BatM,
As I've already mentioned, I concur. They are clearly a libertarian organization, and as much is clearly visible in their speeches/papers alone.
kmguru,
Bring it on. Personally, I accept limitations and uncertaintines of current knowledge. That does not prevent me from arguing for caution on a credible basis.
edufer,
Negative oxygen balance means it emits oxygen. Well, DUH! If it didn't, we wouldn't have any to breathe. It absorbs CO2 and uses it in combination with water to synthesize hydrocarbons (sugars), emitting O2. Where did you think the carbon in hydrocarbons comes from? How did you think carbon dating works?
I only tend to believe in things which I don't know for certain are false.
You have a fundamental misunderstanding of the results you mentioned. Carbon sequestered through photosynthesis is subsequently consumed by plants and animals, and quite a bit of it returns back to the atmosphere as: animals inhale oxygen and exhale CO2 containing carbon they've previously ingested from food, decaying biomatter tends to release CO2 and methane (CH<sub>4</sub>) which is itself a potent greenhouse gas (though it doesn't last very long in the atmosphere), fires release CO and CO2 into the atmosphere as part of the combustion process. The sequestration of carbon from atmosphere through photosynthesis and subsequent return of carbon to atmosphere through respiration constitutes what is known as "carbon cycle". As such, forests could never sustain a net output of CO2, as eventually there would be nothing left to burn. There can be spikes of net CO2 output from forests, as they reach a point of saturation where they can't absorb any more CO2 than they already do and the built-up biomatter in the forests decays en masse.
So generally I think that using forests as "carbon sinks" is a ridiculous and mostly political portion of the Kyoto treaty that accomplishes little. What small effect it could have would consist of re-forestation of deforested areas, but this would be peanuts compared to the annual production of extra CO2 from fossil fuels.
However, this does not detract from the fact that extra CO2 in the atmosphere serves as a fertilizer to stimulate an overall "greening" of the planet. Note that vegetation tends to stabilize and on average increase atmospheric moisture. You have yourself noted that water vapor is a potent greenhouse gas. So there you have it: a greener planet might eventually lead to even faster warming, even despite massive deforestation in some countries. Deforestation, however, has its own massively negative effects. From local climate instability and possibly local droughts, to loss of biodiversity, to soil erosion and dust bowls, to poor water and air quality. So if you think that third-world countries are being served well by getting stripped of their forests then you are on the side of degeneration and exploitation, not progress.
On further reflection, I retract that point as I'm not sure what the net effect would be. You are right, colder water absorbs and retains more CO2 (e.g. heating up a carbonated beverage will cause an accelerated release of CO2) and I neglected that effect. However, the layer of water actually warmed up is very thin and located at the ocean surface. Plus, warmer oceans encourage algal growth and algae sequester CO2. I was also thinking of temperature-driven oceanic circulation. As surface temperatures increase this circulation must accelerate. Summing it all up, I'm not sure what the net effect on CO2 would be from warmer oceans. Perhaps you're right and warmer oceans release more CO2 into the atmosphere. If so, then this compounds the problem and accelerates the warming even more!
This is some breathtaking bunk.
First of all, when it comes to infrared emission from liquid water or other sundry chemicals of the oceans or from the various chemical compounds of dry land (vegetation-covered or not), we are clearly not talking about IR emission from (mostly pure-water) ice! Different chemical compounds in different states (solid/liquid/gas/plasma) have different emission/absorption spectra. In fact, that's how astronomers can remotely determine chemical compositions and even states of matter via spectroscopy millions of lightyears away from the source.
Secondly, you ought to know that blackbody radiation (which is what heat is) has a characteristic unimodal spectrum that is in shape reminiscent of a skewed bell curve. e.g. see here:
http://www.astronomynotes.com/light/s4.htm
The curve has a long tail toward longer wavelengths, so shifting the peak slightly toward shorter wavelength does not eliminate emission at longer wavelengths. On the contrary, by increasing temperature emission at all wavelengths (including all longer ones) is boosted!
The 10 micron peak is derived from a blackbody spectrum for a temperature of 288°K (15°C) (see above.) Conveniently, there's a simple equation (Wien's law) that gives the relationship between peak emission wavelength and temperature of a blackbody. Simply, it's approximately 2898(micron-kelvins)/T(kelvins).
You bet. Now tell me please: what would happen to atmospheric concentrations of water vapor if surface temperatures were to increase? Might that, by any chance, have a feedback effect with surface temperatures?
