Dean's World

That's what this guy, Nasif Nahle Sabag, is arguing:

For example, the real radiative equilibrium temperature of Earth is 300.15 K (27 °C), and we want to know the anomaly caused by carbon dioxide, which concentration in the atmosphere was 381 ppmv. If the standard concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere is 280 ppmv (another subjective number because the real one was fixed by scientific associations and boards, and its value is 350 ppmv), the anomaly in the temperature of the lower troposphere (the layer of air just above the ground and in contact with the surface with not more than one meter thick) caused by CO2 (Partial Pressure from 381 ppmv [CcdL] = 0.00034 atm-m) under a total atmospheric pressure of 1 atm is:

[Equations at link]

Thus, the anomaly of the lower troposphere temperature caused by the increase of CO2, on June 15, 2007 at 18:05 hrs. (UT) was 0.02 K, which is equal to 0.02 °C.

Seems to hang together fairly well. Anyone care to try to shoot holes in this?

Sabag appears to believe increases in solar radiation are more likely to be responsible, and argues that case in this thread, citing data that do appear to show solar irradiance has been rising both in the past 400 years and the past 50, though (as pointed out in the thread) the correlation to temperature is lagging (ironically, lagging correlation is of course the same argument warming skeptics have made against the long-term CO2/temperature correlations), and he gives some interesting formulas for surface warming based on irradiation.

We should be skeptical, but in both directions: with the recent revelations that James Hansen is not only receiving six-figure payments from Soros but actually once worked to bolster claims the same problem (air pollution from fossil fuels) would bring about a "catastrophic" Ice Age, the whole climate change industry starts to look like a bit like a cause in search of a convenient crisis.

A flurry of poorly-written news briefs, replete with claims of time travel made possible and proof of parallel universes, have been spawned by the announcement by Oxford scientists that a mathematical model of the Many Worlds Interpretation is more robust than thought. Predictably, perhaps the best explanation of what MWI means comes from a Slashdot commenter:

The remaining issue in a theory of quantum + decoherence is that the classical states have the right probabilities, but there is still nothing to explain why we observe a particular classical state (photon measured spin-up instead of spin-down). However the (ad-hoc) postulate of wavefunction collapse, no longer being necessary to explain how the probabilities arise, can in fact be entirely removed if we allow that the global superposition never collapses.

Thus, a local observer (e.g. an instrument or a human) perceives a single outcome only because they are a participant in this "global superposition" (the superposition of the entire universe). The wavefunction of the universe as a whole evolves deterministically.

It's odd to think of the Universe we experience as a superposition, but that does seem to be the implication of our current understanding of quantum mechanics.

Scientific consensus on global warming? Or not? Denialists apparently abound:

Sept. 12 /PRNewswire-USNewswire/ -- A new analysis of peer-reviewed literature reveals that more than 500 scientists have published evidence refuting at least one element of current man-made global warming scares.
...
Other researchers found evidence that 3) sea levels are failing to rise importantly; 4) that our storms and droughts are becoming fewer and milder with this warming as they did during previous global warmings; 5) that human deaths will be reduced with warming because cold kills twice as many people as heat; and 6) that corals, trees, birds, mammals, and butterflies are adapting well to the routine reality of changing climate

As I've said before, the weakest argument of warmenists is their catastrophic predictions. The notion of dramatic sea level rise is one of the most egregious scaremongering tactics (I'm looking at you Al Gore).

I thought the fact the Romans produced wine in Britain was interesting, too. Read the whole thing.