Climate Change

[CTJG 1986]

* It's nice to see that Ahmed is aware of the 9/11 related plots. Too bad he didn't find about some of the others regarding global warming, such as the following.
- This article http://www.larouchepub.com/other/2007/s ... _hoax.html shows that the global warming scare was started in 1975 by population control fanatics, led by Margaret Mead, who was president of the AAAS in 1974, the year the AAAS conducted a smear campaign against Velikovsky via their kangaroo court, called an AAAS symposium. Why did they make such a big fuss about Velikovsky? Could it be that his information about Venus being a young planet might undermine Sagan’s beloved greenhouse theory?
- Britain’s conservative Prime Minister, Margaret Thatcher, took up the cause of global warming around 1979 for the purpose of undermining the power of the coal and oil labor unions, I believe. What took "liberal" Gore so long to get aboard the scare campaign?

Although I do not want to get into conspiracy theories here too much one needs to assign the ultimate blame for this swindling to the deserving entities, and that is the U.N corporation itself and its core shareholders(the U.N member states).

It is interesting to note that the U.N itself is a registered non-profit corporation but its primary parent corporation is a publicly traded for-profit company called the Economic and Social Commission for Western Asia, which itself is one of a series of commissions(all for-profit U.N parent companies) that make up one of the governing councils of the United Nations corporate body itself, the United Nations Economic and Social Council.

The United Nations in turn is the parent company of the UN IPCC and all other U.N environmental groups and agencies, the same groups that helped craft the U.N Agenda 21 that was implemented at the Rio Earth Summit in 1993.

The U.N also happens to be parent company of the International Monetary Fund and the World Bank Group. The ESCWA and the other commissions are registered as Financial Services companies(banking).

The U.N Agenda 21 and numerous other U.N legislative works very clearly call for a sort of redistribution of wealth by way of taxation of the wealthy developed industrialized world to generate money to provide as aid to the undeveloped world, using the alleged threat of AGW as the primary mechanism to implement taxes and other money grabbing schemes.

On the outset it seems a noble enough project, unless you realize that the countries that are supposed to be benefiting the most from the funneling of that redistributed wealth also happen to have massive debts with the U.N operated World Bank and IMF and as per the legal requirements of their loan contracts almost all aid they receive must be paid against those debts.

So the U.N is pushing an agenda that just happens to be directing money away from the citizens of wealthy nations and toward poorer nations who end up having to give it away to pay off debts to the people who own and control the United Nations itself.

Whether or not AGW is real such a system as the U.N and its partners have developed to exploit it certainly is not supportable, even if the intentions behind it all really were meant to be good as some claim.

[Julian Braggins]

With reference to the quotes from the book posted by PP,
We all tend to find results from papers that support our present position, and with that in mind, here are a few points that cast doubt on the man made catastrophic global warming camp.

The surface stations world wide are in the main situated to cater for airports, and as such show greatly increased heat island effect compared to rural stations, which is not correctly compensated for. Wattsupwiththat has run many articles on that.

Surface stations world wide have been reduced from ~9000 pre 1990 to ~2000 at present, most of the dropped ones are from colder regions in Siberia and internal Canada, some are extrapolated from stations up to 2000km away.

Over the century plus time period instruments, siting, time of observation, methods of sea surface temperature sampling have all changed drastically and there is great disagreement between experts as to whether it is even possible to correct for these problems. Even the method to compensate for Urban Heat Island (UHI) effect have resulted in a positive slope for the last Century where none existed in the raw figures, for example raw figures for Australia show no trend, UHI adjusted +.7°C Warwick Hughes has many posts on this. Also New Zealand, in fact the authority in control of the temperature series has wiped its hands of them as they have been compromised by a now dismissed senior civil servant.

There is also the realization that average global temperature is not the appropriate metric to measure the heat content of the Globe. Humidity has a great influence on atmospheric heat content and varies widely and rapidly in ways that cannot be tracked at present. It is the heat content balance that determines whether we are warming or cooling. The Oceanic Cycles have periods up to 60years or more, and the oceans contain in the top 200mtrs something in the region of 80 times the heat content of the atmosphere, therefore a fraction of a degree in 110 yrs (where the error bars should be greater than that) seems neither here nor there.