Last time I checked, we were not artificially raising or lowering atmospheric concentrations of water vapor. So, you can assume those to be globally constant on average. We are, however, artificially raising CO2 concentrations. Effects are cumulative, so if you add a constant and a variable you still get a variable.
This is demagoguery. While correlation is not a sufficient condition for causality, it is certainly a necessary one. Regardless, there is quite a difference between your tomato example and a graph spanning hundreds of millennia at high resolution showing a close match between two curves. In the latter case, you can't help but conclude the two are causally related. You may try and debate as to which causes which, but there is no question that there is a causal link. And even aside from all that, if you were to follow your argument to its logical conclusion then no experiment could ever provide any useful information.
http://www.ccmr.cornell.edu/~plh2/group/glblwarm/
It is a website for a course being taught at Cornell. Far from being a "personal website", it is course materiel for Cornell students. If this was not scientifically sound, I doubt it would be contained in an official course. The particular source of the graphs is referenced as:
"Managing Planet Earth, Scientific American, Freeman 1990, ISBN 0-7167-2108-2"
If you do a search with the above string in Google, you'll see that many other university courses require and/or reference this material as well.
More garbage.
First of all and FYI, Kyoto Treaty does not equal "the greens". Let's just get that one straight at least. It may be a start in the right direction, but most greens would agree it is ineffectual on too many levels and heavily watered down due to industry lobbying as well as aggressive US rejection of the treaty with Australia following suit and Canada/Japan/Russia seizing the window of opportunity to press a better deal for themselves. It is an extremely flawed treaty and in a large part it's flawed due to the reactionary US reversal.
Enron might support the Kyoto Treaty because it was an energy and commodity trading company. It was not actually involved in generation or exploration. Nor was it an industrial outfit.
ARCO is a fossil fuel juggernaut. It would be one of the hardest hit if the world switched away from fossil fuels.
DuPont is pushing renewable fuels (for example, ethanol) and I compliment them for that. I can see how they might give indirect support to the greens in this narrow area due to their own corporate agenda. However, most of their products and industries are negatively impacted by environmental regulations and the green movement. They are constantly fighting off or settling environmental lawsuits.
Ditto for ICI.
The greens hate these companies, and wouldn't take any money from them under any circumstances. You must be wearing some seriously warped eyeglasses to see the world in such a twisted way as to allege an alliance between these companies and the green movement. For just one example, see this page from Greenpeace and tell me which fossil fuel company might have paid for it:
http://archive.greenpeace.org/~climate/climatecountdown/subsidy_scandal.htm
Astonishingly, you manage to contradict yourself within a single paragraph. I've already given you a link to NOAA data where you can see the trends for yourself. I'm sure there are plenty of objective sources on the Internet in addition to NOAA (which only covers US.) The website you linked to selects choice outliers as "proof" there is no global warming. Excuse me while I laugh...
FYI, platinum was always more precious than gold even as jewelry material. Regardless of catalytic converters. So I seriously doubt platinum mining would have been in trouble without them or saved because of them.
Besides that, I can't believe you're going to argue against catalytic converters. This is one case where you can actually see and smell the difference. Of course, for all I know you inhale car exhaust daily to get high or something. Would explain a bit of your posting here...
Greenpeace explicitly rejects all funding from governments or corporations; it is entirely member-supported and relies heavily on volunteers.
Friends of the Earth International (largest environmental NGO in existence) is mainly supported through membership fees and donations, with a total budget in 2000: US$724,000
Good grief.
Which philosophy are you talking about? Naturalists were around way before fascism was a twinkle in Mussolini's eye. They were around way before Nietzsche.
I can't believe how naive you are. Do you really think that only green politicians lack moral integrity? Do you even imagine green politicians have less moral integrity than other politicians? What do corrupt politicians have to do with grassroots movements?
Weep indeed. This study used data from heavily industrial cities which (during the relevant time period) had heavy and growing air pollution and smog, and high concentrations of ground-level ozone (all of which tend to block UV.) Scotto is an epidemiologist, not climate scientist; it was never his goal to objectively monitor global ozone levels -- the measurements he performed related to his investigation of skin cancer rates in 8 "representative" US cities.
