Heat in the state of light finds less resistance in penetrating the air, than in repassing into the air when converted into non-luminous heat.
Joseph Fourier, 1824. (p. 13)
Up to a tension of 3- inches the absorption by carbonic oxide is proportional to the density of the gas.
John Tyndall, 1861. (p.274)
an almost inappreciable admixture of any of the hydrocarbon vapors would produce great effects on the terrestrial [infrared] rays and
corresponding changes of climate
John Tyndall, 1861. (p. 277)
A simple calculation shows that the temperature in the arctic regions would rise about 8° to 9°C., if the carbonic acid increased to 2.5 or 3 times its present value.
Svante Arrhenius, 1896. (p.268)
As you see the facts live in the evidence of nature, given to you to digest at your leisure by the thorough fact-checking of the people above and the thousands that have taken it upon themselves to check and re-check those facts. Your "pointing out facts" collapses under weight of all of that actual work which produced all of that actual fact-checking.
Deal with even the most elementary fact of science in any of the authoritative works from the 19th c above and get back with me once you're at the proficiency of, say, the year 1900.
As you will see by reading the above papers, the information produced by the IPCC in the 21st century is consistent with the discoveries in the 19th century. We have gone nearly 200 years without a reversal of those findings. Or maybe
You just can't deal with it.
The people above were certainly superior to you in their ability to fact-check the causes of receding glaciers. I suppose you might feel the need to ridicule them as supermen, but really, these were just intelligent people who were determined to get answers. And they got the job done. Does that make them worthy of petty resentment?
Learn how to separate carbon dioxide from the air. Place it in a tube. Measure its capacity to absorb heat. When you learn to do that, you will have promoted yourself to the status of a blind animal.
Read the first few paragraphs of the papers above. They each tell you they were searching for an explanation for the source of heat that brought us out of the last glacial peak.
Can you separate carbon dioxide from air, place it in a tube and measure it's heat absorption? They could. Evidently their means far exceeded the extreme limitations you have imposed on yourself by never taking a chemistry lab. That pretty well disqualifies you from assessing their "extreme limitations".
Yes, you are. I got that. But not them. Go measure the heat absorption of carbon dioxide and come back and tell me what lack of tools is preventing your success. I mean other than your ignorance of chemistry.
At present you are stumped by a tube of only a few cubic centimeters. They have sensors all over the planet, in vessels and bouys, up on the mountaintops, in high altitude aircraft, balloons and satellites, and in collections of ice and sediment cores thousands of meters deep. They have thousands of campuses, libraries, labs, research stations and and army of trained professionals working the actual problems on a daily basis. It's an immense technical challenge met by a colossal human effort. What have you got? A pickup with a gun rack and AM radio with the dial stuck on Rush Limbaugh, where you missed that day you meant to spit that plug of chew into the ashtray?
Said the guy who has no idea how to measure a tube filled with carbon dioxide.
Oh, the irony.
You don't see me attacking my intellectual superiors. And the other folks posting here, some of whom are qualified take charge of a project involving chemical analysis of air samples, they aren't bitching about Fourier, Tyndall or Arrhenius being -- what did you call them? -- Oh yeah, blind animals.
If you really believed humility was a virtue you would go look in the mirror, slap yourself a few times for being a dope, and go enroll in a remedial class in chemistry. Either that or just accept that you're a science illiterate and be glad that there a millions of people out there who aren't in the sad shape you're in, since they bothered to suffer through the lectures, labs, papers and exams. Be glad that they're taking care of business for you since you obviously can't handle even a test tube of it yourself.
The theft and use of the emails does reveal something interesting about the social context. It's a symptom of something entirely new in the history of science: Aside from crackpots who complain that a conspiracy is suppressing their personal discoveries, we've never before seen a set of people accuse an entire community of scientists of deliberate deception and other professional malfeasance. Even the tobacco companies never tried to slander legitimate cancer researchers. In blogs, talk radio and other new media, we are told that the warnings about future global warming issued by the national science academies, scientific societies, and governments of all the leading nations are not only mistaken, but based on a hoax, indeed a conspiracy that must involve thousands of respected researchers. Extraordinary and, frankly, weird.
Science historian reacts to hacked climate e-mails