Sensitivity to CO2 is a very controversial subject because without a positive feedback, there is no catastrophic warming. Ferenc Miscolski worked for NASA on this for many years and published a paper that in essence finds that there is NO overall effect by CO2, because as the fraction of CO2 in the air rises a similar fraction of water vapour is displaced resulting in an opacity to Infra Red that remains constant. This of course is highly disputed by those supporting the IPPC contention of positive feedback, but their only opposition boils down to disputing the accuracy of pre NASA balloon measurements going back some 60 years.
Well credentialed climatologists put the sensitivity of CO2 doubling at figures from + 0.4°C to +1.2°C using different measures. Present figures show that the temperature is well below the scenarios modeled by the IPPC.

Laboratory experiments with CO2 do not in any way represent the open ended column that represents the atmosphere with all its dynamics.
There is a new paper that may be very significant that shows that carbonic acid gas can exist at temperatures below -31°C , may be forming in the upper atmosphere and would take out some CO2. Its properties as a GH Gas are unknown but theoretically should not be great.

The Naomi Oreskes controversy was settled years ago, she used a limiting search criteria and missed hundreds of papers that did not agree with her conclusions.

The Solar content of GW is still disputed, increased cloud cover from cosmic rays is still awaiting results from experiment. NASA has stated that extreme ultra violet can increase from 100 to 1000 fold at various stages of the solar cycle and its effects on temperature are not measured.
The sunspot number and its proxies go back thousands of years, and though the mechanism is not yet known, periods of sustained low sunspot activity have always resulted in times of cold and famine. We are at present tracking the sunspot activity of the Dalton minimum which resulted in the Little Ice Age. The Barycentre Orbit pattern which has coincided with previous cold periods shows a coming low sunspot number for cycle 25 which takes us to the 2030’s see Vuckevic, Theodore Landsheidt

[mharratsc]

Whereas I do not believe in AGW, I do feel that we could do better than continue to throw billions at the oil barons around the world, and I find myself in the 'green' corner with most of them.

There are fewer 'self-interest' groups advocating for a switch from oil, than there are within the ranks of the 'Big Oil' proponents, I think. More of the 'Green Crowd' are simply grass roots people advocating for a cleaner planet and a decentralized economy... again, simply my opinion.

I won't ring the AGW alarm bell, but I'll stand and shout to keep the 14+ billion dollars the U.S. sends overseas annually to buy oil here within our own borders and investing in new technologies and new jobs for people here in the U.S. who need them.

My point is- I don't think everyone whom is on the AGW band wagon is necessarily trying to pull the wool over everyone else's eyes. I think lots of them are misled by the propaganda, and they have swallowed the info hook, line, and sinker due to good intentions, for the most part.

That isn't to say that we shouldn't be wary of those loud proponents of AGW that are poised to make a fortune from these bogus 'carbon credits' and whatnot...

Just my two cents tho... not like anyone put me in charge of anything.

[jjohnson]

<soapbox> What about water vapor? Obviously non-anthropogenic, but it is the source of 36%-66% (sources and times vary) of heat retention by atmospheric gases. CO2 is second, up to about 26%. Methane is a distant third.

A runaway greenhouse effect seems unlikely, given that feedback mechanisms seem to control water vapor fairly evenly: increased heating doesn't seem to cause a faster evaporation rate of the planet's surface water, leading in turn to higher vapor content in the atmosphere, and yet more heat retention, etc. Our system is "buffered" by a lot of competing and mutually supportive mechanisms in play, that have probably had a long period of time in which to settle down into a reasonably stable net gain/loss rate of heat. Lucky us!

I suppose if the petro-oligarchs really wanted their products to heat us up they'd be flaring off more gas than they already do. Remember that hydrocarbons burned in the presence of oxygen (in engines, in power plants; in stoves, etc.) yield both top greenhouse gases: water and CO2! The more people we have, the more cars, trucks, ships, power plants, aircraft and stoves we use, all releasing H2O and CO2 into the air. We ourselves, and all animal live, also produce water and CO2 through metabolic processes. In the biosphere, plant life tends to be the sink for both water and CO2.

Think on that, and the number of hectares of jungle being burned per hour, 24/7/365. </soapbox>

Thanks, MH!

