argument. But the correlation has not been determined. It is masked by other effects.

  • Do you think that the correlation coefficient of 0.95 obtained in AGWunveiled will be exceeded?

    I don’t see how cloud elevation change could have anything to do with CO2 change.

    Most folks can’t get past the sunspot-TSI connection (which is insufficient) to the sunspot number anomaly time-integral connection to cloud changes which easily accounts for measured average global temperature changes as calculated and discussed at ‘lowaltitudeclouds’.