Slashdot Mirror

Sorry, how do you prove that any portion is anthropogenic when you don't have a control?

See Meehl 2004 for a primary source, but I've also recently discussed a very similar issue.

As a scientist looking at the global warming debate ...

Just curious: what degree in which field of science? I've described my research here, for quid pro quo.

... it always marvels me that no-one ever talks about the effect that water vapor has on global temperatures, given that water vapor has a heat capacity of 1.8 kJ/kgK, while CO2 has a heat capacity of only 0.8 kJ/kgK, and also given that the concentration of water vapor on average is composes 10X more of the atmosphere than CO2, meaning that the total impact of CO2 is about 20 fold less than water vapor, which is itself highly variable in concentration. Why doesn't anyone ever complain about the deleterious effects of water vapor in the atmosphere? Why aren't we moving to ban hydrogen vehicles that put out huge amounts of water vapor?

I've talked about water vapor in depth, repeatedly. As I've explained, water vapor is a feedback, not a forcing. It's not dangerous because it doesn't remain in the atmosphere long and isn't well-mixed to the top of the atmosphere. That's why legitimate peer-reviewed journal articles don't "complain about the deleterious effects of water vapor in the atmosphere."

What this discovery points out is that, well, maybe we don't really have a handle on this global warming thing, and that we shouldn't cut off the arms and legs of our civilization with an environmentally friendly electric chainsaw before we have a full grasp of what is going on here.

First, this discovery isn't related to abrupt climate change in any significant manner. Second, the goal of the legislation in the Senate is to jumpstart a new industrial revolution. No chainsaw involved.

Therefore, if you want to decrease humanities carbon emissions without murdering people, or subjecting them to poverty, you need only remove all regulations limiting the implementation of nuclear power around the world.

Murderous hyperbole aside, this isn't far from the mark. I'd say we have to make small tamper-proof nuclear reactors like SSTAR available to developing nations, but keep the reprocessing and enrichment technologies tightly restricted. Actinide poisoning of the fuel (to make weaponization more difficult than simply starting a clandestine enrichment program) is also probably a good idea.

Sorry, how do you prove that any portion is anthropogenic when you don't have a control?

See Meehl 2004 for a primary source, but I've also recently discussed a very similar issue.

As a scientist looking at the global warming debate ...

Just curious: what degree in which field of science? I've described my research here, for quid pro quo.

... it always marvels me that no-one ever talks about the effect that water vapor has on global temperatures, given that water vapor has a heat capacity of 1.8 kJ/kgK, while CO2 has a heat capacity of only 0.8 kJ/kgK, and also given that the concentration of water vapor on average is composes 10X more of the atmosphere than CO2, meaning that the total impact of CO2 is about 20 fold less than water vapor, which is itself highly variable in concentration. Why doesn't anyone ever complain about the deleterious effects of water vapor in the atmosphere? Why aren't we moving to ban hydrogen vehicles that put out huge amounts of water vapor?

I've talked about water vapor in depth, repeatedly. As I've explained, water vapor is a feedback, not a forcing. It's not dangerous because it doesn't remain in the atmosphere long and isn't well-mixed to the top of the atmosphere. That's why legitimate peer-reviewed journal articles don't "complain about the deleterious effects of water vapor in the atmosphere."

What this discovery points out is that, well, maybe we don't really have a handle on this global warming thing, and that we shouldn't cut off the arms and legs of our civilization with an environmentally friendly electric chainsaw before we have a full grasp of what is going on here.

First, this discovery isn't related to abrupt climate change in any significant manner. Second, the goal of the legislation in the Senate is to jumpstart a new industrial revolution. No chainsaw involved.

Therefore, if you want to decrease humanities carbon emissions without murdering people, or subjecting them to poverty, you need only remove all regulations limiting the implementation of nuclear power around the world.

Murderous hyperbole aside, this isn't far from the mark. I'd say we have to make small tamper-proof nuclear reactors like SSTAR available to developing nations, but keep the reprocessing and enrichment technologies tightly restricted. Actinide poisoning of the fuel (to make weaponization more difficult than simply starting a clandestine enrichment program) is also probably a good idea.