[PersianPaladin]

* It's nice to see that Ahmed is aware of the 9/11 related plots. Too bad he didn't find about some of the others regarding global warming, such as the following.
- This article http://www.larouchepub.com/other/2007/s ... _hoax.html shows that the global warming scare was started in 1975 by population control fanatics, led by Margaret Mead, who was president of the AAAS in 1974, the year the AAAS conducted a smear campaign against Velikovsky via their kangaroo court, called an AAAS symposium. Why did they make such a big fuss about Velikovsky? Could it be that his information about Venus being a young planet might undermine Sagan’s beloved greenhouse theory?
- Britain’s conservative Prime Minister, Margaret Thatcher, took up the cause of global warming around 1979 for the purpose of undermining the power of the coal and oil labor unions, I believe. What took "liberal" Gore so long to get aboard the scare campaign?
- Here’s the initial portion of another article, explaining some of the IPCC fraud.
THE FRAUD OF GLOBAL WARMING
True C02 Record Buried Under Gore
by Laurence Hecht, Editor, 21st Century Science & Technology
http://www.larouchepub.com/eiw/public/2 ... 070302.pdf

- The historical record of atmospheric carbon dioxide concentrations, claimed by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) as the justification for greenhouse gas reduction, is a fraud. Research by a Freiburg, Germany professor, Ernst-Georg Beck of the Merian-Schule, shows that the IPCC construed and concocted the pre-1957 CO2 record from measurements on recently drilled ice cores, ignoring more than 90,000 direct measurements by chemical methods from1857 to 1957.(1) 375.00 ppm in 1885 (Hempel in Dresden), 390.0 in 1866 (Gorup, Erlangen), and 416.0 in 1857 and 1858 (von Gilm, Innsbruck). Ironically, although the 1940s increase correlated with a period of average atmospheric warming, Beck and others have shown that the warming preceded the increase in CO2 concentrations.
- 1. “180 years accurate CO2 air gas analysis by chemical methods (short version),” an unofficial extract, Dipl. Biol. Ernst-Georg Beck, Merian-Schule Freiburg, 8/2006 http://www.warwickhughes.com/agri/BeckCO2short.pdf, and private communication.
- The IPCC’s hoked-up record attempts to prove that CO2 concentrations have been steadily increasing with the progress of human industrial civilization. Beck’s work confirms a wealth of previous investigations which demonstrate that the IPCC cherry-picked its data in an attempt to prove that we must stop industrial development and return to the horse-and-buggy age, or face oppressive heat and melting of the polar ice caps. It shows that the Kyoto Treaty on reduction of greenhouse gases was based on a scientific fraud which violates the laws of the universe, denying the well-established determination of climate by cyclical variations in the Earth-Sun orbital relationship and in the Sun’s heat output.
- In a thorough review of 175 scientific papers, Professor Beck found that the founders of modern greenhouse theory, Guy Stewart Callendar and Charles David Keeling (a special idol of Al Gore’s), had completely ignored careful and systematic measurements by some of the most famous names of physical chemistry, among them several Nobel Prizewinners. Measurements by these chemists showed that today’s atmospheric CO2 concentration of about 380 parts per million (ppm) has been exceeded in the past, including a period from 1936 to 1944, when the CO2 levels varied from 393.0 to 454.7 ppm.
- There were also measurements, accurate to within 3%, of (Gorup, Erlangen), and 416.0 in 1857 and 1858 (von Gilm, Innsbruck). Ironically, although the 1940s increase correlated with a period of average atmospheric warming, Beck and others have shown that the warming preceded the increase in CO2 concentrations.
- The data reviewed by Beck came mainly from the Northern Hemisphere, geographically spread from Alaska over Europe to Poona, India, nearly all taken from rural areas or the periphery of towns without contamination by industry, at a measuring height of approximately 2 meters above ground. Evaluation of chemical methods revealed a maximum error of 3% down to 1% in the best cases.
- By contrast, the measurements hoked up from ice cores, show a rather steady increase in CO2 levels, conveniently corresponding to the preconceived idea that increasing industrial activity has produced a steady CO2 increase. As Beck’s collaborator, Dr. Zbigniew Jaworowski, former senior advisor to the Polish radiation monitoring service and a veteran mountaineer who has excavated ice from 17 glaciers on six continents, has shown, the gaseous inclusions in ice cores have no validity as historical proxies for atmospheric concentrations. The continual freezing, [thawing,] refreezing, and pressurization of ice columns drastically alters the original atmospheric concentrations of the gas bubbles.(2)
- 2. See “Ice Core Data Show No Carbon Dioxide Increase” by Zbigniew Jaworowski and other references at http://www.21stcenturysciencetech.com under the topic “Global Warming.”

