|2011-03-08 08:02:19||WUWT reply, seeking advice: "warmistas claims"|
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.
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
commieBob March 7, 2011 at 6:42 am says:
“The warmistas claims are based on proving:
“1 – Modern warming is unprecedented
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.
"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.