Ozone depletion is a global phenomenon, but manifests itself most heavily at high latitudes. Hence the Antarctic & Arctic ozone holes. But the fear is/was that these events could either spread out to or eventually start to occur at lower latitudes. Both fears have basis in fact:
http://www.esa.int/export/esaCP/ESAHFRQQSTC_index_0.html
http://i115srv.vu-wien.ac.at/UV/uv_o3_hole99.html
http://users.rcn.com/jkimball.ma.ultranet/BiologyPages/O/Ozone.html
Overall, growing ozone holes at high latitudes were indicative of general ozone depletion throughout the atmosphere. For more information, see the website of the original ozone hole discoverers:
http://www.antarctica.ac.uk/Key_Topics/The_Ozone_Hole/index.html
This is another pretty good (and often quoted) Cambridge University site:
http://www.atm.ch.cam.ac.uk/tour/index.html
You should take your own advice.
My own conclusions: what the hell are you talking about?? If CO2 concentrations went down and temperature was actually higher, then what conclusion am I supposed to draw again? That the temperature was higher due to some factor other than CO2? Ok, granted. *shrugs*
On the other hand, I'd like to see some sources for your figures. Because according to all the sources I was able to find, CO2 concentrations during the Cretacious were indeed extraordinarily high (I never saw estimates as high as 6000 ppm though.) But guess what, sea levels were hundreds of feet higher than today, and surface temperatures were considerably more than 1.5°C higher than today (ranges from 5 to 20 degrees, depending on the point in time; plus generally much greater effects at higher latitudes) -- which go hand-in-hand.
http://www.geosc.psu.edu/~engelder/geosc20/lect17.html
http://www.tulane.edu/~sanelson/geol111/globalchange.htm
http://www.auburn.edu/~kingdat/chap10.htm
Again, sources? And, Cretaceous climate was unbalanced. It was much warmer and much wetter all over the planet, and ocean levels were a hundred meters (at least!) higher than today. If they were to rise even 10 meters right now, huge areas of valuable coastal and low-lying real estate such as coastal plains, wetlands and river deltas would be ocean floor. Not to mention that certain nations and most atolls would altogether disappear under water.
Even if this were so, what bearing does that have on climate change? Though let me tell you that I don't buy your genocidal conspiracy bit at all. Even though it's obvious that the western world has had no vested interest in helping the developing countries along. Perhaps with the emergence of global terrorism and international crime, global corporate concerns, as well as a growing global green lobby, the western world will finally have an incentive.
You completely missed the point. I was not trying to somehow link catalytic converters to lead. I was merely listing some of the benefits of environmental regulation. Unleaded gasoline is one of those benefits.
"Not the first time
Hubbard Glacier last blocked Russell Fiord in 1986. ..." -- from that same story.
This one seems to be periodic. Your point?
Well, if it isn't the very page where you've gratuitously plagiarized from in this post.
I see it appears to cast doubt on some news stories from two years prior. Frankly, I wonder why you bother. I thought you wanted to discuss things on a scientific level, yet there you go analyzing the sensationalist press. But if you wish to go there, note that this "BBC report" is basically inconclusive; its only real message goes along the lines of, "let's wait for some fresh satellite data."
Personally, I wouldn't expect the ice packs to melt right now since global warming is just picking up. These effects take time to develop.
More John Daly. But this time, he seems to actually make some sense. I'll grant him as much. For now, I'll agree with him that the "hockey stick" is flawed. I'll even grant him that the sun influences average surface temperatures on Earth.
What I don't understand, though, is how any of that could be used to dismiss the additional contribution of atmospheric CO2. If CO2 by itself causes a warming, and then we compound that with a sun whose activity is probably going to increase then we've exacerbated the problem. Tell me where I'm wrong.
??? Atmospheric CO2 concentrations have been dramatically boosted in the last couple of centuries and continue to increase exponentially! You have proof against that?
In the future, URL links to John Daly's pages will suffice. You don't need to plagiarize his material and fill the thread with it. TIA
As for faulty science, I accuse him of the same crime. You have yourself presented graphs (doubtless quoted from his website) previously in this thread that were limited in scope and/or time as if they were representative of global or even regional trends. I've pointed you to official data sources that are "high quality" even by your standards. Apparently instead of investigating them, you posted gobs of Daly in "response". Well, at least one of us is reading the other's references.
Did I say the greenhouse effect on Venus was due entirely or even mostly to CO2? Once again, you completely missed the point. Which was, of course, that there is indeed such a thing as a runaway greenhouse effect and also such a thing as greenhouse gases.