I'm sorry, but you have to stay credible. Nafeez is not saying "9/11 was an inside job". He is very careful in what he says, and he talks about serious questions that strongly challenge the official story and he avoids making conclusions himself. That distinguishes him from the conspiracy theory crowd.

You say:-

"the global warming scare was started in 1975 by population control fanatics, led by Margaret Mead"

That is incorrect, I'm afraid. There was no secret conspiracy here. The science was publically discussed a few decades earlier, and developed in the various peer-reviewed papers among the disciplines of atmospheric science, geochemistry, oceanography, etc. Rather than form paranoid pre-judgements...it pays people who REALLY want the truth - to actually go and look for it in the respective literature (rather than jump to speculative ideologically loaded articles that support your opinion). I've looked at both sides, because I used to be a global warming skeptic.

You say:-
"Why did they make such a big fuss about Velikovsky? Could it be that his information about Venus being a young planet might undermine Sagan’s beloved greenhouse theory?"

Again. That's just speculation. There is a youtube interview with Donald E.Scott and he mentions that most of Velikovsky's work turned out to be incorrect - although he apparently got some things correct (which he was unfairly criticised for). The fact that Scott says this, shows that the truth is rarely black and white. There is gray here, and it requires dispassionate analysis to separate facts from half-truths and errors. Regarding, the warming-influence on Venus - yes, there is an influence from the CO2 content of the atmosphere; but the planet is completely different from earth and we lack the empirical data behind the AGW climate-science which we DO have on earth. Venus' atmosphere creates enormous pressures at around the 1000hpa atmospheric level, and that most likely contributes to the bulk of the internal heating (rather than CO2 providing the bulk). So to deny that CO2 has some role, is rather presumptuous. Although to say that CO2 has the main role, is also open to question. Again, I want to reiterate that this does not negate the AGW science on earth. Mainly because of the FACT that we actually have detailed empirical studies and data on planet earth, and for Venus - we have very very little in comparison.

You say:-
"Britain’s conservative Prime Minister, Margaret Thatcher, took up the cause of global warming around 1979 for the purpose of undermining the power of the coal and oil labor unions, I believe."

That is your belief, and I think it is very speculative. The reason that it is speculative is simply the fact that Thatcher went on to gain massive governmental revenues from large discoveries of North Sea oil and gas that had a large impact on Britain's economy. And yes, those are fossil-fuels. Coal was basically giving a lower (EROEI) - Energy Return Over Energy Invested compared to Britain's increasing portfolio of other carbon-fuels. And these carbon fossil-fuels are far from carbon neutral. The CO2 output of Britain continued to rise throughout Thatcher's tenure and beyond.

You quote Ernst George-Beck, and I'm afraid you've been misled by somebody who appears to be intellectually dishonest. Here is a paragraph from a solid rebuttal of George-Beck's CO2 variation claims:-

"The fluxes necessary to produce such variations are just unbelievably huge. Modern fossil fuel emissions are about 7.5GT (Giga Tons) Carbon per year which would correspond to about 3.5ppm increase per year (except that about half is absorbed by natural sinks in the ocean and the terrestrial biosphere). Beck’s supposed 150ppm source/sink in a decade corresponds therefore to a CO2 production/absorption about ten times stronger than the entire global industrial production of 2007 (putting aside for the moment additional complications since such CO2 levels had to be equilibrated at least partly with the ocean and the real CO2 source must even be larger)."
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/ar ... he-future/

You mention Dr. Zbigniew Jaworowski's claim regarding the processes behind ice\bubble formation and claim that somehow earlier accrued gas-deposits are interfered with. Yet Jaworowski's work is highly discredited and intellectually dishonest, showing misunderstandings of the methods of measurements taken as well as obfuscations galore:-
http://www.someareboojums.org/blog/?p=7

[PersianPaladin]

With reference to the quotes from the book posted by PP,
We all tend to find results from papers that support our present position, and with that in mind, here are a few points that cast doubt on the man made catastrophic global warming camp.

