2011-03-08 08:02:19WUWT reply, seeking advice: "warmistas claims"
Peter Miesler

Thank you Neal and Mark for your comments - I'm not going to do a fresh post, I figure I'll just let this thread settle to the bottom.

I do appreciate you guys taking the time to comment. Yea I figured that catalyst thing wouldn't sit well, more of that sloppy word usage I've got to work on.

Thanks, peter

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

commieBob March 7, 2011 at 6:42 am says:  
“The warmistas claims are based on proving:
“1 – Modern warming is unprecedented
2 – We are approaching a tipping point caused by positive feedback
3 – The climate is non-linear and crossing the tipping point will cause a sudden and irreversible warming by about six degrees.”
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
First off, can you define “Warmistas” I don’t understand what you mean?
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

Seems to me you got some straw men there. Shouldn’t the first order of business be getting a clear unified understanding of what is going on within our atmosphere... and how that relates to weather patterns, etc. which over the long term is categorized as climate?

Your above three points mischaracterize the basic understanding we must achieve.
I would suggest the following list of questions are more appropriate:
1 - Does CO2 (along with other GHGs) influence our atmosphere?
1a - Is there physical evidence to suggest CO2 has thermo properties... have those properties been quantified?
1b - Is there evidence that atmospheric CO2 (& GHG) levels are increasing due to human activity?
1c - Is there evidence to suggest real-time effects of CO2’s atmospheric thermo properties is being witnessed on the planet?
2 - Beyond that: Are our oceans drivers of warming/cooling or do they merely circulate warmth according to the atmosphere’s thermo condition and their interface?
3 - Is the sun, {or Earth’s orbital variations}, acting in a manner that is meaningfully increasing or decreasing current insolation (incoming sun’s energy)?
4 - Which temperature reconstructions can we trust?
5 - Where is the IPCC claiming tipping points, or imminent catastrophe?

2011-03-08 08:14:05
Mark Richardson

The 'warmistas' claims are not based on any of those 3 points.


A tipping point is a terrifying possibility, but the IPCC model runs don't include such a 'tipping point'. They tend to have a largely linear response. The actual argument is that climate sensitivity is above 2 C per CO2 doubling and therefore that we're in line for 4+ C eventual warming and the associated dangers with that.


It's a straw man.

2011-03-08 09:00:42



"Catalytic" is not the right word. See below:

Catalytic: causing, involving or relating to Catalysis.

Catalysis: a modification and especially increase in the rate of a chemical reaction induced by material unchanged chemically at the end of the reaction.

Radiation trapping is not a chemical reaction.


"Thermo properties": This would suggest, if anything, the thermodynamic parameters of CO2, e.g. entropy, heat capacity, pressure, etc.; which have almost nothing to do with the issue at hand. What you are talking about are the radiative-transfer properties, probably better known as the "greenhouse gas" properties.