Obviously the IPCC has been caught several times making propaganda by spreading lies it's own scientists don't agree with (most famous the hokey stick graph). This "somehow" keeps happening, and even today you can find that graph in IPCC materials.

I don't know how many times I'm going to have to repeat this, but the Mann et. al. 1999 reconstruction was accurate and has been independently confirmed by many researchers. Those links contain many references to peer-reviewed research papers that you can read to learn about paleoclimatology temperature reconstructions.

Obviously the IPCC has been caught several times making propaganda by spreading lies it's own scientists don't agree with (most famous the hokey stick graph). This "somehow" keeps happening, and even today you can find that graph in IPCC materials.

I don't know how many times I'm going to have to repeat this, but the Mann et. al. 1999 reconstruction was accurate and has been independently confirmed by many researchers. Those links contain many references to peer-reviewed research papers that you can read to learn about paleoclimatology temperature reconstructions.

Facepalm. Been there, done that.

I find it unnerving that you would dismiss creditable dissension to a closely held theory as something to do with democracy. Folks like Monsieur Allegre raise valid points that should be addressed and not swept under the carpet.

You're implying that science is democratic-- that it depends on the number of people who support a theory-- by continually emphasizing that there are "too many creditable people who argue against your point of view." But as I've argued over and over again, science is about evidence, preferably in peer-reviewed journal articles. I humored you by opening that non-peer-reviewed article, and didn't see any compelling evidence. All he mentions is Kilimanjaro's glacier, which I've already discussed in the article, and Antarctic ice mass, which is well known in the climatology community to be losing mass in the west and gaining it in the east.

It's wrong to consider science democratic, but if you really want to play that silly numbers game, consider that ~84% of scientists agree that abrupt climate change is happening, and that it's being caused by humans. Again, science isn't democratic! It's about evidence!

When it comes to the general public, this subject is quite similar to evolution or the reality of the moon landings.

The questioning of the moon landings comes from NO ONE with any credible scientific background, yet LOTS of credible (and credentialed) folks are questioning the work being done on global warming. Yet those good folks are being put in the same category as the loons who question the moon landings...incredible.

Notice that I said "when it comes to the general public." All you have to do is click on the article and notice how juvenile and repetitive all these arguments are. Then consider that I've tried to edit their responses so they look less crazy. For instance, compare my version of Stormcrow309's objections to the Slashdot original. I've seen exactly the same bizarre attitude in my conversations with creationists.

And again, your repeated emphasis on "LOTS" continues to imply that you think science is democratic. I've tried to convince you that science is actually about evidence. If you can find convincing evidence that these people have published in reputable peer-reviewed journals, then I'll read it. But please make sure that I haven't already addressed these issues in the article. So many people on this thread are rehashing issues that I've repeatedly debunked that I'm starting to wonder how Carl Sagan managed to talk to nonscientists without pulling all his hair out. Maybe that's why he died so early?

I find it unnerving that you would dismiss creditable dissension to a closely held theory as something to do with democracy. Folks like Monsieur Allegre raise valid points that should be addressed and not swept under the carpet.

You're implying that science is democratic-- that it depends on the number of people who support a theory-- by continually emphasizing that there are "too many creditable people who argue against your point of view." But as I've argued over and over again, science is about evidence, preferably in peer-reviewed journal articles. I humored you by opening that non-peer-reviewed article, and didn't see any compelling evidence. All he mentions is Kilimanjaro's glacier, which I've already discussed in the article, and Antarctic ice mass, which is well known in the climatology community to be losing mass in the west and gaining it in the east.

It's wrong to consider science democratic, but if you really want to play that silly numbers game, consider that ~84% of scientists agree that abrupt climate change is happening, and that it's being caused by humans. Again, science isn't democratic! It's about evidence!

When it comes to the general public, this subject is quite similar to evolution or the reality of the moon landings.

The questioning of the moon landings comes from NO ONE with any credible scientific background, yet LOTS of credible (and credentialed) folks are questioning the work being done on global warming. Yet those good folks are being put in the same category as the loons who question the moon landings...incredible.