The surface stations world wide are in the main situated to cater for airports, and as such show greatly increased heat island effect compared to rural stations, which is not correctly compensated for. Wattsupwiththat has run many articles on that.

Surface stations world wide have been reduced from ~9000 pre 1990 to ~2000 at present, most of the dropped ones are from colder regions in Siberia and internal Canada, some are extrapolated from stations up to 2000km away.

Over the century plus time period instruments, siting, time of observation, methods of sea surface temperature sampling have all changed drastically and there is great disagreement between experts as to whether it is even possible to correct for these problems. Even the method to compensate for Urban Heat Island (UHI) effect have resulted in a positive slope for the last Century where none existed in the raw figures, for example raw figures for Australia show no trend, UHI adjusted +.7°C Warwick Hughes has many posts on this. Also New Zealand, in fact the authority in control of the temperature series has wiped its hands of them as they have been compromised by a now dismissed senior civil servant.

There is also the realization that average global temperature is not the appropriate metric to measure the heat content of the Globe. Humidity has a great influence on atmospheric heat content and varies widely and rapidly in ways that cannot be tracked at present. It is the heat content balance that determines whether we are warming or cooling. The Oceanic Cycles have periods up to 60years or more, and the oceans contain in the top 200mtrs something in the region of 80 times the heat content of the atmosphere, therefore a fraction of a degree in 110 yrs (where the error bars should be greater than that) seems neither here nor there.

Sensitivity to CO2 is a very controversial subject because without a positive feedback, there is no catastrophic warming. Ferenc Miscolski worked for NASA on this for many years and published a paper that in essence finds that there is NO overall effect by CO2, because as the fraction of CO2 in the air rises a similar fraction of water vapour is displaced resulting in an opacity to Infra Red that remains constant. This of course is highly disputed by those supporting the IPPC contention of positive feedback, but their only opposition boils down to disputing the accuracy of pre NASA balloon measurements going back some 60 years.
Well credentialed climatologists put the sensitivity of CO2 doubling at figures from + 0.4°C to +1.2°C using different measures. Present figures show that the temperature is well below the scenarios modeled by the IPPC.

Laboratory experiments with CO2 do not in any way represent the open ended column that represents the atmosphere with all its dynamics.
There is a new paper that may be very significant that shows that carbonic acid gas can exist at temperatures below -31°C , may be forming in the upper atmosphere and would take out some CO2. Its properties as a GH Gas are unknown but theoretically should not be great.

The Naomi Oreskes controversy was settled years ago, she used a limiting search criteria and missed hundreds of papers that did not agree with her conclusions.

The Solar content of GW is still disputed, increased cloud cover from cosmic rays is still awaiting results from experiment. NASA has stated that extreme ultra violet can increase from 100 to 1000 fold at various stages of the solar cycle and its effects on temperature are not measured.
The sunspot number and its proxies go back thousands of years, and though the mechanism is not yet known, periods of sustained low sunspot activity have always resulted in times of cold and famine. We are at present tracking the sunspot activity of the Dalton minimum which resulted in the Little Ice Age. The Barycentre Orbit pattern which has coincided with previous cold periods shows a coming low sunspot number for cycle 25 which takes us to the 2030’s see Vuckevic, Theodore Landsheidt

Take a look at that graph. Think about it, while I address your points.

You talk about urban heat-island effects skewing temperature data. Yet, that doesn't change anything at all - as summarised simply here:-

"Microsite influences on temperature changes are minimal; good and bad sites show the same trend."
http://www.skepticalscience.com/microsi ... rature.htm
http://www1.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/ushc ... al2010.pdf (A paper citing the research).

Regarding your claims about humidity, I suggest you take this into account:-

"An analysis of long-term measurements of upper tropospheric water vapor shows a positive water vapor feedback in 22 years of satellite data (Soden et al 2005). In addition, analysis of long-term paleoclimate records is also inconsistent with a negative long-term water vapor feedback (Köhler et al 2010)."
http://www.skepticalscience.com/humidit ... arming.htm

As you can see - water-vapour increase from warming (via CO2 forcing) has strong tendency towards amplifying positive feedbacks. Of course, you can choose to ignore it and make claims that go against the empirical data. But you'd look very discredited.