As I've already mentioned, I concur. They are clearly a libertarian organization, and as much is clearly visible in their speeches/papers alone.
kmguru,
Bring it on. Personally, I accept limitations and uncertaintines of current knowledge. That does not prevent me from arguing for caution on a credible basis.
edufer,
Negative oxygen balance means it emits oxygen. Well, DUH! If it didn't, we wouldn't have any to breathe. It absorbs CO2 and uses it in combination with water to synthesize hydrocarbons (sugars), emitting O2. Where did you think the carbon in hydrocarbons comes from? How did you think carbon dating works?
I only tend to believe in things which I don't know for certain are false.
You have a fundamental misunderstanding of the results you mentioned. Carbon sequestered through photosynthesis is subsequently consumed by plants and animals, and quite a bit of it returns back to the atmosphere as: animals inhale oxygen and exhale CO2 containing carbon they've previously ingested from food, decaying biomatter tends to release CO2 and methane (CH<sub>4</sub>) which is itself a potent greenhouse gas (though it doesn't last very long in the atmosphere), fires release CO and CO2 into the atmosphere as part of the combustion process. The sequestration of carbon from atmosphere through photosynthesis and subsequent return of carbon to atmosphere through respiration constitutes what is known as "carbon cycle". As such, forests could never sustain a net output of CO2, as eventually there would be nothing left to burn. There can be spikes of net CO2 output from forests, as they reach a point of saturation where they can't absorb any more CO2 than they already do and the built-up biomatter in the forests decays en masse.
So generally I think that using forests as "carbon sinks" is a ridiculous and mostly political portion of the Kyoto treaty that accomplishes little. What small effect it could have would consist of re-forestation of deforested areas, but this would be peanuts compared to the annual production of extra CO2 from fossil fuels.
However, this does not detract from the fact that extra CO2 in the atmosphere serves as a fertilizer to stimulate an overall "greening" of the planet. Note that vegetation tends to stabilize and on average increase atmospheric moisture. You have yourself noted that water vapor is a potent greenhouse gas. So there you have it: a greener planet might eventually lead to even faster warming, even despite massive deforestation in some countries. Deforestation, however, has its own massively negative effects. From local climate instability and possibly local droughts, to loss of biodiversity, to soil erosion and dust bowls, to poor water and air quality. So if you think that third-world countries are being served well by getting stripped of their forests then you are on the side of degeneration and exploitation, not progress.
On further reflection, I retract that point as I'm not sure what the net effect would be. You are right, colder water absorbs and retains more CO2 (e.g. heating up a carbonated beverage will cause an accelerated release of CO2) and I neglected that effect. However, the layer of water actually warmed up is very thin and located at the ocean surface. Plus, warmer oceans encourage algal growth and algae sequester CO2. I was also thinking of temperature-driven oceanic circulation. As surface temperatures increase this circulation must accelerate. Summing it all up, I'm not sure what the net effect on CO2 would be from warmer oceans. Perhaps you're right and warmer oceans release more CO2 into the atmosphere. If so, then this compounds the problem and accelerates the warming even more!
This is some breathtaking bunk.
First of all, when it comes to infrared emission from liquid water or other sundry chemicals of the oceans or from the various chemical compounds of dry land (vegetation-covered or not), we are clearly not talking about IR emission from (mostly pure-water) ice! Different chemical compounds in different states (solid/liquid/gas/plasma) have different emission/absorption spectra. In fact, that's how astronomers can remotely determine chemical compositions and even states of matter via spectroscopy millions of lightyears away from the source.
Secondly, you ought to know that blackbody radiation (which is what heat is) has a characteristic unimodal spectrum that is in shape reminiscent of a skewed bell curve. e.g. see here:
http://www.astronomynotes.com/light/s4.htm
The curve has a long tail toward longer wavelengths, so shifting the peak slightly toward shorter wavelength does not eliminate emission at longer wavelengths. On the contrary, by increasing temperature emission at all wavelengths (including all longer ones) is boosted!
The 10 micron peak is derived from a blackbody spectrum for a temperature of 288°K (15°C) (see above.) Conveniently, there's a simple equation (Wien's law) that gives the relationship between peak emission wavelength and temperature of a blackbody. Simply, it's approximately 2898(micron-kelvins)/T(kelvins).
You bet. Now tell me please: what would happen to atmospheric concentrations of water vapor if surface temperatures were to increase? Might that, by any chance, have a feedback effect with surface temperatures?
