Visual proof that CO2 absorbs infrared radiation

I hate it when I have a good idea and then find out someone's already done a better version of the idea.  This happened with my idea of taking a picture with an infared camera of a fire extinguisher discharging CO2, which I figured should basically look like a black plume.

Jeff S., a friend whose PhD in spectroscopy gives him a knowledge base nearing that of my own derived from watching nature documentaries, clarified that the idea required a heat source and that the CO2 be in between the heat source and the camera.  Various details about camera operation and the frequencies it uses could also affect the outcome.  But the principle should work, and I thought it could be an effective educational tool.

And then, Jeff found that BBC's already done it:



(If the embed doesn't work, you can watch it on Youtube.)

More info here, and a NOVA documentary apparently does something similar (I'll provide an update when I watch it).

What could still be useful is a photo instead of a video, not to mention one that's in the public domain so we could put it up on wikipedia.

Wall Street Journal uses POV fork to gives denialists an uncontradicted platform

(Sorry about the incomprehensible notes I accidentally published here earlier - I will now attempt a real post.)

Wikipedia prohibits content forks and Point of View (POV) forks in its articles, but the Wall Street Journal news section seems to think those techniques make the writing easier.  Content forks are multiple articles on the same subject, and POV forks are attempts to avoid the neutral viewpoint requirement of wiki by creating an article that just focuses on one side of an issue.

Yesterday's Wall Street Journal has an article called "Controversies Create Opening for Critics" about climate change denialists and their attacks on the IPCC.  I can only guess the refusal to discuss the mainstream position and counterarguments to critics is because the article is about the critics.  It contains the uncontradicted lies that claims about effects on African agriculture and Amazonian rainforests were found to not have a scientific basis.  The only "defense" of the IPCC is from Bjorn Lomborg of all people, who says warming is real but we shouldn't cut emissions.

A paragraph on the frivolous Texas lawsuit against the EPA's finding that greenhouse gases endanger Americans actually performed journalism by talking to both sides of the issue.  Too bad the rest of the article doesn't.

The remainder is expositions on the beautiful denialist theories of Christy, Lindzen, Soon, and Kukla (last one's new to me) on how they're right and everyone else is wrong.  Nothing at all is written about how their theories have gained no support and why they haven't.  An article that wouldn't make it through wiki sails the Journal.

Many denialists I debate on blogs have an open contempt for wikipedia, so much so that they refuse to go there to get the linked references that wiki provides.  I think neutrality and reality are the real problems they have with it.

Adding geologic weathering cycles to a wiki climate article

The wiki climate article Long-term effects of global warming has been criticized from reputable sources (not the usual scruffy crew) as being alarmist. To fix that and because it seemed like a good place anyway, I've added a short section on how the oceanic absorption and geologic weathering over many thousands of years will eventually take care of the CO2. It's here, but could use some additional info.

For your edits: new wiki article, "History of climate change science"

I've put up a new article on wiki, "History of climate change science," covering the history of scientific developments from late 1700s to 1988. What I wrote is really just an abbreviated history of the science of carbon dioxide and climate science - a lot can and should be added about water vapor and other gases. Please jump in and make improvements!

I'm hopeful this article will be less contentious than other climate articles, while still making clear that climate change wasn't something invented by hippies to advance their socialist plots.

Marc Morano isn't even a Reliable Source on climate nonsense

William wrote recently about the wikipedia climate change edit wars that he's heavily involved with and that I occasionally wade into as well (come join the fight!).

Wikipedia uses the concept of Reliable Sources (RS) as a limit on the acceptable citation to back up any statement in an article. Even the denialists who fight on at wiki have grudgingly accepted William as a RS. This blog has occasionally been used as a RS on climate betting, although it's also been kicked out of some articles as I am clearly a lying knave.

And then there's Senator James Inhofe and his omnipresent Communications Director, Marc Morano, who constantly spew out denialist garbage. They're no RS for actual climate science, but have been used in wiki as sources on the state of the climate skeptic movement. I've even done that, but I shouldn't have.

Tim Lambert and many others have been pointing out huge problems in Morano and Inhofe's "Study" on "over 650" "scientists" who dissent over man-made warming. The issue for wikipedia isn't the obvious lies about climate science but the lies and mistakes about climate skeptics:

• First, there aren't "over 650" individuals on the list. There are 603.

• A number of individuals on the list aren't scientists, they're economists and engineers. One of them, Donald Boudreaux, is even quoted as saying, “I am a global-warming skeptic - not of the science of climate change (for I have no expertise to judge it), but a skeptic of combating climate change with increased government power.” This report says on its first page that is enumerating scientists disputing claims that the science is settled and there is a consensus. No, it's not.

• A number of actual scientists on the list are misrepresented and/or have demanded to have their names removed from the list or its earlier version, but have been ignored. (See here (UPDATE: mentioned in the report but not listed among the 650 scientists), here, here, and here.)

Morano and Inhofe shouldn't be cited in wikipedia climate articles as sources about anything other than their own statements.