You mention the ocean upper-heating and assume that the greater maritime heating-capacity (compared to land) somehow renders the atmospheric temperature anamoly trivial. You talk about a fraction of a degree global average temperature over 100 years as if that is trivial in the historical context. It most certainly is NOT trivial. Also, while the warming over land is clearly greater - the impacts on the ocean requires an understanding of the gyre-system of ocean currents, how this interacts with the cellullar/gyre system in the atmosphere, etc. Larger warming towards the poles (known as Arctic Amplification from imbalances in poleward flows, albedo-loss, etc) interacts with other feedback mechanisms to produce ice-melt and sea-level rise. Another problem with increased CO2 in the atmosphere, is the absorption by oceans which results in greater acidity and this in turn has numerous negative impacts. A good discussion on the oceanic implications of climate change was discussed a few weeks back on NPR (I'm not endorsing that website, but it just happened to be a good discussion among ocean scientists):-
http://www.npr.org/2011/01/21/133117332 ... t=1&f=1025

You claim that rebuttal's to Ferenc Miscolski boil down to pre-NASA balloon measurements. But that is a dishonest claim, as this critique reveals:-
http://www.realclimate.org/wiki/index.p ... _Miskolczi

Miscolski lacks empirical support for his claims. He is also mistaken about radiative balance and gas-flux in the troposphere.

You claim that "Well credentialed climatologists put the sensitivity of CO2 doubling at figures from + 0.4°C to +1.2°C using different measures". However, you ignored what I posted (hand-typed actually) from Nafeez Ahmed's book regarding the actual range of agreement for temp increases via CO2 doubling.

The "Naomi Oreskes controversy" only exists in the minds of people who deem it such. The empirical findings warrant serious attention; rather than blatant dismissal.

As for solar dynamics and cosmic rays. Please read earlier pages of this thread - I mentioned several studies that talk about their influence.

[Lloyd]

* Again you claim that everyone we mention is discredited. Well, I claim that everything you say has been discredited.

[PersianPaladin]

To elaborate further on my brief comment about Venus' atmosphere; I would like to point people to an interesting article by an MIT chemical engineer and former Space Shuttle rocket scientist:-

How Hot is Venus?

"Venus is hot, but how much of that is runaway Greenhouse Effect? I calculate that only 20C is greenhouse difference. The big difference is due to the high pressure Venus' atmosphere."
http://www.buzzle.com/articles/how-hot-is-venus.html

There is a good explanation as to why comparing earth with venus in respect to atmospheric dynamics, is an apples to oranges comparison given the current empirical data\observations. Importantly, a 20C temperature forcing from CO2 is minor on Venus; but would be apocalyptic for any planet with life-forms beyond basic bacteria.

[Jarvamundo]

You fail to realise that even if a doubling of CO2 may well only result in about 1.2C global average temp increases - the consequences it has for feedback mechanisms, are really tremendous.

Sure sounds scary, there PP.

Can you give me an empirical example of this "doubling of CO2" causing (leading) the movement of 1.2C?

David Wasdell discussed the paloeclimatic findings in a youtube video I posted earlier in this thread.

The 1.2C measurement is a conservative one - and assumes no feed-backs. This is a discussion of the temperature rises with respect to CO2 increase:-
https://www.cfa.harvard.edu/~wsoon/Chri ... ffects.pdf

PP, your claim was that a doubling of CO2 leads to 1.2C. You've now indicated that this is a conservative estimate!

Sounds even scarier now.

And so i repeat:

Can you give me an empirical example of this "doubling of CO2" causing (leading) the movement of 1.2C?

and again.

[Julian Braggins]

PP,
just referring to papers on opposite sides of the spectrum get us nowhere, especially as you point to realclimate, where the fox is in charge of the chickens, and allows no contra views.