Last time I checked, we were not artificially raising or lowering atmospheric concentrations of water vapor. So, you can assume those to be globally constant on average. We are, however, artificially raising CO2 concentrations. Effects are cumulative, so if you add a constant and a variable you still get a variable.
This is demagoguery. While correlation is not a sufficient condition for causality, it is certainly a necessary one. Regardless, there is quite a difference between your tomato example and a graph spanning hundreds of millennia at high resolution showing a close match between two curves. In the latter case, you can't help but conclude the two are causally related. You may try and debate as to which causes which, but there is no question that there is a causal link. And even aside from all that, if you were to follow your argument to its logical conclusion then no experiment could ever provide any useful information.
http://www.ccmr.cornell.edu/~plh2/group/glblwarm/
It is a website for a course being taught at Cornell. Far from being a "personal website", it is course materiel for Cornell students. If this was not scientifically sound, I doubt it would be contained in an official course. The particular source of the graphs is referenced as:
"Managing Planet Earth, Scientific American, Freeman 1990, ISBN 0-7167-2108-2"
If you do a search with the above string in Google, you'll see that many other university courses require and/or reference this material as well.
More garbage.
First of all and FYI, Kyoto Treaty does not equal "the greens". Let's just get that one straight at least. It may be a start in the right direction, but most greens would agree it is ineffectual on too many levels and heavily watered down due to industry lobbying as well as aggressive US rejection of the treaty with Australia following suit and Canada/Japan/Russia seizing the window of opportunity to press a better deal for themselves. It is an extremely flawed treaty and in a large part it's flawed due to the reactionary US reversal.
Enron might support the Kyoto Treaty because it was an energy and commodity trading company. It was not actually involved in generation or exploration. Nor was it an industrial outfit.
ARCO is a fossil fuel juggernaut. It would be one of the hardest hit if the world switched away from fossil fuels.
DuPont is pushing renewable fuels (for example, ethanol) and I compliment them for that. I can see how they might give indirect support to the greens in this narrow area due to their own corporate agenda. However, most of their products and industries are negatively impacted by environmental regulations and the green movement. They are constantly fighting off or settling environmental lawsuits.
Ditto for ICI.
The greens hate these companies, and wouldn't take any money from them under any circumstances. You must be wearing some seriously warped eyeglasses to see the world in such a twisted way as to allege an alliance between these companies and the green movement. For just one example, see this page from Greenpeace and tell me which fossil fuel company might have paid for it:
http://archive.greenpeace.org/~climate/climatecountdown/subsidy_scandal.htm
Astonishingly, you manage to contradict yourself within a single paragraph. I've already given you a link to NOAA data where you can see the trends for yourself. I'm sure there are plenty of objective sources on the Internet in addition to NOAA (which only covers US.) The website you linked to selects choice outliers as "proof" there is no global warming. Excuse me while I laugh...
FYI, platinum was always more precious than gold even as jewelry material. Regardless of catalytic converters. So I seriously doubt platinum mining would have been in trouble without them or saved because of them.
Besides that, I can't believe you're going to argue against catalytic converters. This is one case where you can actually see and smell the difference. Of course, for all I know you inhale car exhaust daily to get high or something. Would explain a bit of your posting here...
Greenpeace explicitly rejects all funding from governments or corporations; it is entirely member-supported and relies heavily on volunteers.
Friends of the Earth International (largest environmental NGO in existence) is mainly supported through membership fees and donations, with a total budget in 2000: US$724,000
Good grief.
Which philosophy are you talking about? Naturalists were around way before fascism was a twinkle in Mussolini's eye. They were around way before Nietzsche.I can't believe how naive you are. Do you really think that only green politicians lack moral integrity? Do you even imagine green politicians have less moral integrity than other politicians? What do corrupt politicians have to do with grassroots movements?
Weep indeed. This study used data from heavily industrial cities which (during the relevant time period) had heavy and growing air pollution and smog, and high concentrations of ground-level ozone (all of which tend to block UV.) Scotto is an epidemiologist, not climate scientist; it was never his goal to objectively monitor global ozone levels -- the measurements he performed related to his investigation of skin cancer rates in 8 "representative" US cities.