Notice that I said "when it comes to the general public." All you have to do is click on the article and notice how juvenile and repetitive all these arguments are. Then consider that I've tried to edit their responses so they look less crazy. For instance, compare my version of Stormcrow309's objections to the Slashdot original. I've seen exactly the same bizarre attitude in my conversations with creationists.

And again, your repeated emphasis on "LOTS" continues to imply that you think science is democratic. I've tried to convince you that science is actually about evidence. If you can find convincing evidence that these people have published in reputable peer-reviewed journals, then I'll read it. But please make sure that I haven't already addressed these issues in the article. So many people on this thread are rehashing issues that I've repeatedly debunked that I'm starting to wonder how Carl Sagan managed to talk to nonscientists without pulling all his hair out. Maybe that's why he died so early?

I find it unnerving that you would dismiss creditable dissension to a closely held theory as something to do with democracy. Folks like Monsieur Allegre raise valid points that should be addressed and not swept under the carpet.

You're implying that science is democratic-- that it depends on the number of people who support a theory-- by continually emphasizing that there are "too many creditable people who argue against your point of view." But as I've argued over and over again, science is about evidence, preferably in peer-reviewed journal articles. I humored you by opening that non-peer-reviewed article, and didn't see any compelling evidence. All he mentions is Kilimanjaro's glacier, which I've already discussed in the article, and Antarctic ice mass, which is well known in the climatology community to be losing mass in the west and gaining it in the east.

It's wrong to consider science democratic, but if you really want to play that silly numbers game, consider that ~84% of scientists agree that abrupt climate change is happening, and that it's being caused by humans. Again, science isn't democratic! It's about evidence!

When it comes to the general public, this subject is quite similar to evolution or the reality of the moon landings.

The questioning of the moon landings comes from NO ONE with any credible scientific background, yet LOTS of credible (and credentialed) folks are questioning the work being done on global warming. Yet those good folks are being put in the same category as the loons who question the moon landings...incredible.

Notice that I said "when it comes to the general public." All you have to do is click on the article and notice how juvenile and repetitive all these arguments are. Then consider that I've tried to edit their responses so they look less crazy. For instance, compare my version of Stormcrow309's objections to the Slashdot original. I've seen exactly the same bizarre attitude in my conversations with creationists.

And again, your repeated emphasis on "LOTS" continues to imply that you think science is democratic. I've tried to convince you that science is actually about evidence. If you can find convincing evidence that these people have published in reputable peer-reviewed journals, then I'll read it. But please make sure that I haven't already addressed these issues in the article. So many people on this thread are rehashing issues that I've repeatedly debunked that I'm starting to wonder how Carl Sagan managed to talk to nonscientists without pulling all his hair out. Maybe that's why he died so early?

Citing two papers doesn't show much. Particularly when you read the abstract for the first citation and it says "Additional climate forcing by changes in the Sun's output of ultraviolet light, and of magnetized plasmas, cannot be ruled out. The suggested mechanisms are, however, too complex to evaluate meaningfully at present."

Yes, that's why I've got an entire section (7b) in the index devoted to the Sun's magnetic field effects on the Earth's climate. And, yes, UV light might be forcing the climate in ways that aren't currently understood. But the Sun is unusually dim right now, especially in UV light. Also, solar output varies primarily on an ~11 year cycle, and the recent warming has been growing for ~40 years. As I've repeatedly explained, the lack of a long-term trend in solar output means that it's probably not responsible for the recent warming.

The second paper you cited says that both CO2 and the natural causes must be accounted for in order to make the current models fit the actual data. In other words CO2 is not the dominate controller.

Of course! As I've been saying repeatedly, climatologists aren't saying that human emissions are completely responsible for everything happening to the climate. It's just that the recent warming can't be explained without including human emissions, which is making up a larger and larger proportion of the overall forcing of the global climate each decade.