However, some other readers might like to see a couple of views from some real scientists,

http://www.examiner.com/seminole-county ... te-science

http://www.mitosyfraudes.org/Calen9/Chi ... to_CO2.pdf

“Accumulation of large amounts of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere leads to cooling, not to warming of the climate, as the proponents of the traditional anthropogenic global warming theory believe (Aeschbach-Hertig, 2006). This conclusion has a simple physical explanation: when the infra-red radiation is absorbed by the molecules of greenhouse gases, its energy is transformed into thermal expansion of air, which causes convective fluxes of air masses restoring the adiabatic distribution of temperature in the troposphere. Our estimates show that release of small amounts of carbon dioxide (several hundreds ppm), which are typical for the scope of anthropogenic emission, does not influence the global temperature of Earth’s atmosphere”

I know you won't agree with either, but it shows there are other legitimate views to yours.
The second (PDF) includes explanations of the atmospheres of Venus and Mars and the relationship of carbon dioxide to them.
Consider our exchange closed, I will neither convince you, or you me, I have been in the warmist view, and have seen its falsity.

[PersianPaladin]

You fail to realise that even if a doubling of CO2 may well only result in about 1.2C global average temp increases - the consequences it has for feedback mechanisms, are really tremendous.

Sure sounds scary, there PP.

Can you give me an empirical example of this "doubling of CO2" causing (leading) the movement of 1.2C?

David Wasdell discussed the paloeclimatic findings in a youtube video I posted earlier in this thread.

The 1.2C measurement is a conservative one - and assumes no feed-backs. This is a discussion of the temperature rises with respect to CO2 increase:-
https://www.cfa.harvard.edu/~wsoon/Chri ... ffects.pdf

PP, your claim was that a doubling of CO2 leads to 1.2C. You've now indicated that this is a conservative estimate!

Sounds even scarier now.

And so i repeat:

Can you give me an empirical example of this "doubling of CO2" causing (leading) the movement of 1.2C?

and again.

A clarification of my comment is explained here:-

"Without any feedbacks, a doubling of CO2 (which amounts to a forcing of 3.7 W/m2) would result in 1°C global warming, which is easy to calculate and is undisputed. The remaining uncertainty is due entirely to feedbacks in the system, namely, the water vapor feedback, the ice-albedo feedback, the cloud feedback, and the lapse rate feedback";[6]

and

"The global temperature increase since the beginning of the industrial period (taken as 1750) is about 0.8 °C, and the radiative forcing due to CO2 and other long-lived greenhouse gases (mainly methane, nitrous oxide, and chlorofluorocarbons) emitted since that time is about 2.6 W/m2. Neglecting other forcings and considering the temperature increase to be an equlibrium increase would lead to a sensitivity of about 1.1 °C. However, ΔF also contains contributions due to solar activity (+0.3 W/m2), aerosols (-1 W/m2), ozone (0.3 W/m2) and other lesser influences, bringing the total forcing over the industrial period to 1.6 W/m2 according to best estimate of the IPCC AR4, albeit with substantial uncertainty. Additionally the fact that the climate system is not at equilibrium must be accounted for;"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climate_sensitivity

We were at 275ppm in 1750 globally, and around 389ppm today.
http://powerpoints.wri.org/climate/tsld001.htm

We have not yet doubled in CO2 concentration. I also want to clarify that my 1.2C should've actually been 1.1C and I have already explained that it was in the absence of other forcings and feedbacks.

[PersianPaladin]

PP,
just referring to papers on opposite sides of the spectrum get us nowhere, especially as you point to realclimate, where the fox is in charge of the chickens, and allows no contra views.

However, some other readers might like to see a couple of views from some real scientists,

http://www.examiner.com/seminole-county ... te-science

http://www.mitosyfraudes.org/Calen9/Chi ... to_CO2.pdf

“Accumulation of large amounts of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere leads to cooling, not to warming of the climate, as the proponents of the traditional anthropogenic global warming theory believe (Aeschbach-Hertig, 2006). This conclusion has a simple physical explanation: when the infra-red radiation is absorbed by the molecules of greenhouse gases, its energy is transformed into thermal expansion of air, which causes convective fluxes of air masses restoring the adiabatic distribution of temperature in the troposphere. Our estimates show that release of small amounts of carbon dioxide (several hundreds ppm), which are typical for the scope of anthropogenic emission, does not influence the global temperature of Earth’s atmosphere”

I know you won't agree with either, but it shows there are other legitimate views to yours.
The second (PDF) includes explanations of the atmospheres of Venus and Mars and the relationship of carbon dioxide to them.
Consider our exchange closed, I will neither convince you, or you me, I have been in the warmist view, and have seen its falsity.