Ozone depletion is a global phenomenon, but manifests itself most heavily at high latitudes. Hence the Antarctic & Arctic ozone holes. But the fear is/was that these events could either spread out to or eventually start to occur at lower latitudes. Both fears have basis in fact:
http://www.esa.int/export/esaCP/ESAHFRQQSTC_index_0.html
http://i115srv.vu-wien.ac.at/UV/uv_o3_hole99.html
http://users.rcn.com/jkimball.ma.ultranet/BiologyPages/O/Ozone.html
Overall, growing ozone holes at high latitudes were indicative of general ozone depletion throughout the atmosphere. For more information, see the website of the original ozone hole discoverers:
http://www.antarctica.ac.uk/Key_Topics/The_Ozone_Hole/index.html
This is another pretty good (and often quoted) Cambridge University site:
http://www.atm.ch.cam.ac.uk/tour/index.html
You should take your own advice.
My own conclusions: what the hell are you talking about?? If CO2 concentrations went down and temperature was actually higher, then what conclusion am I supposed to draw again? That the temperature was higher due to some factor other than CO2? Ok, granted. *shrugs*
On the other hand, I'd like to see some sources for your figures. Because according to all the sources I was able to find, CO2 concentrations during the Cretacious were indeed extraordinarily high (I never saw estimates as high as 6000 ppm though.) But guess what, sea levels were hundreds of feet higher than today, and surface temperatures were considerably more than 1.5°C higher than today (ranges from 5 to 20 degrees, depending on the point in time; plus generally much greater effects at higher latitudes) -- which go hand-in-hand.
http://www.geosc.psu.edu/~engelder/geosc20/lect17.html
http://www.tulane.edu/~sanelson/geol111/globalchange.htm
http://www.auburn.edu/~kingdat/chap10.htm
Again, sources? And, Cretaceous climate was unbalanced. It was much warmer and much wetter all over the planet, and ocean levels were a hundred meters (at least!) higher than today. If they were to rise even 10 meters right now, huge areas of valuable coastal and low-lying real estate such as coastal plains, wetlands and river deltas would be ocean floor. Not to mention that certain nations and most atolls would altogether disappear under water.
Even if this were so, what bearing does that have on climate change? Though let me tell you that I don't buy your genocidal conspiracy bit at all. Even though it's obvious that the western world has had no vested interest in helping the developing countries along. Perhaps with the emergence of global terrorism and international crime, global corporate concerns, as well as a growing global green lobby, the western world will finally have an incentive.
You completely missed the point. I was not trying to somehow link catalytic converters to lead. I was merely listing some of the benefits of environmental regulation. Unleaded gasoline is one of those benefits.
"Not the first time
Hubbard Glacier last blocked Russell Fiord in 1986. ..." -- from that same story.
This one seems to be periodic. Your point?
Well, if it isn't the very page where you've gratuitously plagiarized from in this post.
I see it appears to cast doubt on some news stories from two years prior. Frankly, I wonder why you bother. I thought you wanted to discuss things on a scientific level, yet there you go analyzing the sensationalist press. But if you wish to go there, note that this "BBC report" is basically inconclusive; its only real message goes along the lines of, "let's wait for some fresh satellite data."
Personally, I wouldn't expect the ice packs to melt right now since global warming is just picking up. These effects take time to develop.
More John Daly. But this time, he seems to actually make some sense. I'll grant him as much. For now, I'll agree with him that the "hockey stick" is flawed. I'll even grant him that the sun influences average surface temperatures on Earth.
What I don't understand, though, is how any of that could be used to dismiss the additional contribution of atmospheric CO2. If CO2 by itself causes a warming, and then we compound that with a sun whose activity is probably going to increase then we've exacerbated the problem. Tell me where I'm wrong.
??? Atmospheric CO2 concentrations have been dramatically boosted in the last couple of centuries and continue to increase exponentially! You have proof against that?
In the future, URL links to John Daly's pages will suffice. You don't need to plagiarize his material and fill the thread with it. TIA
As for faulty science, I accuse him of the same crime. You have yourself presented graphs (doubtless quoted from his website) previously in this thread that were limited in scope and/or time as if they were representative of global or even regional trends. I've pointed you to official data sources that are "high quality" even by your standards. Apparently instead of investigating them, you posted gobs of Daly in "response". Well, at least one of us is reading the other's references.
Did I say the greenhouse effect on Venus was due entirely or even mostly to CO2? Once again, you completely missed the point. Which was, of course, that there is indeed such a thing as a runaway greenhouse effect and also such a thing as greenhouse gases.