I can dig up just as many citations that show that solar output is sufficient. For example http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/235402/global-warming/274834/Variations-in-solar-output Those papers also question the validity of measuring a single portion of the spectrum at the earth surface and ignoring cosmis radiation and sunspot activity.

I can't load that page, but this may be my cable modem's fault. At any rate, your description makes it sound like a retread of Svensmark 1998, which I've discussed already.

Citing two papers doesn't show much. Particularly when you read the abstract for the first citation and it says "Additional climate forcing by changes in the Sun's output of ultraviolet light, and of magnetized plasmas, cannot be ruled out. The suggested mechanisms are, however, too complex to evaluate meaningfully at present."

Yes, that's why I've got an entire section (7b) in the index devoted to the Sun's magnetic field effects on the Earth's climate. And, yes, UV light might be forcing the climate in ways that aren't currently understood. But the Sun is unusually dim right now, especially in UV light. Also, solar output varies primarily on an ~11 year cycle, and the recent warming has been growing for ~40 years. As I've repeatedly explained, the lack of a long-term trend in solar output means that it's probably not responsible for the recent warming.

The second paper you cited says that both CO2 and the natural causes must be accounted for in order to make the current models fit the actual data. In other words CO2 is not the dominate controller.

Of course! As I've been saying repeatedly, climatologists aren't saying that human emissions are completely responsible for everything happening to the climate. It's just that the recent warming can't be explained without including human emissions, which is making up a larger and larger proportion of the overall forcing of the global climate each decade.

I can dig up just as many citations that show that solar output is sufficient. For example http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/235402/global-warming/274834/Variations-in-solar-output Those papers also question the validity of measuring a single portion of the spectrum at the earth surface and ignoring cosmis radiation and sunspot activity.

I can't load that page, but this may be my cable modem's fault. At any rate, your description makes it sound like a retread of Svensmark 1998, which I've discussed already.

Citing two papers doesn't show much. Particularly when you read the abstract for the first citation and it says "Additional climate forcing by changes in the Sun's output of ultraviolet light, and of magnetized plasmas, cannot be ruled out. The suggested mechanisms are, however, too complex to evaluate meaningfully at present."

Yes, that's why I've got an entire section (7b) in the index devoted to the Sun's magnetic field effects on the Earth's climate. And, yes, UV light might be forcing the climate in ways that aren't currently understood. But the Sun is unusually dim right now, especially in UV light. Also, solar output varies primarily on an ~11 year cycle, and the recent warming has been growing for ~40 years. As I've repeatedly explained, the lack of a long-term trend in solar output means that it's probably not responsible for the recent warming.

The second paper you cited says that both CO2 and the natural causes must be accounted for in order to make the current models fit the actual data. In other words CO2 is not the dominate controller.

Of course! As I've been saying repeatedly, climatologists aren't saying that human emissions are completely responsible for everything happening to the climate. It's just that the recent warming can't be explained without including human emissions, which is making up a larger and larger proportion of the overall forcing of the global climate each decade.

I can dig up just as many citations that show that solar output is sufficient. For example http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/235402/global-warming/274834/Variations-in-solar-output Those papers also question the validity of measuring a single portion of the spectrum at the earth surface and ignoring cosmis radiation and sunspot activity.

I can't load that page, but this may be my cable modem's fault. At any rate, your description makes it sound like a retread of Svensmark 1998, which I've discussed already.

How come global-warmists never mention water vapor, which is by far the biggest greenhouse gas. I guess there isn't any money in selling "steam credits".

Other than the section devoted to that exact issue, you mean?

I will agree with you that I certainly have more reading to do. However, I must say that the New Scientist is not he end all be all and neither is it a final authority.

I've never included New Scientist in my list of reputable peer-reviewed journals (in the article.) I've provided a couple of links to it, but only because I've verified that the story matches the evidence provided in genuinely peer-reviewed journals.

It is troubling to me that you reject papers from other peer-reviewed journals (as seems apparent in one of the responses to posts to your article). It raises questions in my mind why include some and exclude others.