I'm sorry but that's not how science is done. Please define "other legitimate views".

In my experience, the AGW skeptic claims are among a tiny minority of people who don't have much credibility or firm foundations. In contrast, I can see that the Electric Universe theory (whilst not yet fully confirmed in my eyes) has FIRM FOUNDATIONS in the likes of Nobel prize winner Hans Alfven and people like Birkeland. Importantly, the mainstream cosmologists who criticise EU - actually lack empirical evidence and rely too much on hypotheticals such as "dark matter". The AGW climate scientists have a lot more in the way of empirical evidence than the tiny minority who claim to be skeptics. A lot of what passes for AGW "skepticism" is actually nothing more than petroleum-funding obfuscation of information.

[Jarvamundo]

We have not yet doubled in CO2 concentration.

Thankyou Persian, for pointing out the unprecedented nature of the hypothetical model you have pushed as 'fact'.

Let us be mindful of the assumptions used in these human-created-models that stretch well beyond all >real< data available to compare it to. (The empirical testing of science, thingy part)

As we have revealed here, this is not solid science, but only ideas that are beyond any form of testing.

....actually lack empirical evidence and rely too much on hypotheticals...

hypotheticals aye... ?

[PersianPaladin]

We have not yet doubled in CO2 concentration.

Thankyou Persian, for pointing out the unprecedented nature of the hypothetical model you have pushed as 'fact'.

Let us be mindful of the assumptions used in these human-created-models that stretch well beyond all >real< data available to compare it to. (The empirical testing of science, thingy part)

As we have revealed here, this is not solid science, but only ideas that are beyond any form of testing.

....actually lack empirical evidence and rely too much on hypotheticals...

hypotheticals aye... ?

Please don't obfuscate things. You are misunderstanding what I said.

If you CAREFULLY read through what I said and what I sourced, I pointed out that the CO2 release is vastly anamalous within the context of the time-period (e.g. did you see the graph?), and also its timing lies with that of large-scale human industrialisation. Also, the temperature increase since 1900 is very large given the context, and hence it does not require a doubling of CO2 to reach that temperature. I explained everything, and you want to make irrational judgements.

I'm wasting my time if people don't want to be rational or carefully analytical. Stick to dispassionate scientific analysis - rather than knee-jerk assumptions.

The data is out there. I really don't know why AGW deniers or skeptics just choose to ignore it.

[Lloyd]

* PP, you seem to be impressed only with pretended science, instead of real science. Peer review is one thing you're impressed with. The best science is usually suppressed by peer review these days. Peer review ain't totally bad, but it's bad enough. Peer review isn't that impressive around here to most of us, I think. There are lots of problems with conventional science for the past hundred years or more. There's a problem with the fact that grants are given to scientists in order to "prove" what the grantor wants to be proved. Another problem is that journals are owned by organizations that have establishment biases. So when scientists supposedly prove global warming etc, it's simply like a lawyer in court asking a scientist for his/her opinion of fact. Usually a lawyer can find a scientist who agrees with the opinion he/she wants to hear. Journals and grantors can do the same.
* You said Don Scott disagrees with Velikovsky. That's not totally true. I'm pretty sure he agrees with Velikovsky that Venus is a very young planet and that's the reason it's hot, and it has nothing to do with CO2 etc.
* I said initially in this thread that your initial claim here is wrong because the Sun was nowhere near the Earth until about 10,000 years ago. Saturn was a brown dwarf star at that time and Earth, Venus, Mars etc were satellites of Saturn. You called me a name for holding such a view, yet many among the team of experts who started this website I'm pretty sure consider this view to be very probably correct. See e.g. http://thunderbolts.info/forum/phpBB3/v ... f=8&t=4180.
* If you intend to persuade us that your view is correct on global warming etc, you're going to have to persuade us that virtually all of the premises for this webite are false. Is that your plan? You've stated that you favor EU theory, but you don't know much about EU theory. Why not get acquainted with it?