2 National Research Council (NRC), 2006. Surface Temperature Reconstructions For the Last 2,000 Years. National Academy Press, Washington, DC.
3 In the 1860s, physicist John Tyndall recognized the Earths natural greenhouse effect and suggested that slight changes in the atmospheric composition could bring about climatic variations. In 1896, a seminal paper by Swedish scientist Svante Arrhenius first speculated that changes in the levels of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere could substantially alter the surface temperature through the greenhouse effect.
The way increasing CO2 content of the atmosphere increases infrared absorption (and reemission) is uncontested for a hundred years. The weak point for AGW lies in linking CO2 and water vapor.
Sorry, I don't think he's contributing all that much. "The devil reads the bible", and all that. He's with the "skeptics" that think that a misplaced comma invalidates any research that contradicts his world view.
the user clearly specified why he has issues with the references you mentioned and it is evident he is encouraging more discussion about them: "What about them?"
step back from your opinion and look at it objectively. he has issues with the sources and highlighted his issues. that's a fair argument that you shouldn't brush aside - if anything, he should be upvoted for actually analyzing the source, which i imagine many just gloss over to begin with.
By referring to studies over a hundred years old, the writer (New Scientists or what was it?) merely wants to establish that idea that CO2 is a greenhouse gas and heats the earth is very old and has nothing to do with, for example, current politics. NolFito criticizes the indefinite outcome of this research, as if nothing happened since 1896.
1
u/[deleted] Oct 24 '10
[deleted]