I presume you're referring to the incident where Jane Q. Public tried to reference an article from Energy and Environment (a social science journal) when that research had been presented in hard science journals 15 years previously and quickly dismissed as a fluke of data smoothing parameters? That's the reason I dismissed the paper: it was wrong. This happens often enough in that journal that I wouldn't recommend reading it unless you want to waste your time.

Until scientists models start predicting the future accurately, GW is going to be a hard sell.

When it comes to the general public, this subject is quite similar to evolution or the reality of the moon landings. It will always be a hard sell to most nonscientists despite the many model validations like the Mt. Pinatubo prediction. I'm not under the impression that anyone I'm talking to has the slightest intention of looking into the science deeply enough to understand it.

Bottom line, there are too many creditable people who argue against your point of view.

Again, I've repeatedly stressed that science isn't democratic.

... that version of the Vostok ice core graph you included is horrendously misleading. If you don't overlay the two graphs on top of each other you can easily be fooled into thinking the data suggests that increased atmospheric CO2 lead to higher temperatures. When you do overlay the charts, it becomes clear that the increase in temperature slightly preceded the increase in CO2 in each cycle, including this one.

I've specifically addressed that point in 7 (f) of the index: "CO2 increases after temperature, so it doesn't warm the planet."

But since the tone of your response implies that you probably won't bother, I'll repeat myself once again: this phase lag isn't known with great precision, the worst case scenario has it lagging ~800 years out of ~5000 year deglaciations, and more fundamentally, the difference between the small Milankovitch forcings and the actual observed temperature swings shows that CO2 amplifies the natural forcing. CO2 is a strong greenhouse gas, make no mistake about that.

And I'm sorry if you're offended by ads. I tried really hard to force them to be non-animated, and only put them off to the side (I HATE interstitial ads with a burning passion.) And to be honest I make ~8 cents a day from them-- my dream is to have them make 30 cents a day so that the website pays its own hosting costs. And, yes, even though I've archived most of my responses for people to read, I still find it necessary to repeat myself because people keep bringing up the same strange talking points regardless of the scientific evidence. Again, sorry if this is horribly offensive to you.

... that version of the Vostok ice core graph you included is horrendously misleading. If you don't overlay the two graphs on top of each other you can easily be fooled into thinking the data suggests that increased atmospheric CO2 lead to higher temperatures. When you do overlay the charts, it becomes clear that the increase in temperature slightly preceded the increase in CO2 in each cycle, including this one.

I've specifically addressed that point in 7 (f) of the index: "CO2 increases after temperature, so it doesn't warm the planet."

But since the tone of your response implies that you probably won't bother, I'll repeat myself once again: this phase lag isn't known with great precision, the worst case scenario has it lagging ~800 years out of ~5000 year deglaciations, and more fundamentally, the difference between the small Milankovitch forcings and the actual observed temperature swings shows that CO2 amplifies the natural forcing. CO2 is a strong greenhouse gas, make no mistake about that.

And I'm sorry if you're offended by ads. I tried really hard to force them to be non-animated, and only put them off to the side (I HATE interstitial ads with a burning passion.) And to be honest I make ~8 cents a day from them-- my dream is to have them make 30 cents a day so that the website pays its own hosting costs. And, yes, even though I've archived most of my responses for people to read, I still find it necessary to repeat myself because people keep bringing up the same strange talking points regardless of the scientific evidence. Again, sorry if this is horribly offensive to you.

... But we care SO MUCH about a prediction that at our current use something which will kill off life on this planet in hundreds of thousands of years? ... before anything "bad" happens as a result of any man-made climate problems (even if they are true -- though largely unproven), they, their children, and children's great great grandchildren will be all dead and gone. ...

I got tired of repeating myself on Slashdot, so I wrote an article showing that abrupt climate change is a matter of serious concern. Climate change is already have negative effects, and they'll get worse over the next century. Hundreds of thousands of years is wishful thinking according to the best scientific evidence available today.

... "Cap and Trade" is not a constructive tax -- it is destructive. We have technologies other than coal and oil to produce energy ...

I've directly addressed cap and trade, which seems like a very constructive, capitalistic approach that will jumpstart a new industrial revolution. My hope is that the United States invests heavily in nuclear fission technology, preferably using waste reprocessing and newer designs like pebble bed reactors.

