that is some powerful agw nutter science right there. you really showed how man made CO2 is driving temperature. face it ricter.. you have been crushed on this... As I told fc your team is off the field they have to come up with new models. I guarantee those models will admit there are drivers besides CO2. Maybe the new models will be legit and then we can be on the same team. --- by the way the algo was correct... it predicted the pollsters would go to responsible rations and it was correct. the algo was right... at one point Romney did go in the lead... then it swung back in the last week. many of the polls also tightened their ratios to match the approved templates by the algo. The 2008 to 2010 ratios. I was also right that Obama would get fewer votes... what was wrong about was my prediction the Is would all go to Romney... the Is swung back to about even the day before the election in what was probably the most responsible poll.
You've admitted that the CO2 molecule absorbs radiant energy (that would otherwise return to space). Man is adding CO2 to the atmosphere. Thus man is warming the atmosphere.
You know just enough to be dangerously stupid. I have been struggling to understand exactly how increasing CO2 levels leads to global warming using basic physics, and the story is complex. The trapping of certain bands of infrared radiation emitted from the Earth by greenhouse gases is well known. The effective cross-section of CO2 of absorption for CO2 in its rotational bands is also well known (HITRAN). Using the current concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere it is also clear that essentially all the radiation emitted by the surface in these bands is already absorbed by CO2 at pre-industrial levels. In fact spectra from space show that the main CO2 bands are saturated in the lower atmosphere with minimal emission from the high atmosphere. The absorption of radiation follows a logarithmic law with distance assuming a uniform concentration of CO2 in air. All that happens if you double the concentration of CO2 in air is that the absorption length is halved. So more radiant energy is absorbed and reflected back to earth at lower levels of the atmosphere than before. However the total energy balance would appear at first sight to be almost unchanged. In fact just such an experiment was performed by Herr. Koch and led Angstrom to dismiss theories of man induced warming already back in the early 20th century. http://clivebest.com/blog/?p=1169
were you not the guy who use to argue logic? you really think that argument works in a dynamic systems which has historically accumulated dissipated CO2 without any input from man? is that really your science? other than the fact we are talking about a complex dynamic system like the earths which sinks CO2 and off gasses CO2... and when temperature cools also dissipates CO2... and the fact that pspr... just gave you more reasons... you might actually have shown that man made co2 causes warming and then maybe you would have received a Nobel prize.
let me know when you get to the science part of your proof that man made CO2 causes warming on earth.
Let's try this again for the chart-challenged jem. We can ignore pspr, lucrum and PT since they don't even present any science or any evidence of intelligent thought on the subject. At least jem presents something. So jem. Although your theory about what happened is interesting, it's wrong. Let's look at it again. The Antarctic warmed first (red line) releasing CO2 into the entire earth's atmosphere (yellow dots) which led to GLOBAL warming(blue line). Proof that CO2 levels can lead temps as expected since CO2 is indisputably a greenhouse gas. So jem, your irrelevant gotcha argument stating that, CO2 has never been shown historically to lead temperatures is now defeated and been rendered impotent. You'll have to find something else. As expected when CO2 - a greenhouse gas - goes up, it raises the temps. So jem, being that CO2 has gone up 35% in the last 150 years and proven to be due to man's activities, what would you expect would happen to temps. Remember ....35%......indisputably the extra in the atmosphere is from man............CO2 indisputably a greenhouse gas... not much room for an argument there. Which little opening will you go for now?