... It's just the next buzz-word in politics: "omgs, it might destroy human life on the earth in a few hundred years in a worst case scenario!!" ...

As I've stressed, the existence of abrupt climate change is a scientific topic. It's a good idea to ignore politicians and their ridiculous claims, and focus on the science.

... But we care SO MUCH about a prediction that at our current use something which will kill off life on this planet in hundreds of thousands of years? ... before anything "bad" happens as a result of any man-made climate problems (even if they are true -- though largely unproven), they, their children, and children's great great grandchildren will be all dead and gone. ...

I got tired of repeating myself on Slashdot, so I wrote an article showing that abrupt climate change is a matter of serious concern. Climate change is already have negative effects, and they'll get worse over the next century. Hundreds of thousands of years is wishful thinking according to the best scientific evidence available today.

... "Cap and Trade" is not a constructive tax -- it is destructive. We have technologies other than coal and oil to produce energy ...

I've directly addressed cap and trade, which seems like a very constructive, capitalistic approach that will jumpstart a new industrial revolution. My hope is that the United States invests heavily in nuclear fission technology, preferably using waste reprocessing and newer designs like pebble bed reactors.

... It's just the next buzz-word in politics: "omgs, it might destroy human life on the earth in a few hundred years in a worst case scenario!!" ...

As I've stressed, the existence of abrupt climate change is a scientific topic. It's a good idea to ignore politicians and their ridiculous claims, and focus on the science.

... But we care SO MUCH about a prediction that at our current use something which will kill off life on this planet in hundreds of thousands of years? ... before anything "bad" happens as a result of any man-made climate problems (even if they are true -- though largely unproven), they, their children, and children's great great grandchildren will be all dead and gone. ...

I got tired of repeating myself on Slashdot, so I wrote an article showing that abrupt climate change is a matter of serious concern. Climate change is already have negative effects, and they'll get worse over the next century. Hundreds of thousands of years is wishful thinking according to the best scientific evidence available today.

... "Cap and Trade" is not a constructive tax -- it is destructive. We have technologies other than coal and oil to produce energy ...

I've directly addressed cap and trade, which seems like a very constructive, capitalistic approach that will jumpstart a new industrial revolution. My hope is that the United States invests heavily in nuclear fission technology, preferably using waste reprocessing and newer designs like pebble bed reactors.

... It's just the next buzz-word in politics: "omgs, it might destroy human life on the earth in a few hundred years in a worst case scenario!!" ...

As I've stressed, the existence of abrupt climate change is a scientific topic. It's a good idea to ignore politicians and their ridiculous claims, and focus on the science.

... But we care SO MUCH about a prediction that at our current use something which will kill off life on this planet in hundreds of thousands of years? ... before anything "bad" happens as a result of any man-made climate problems (even if they are true -- though largely unproven), they, their children, and children's great great grandchildren will be all dead and gone. ...

I got tired of repeating myself on Slashdot, so I wrote an article showing that abrupt climate change is a matter of serious concern. Climate change is already have negative effects, and they'll get worse over the next century. Hundreds of thousands of years is wishful thinking according to the best scientific evidence available today.

... "Cap and Trade" is not a constructive tax -- it is destructive. We have technologies other than coal and oil to produce energy ...

I've directly addressed cap and trade, which seems like a very constructive, capitalistic approach that will jumpstart a new industrial revolution. My hope is that the United States invests heavily in nuclear fission technology, preferably using waste reprocessing and newer designs like pebble bed reactors.

... It's just the next buzz-word in politics: "omgs, it might destroy human life on the earth in a few hundred years in a worst case scenario!!" ...

As I've stressed, the existence of abrupt climate change is a scientific topic. It's a good idea to ignore politicians and their ridiculous claims, and focus on the science.

... But we care SO MUCH about a prediction that at our current use something which will kill off life on this planet in hundreds of thousands of years? ... before anything "bad" happens as a result of any man-made climate problems (even if they are true -- though largely unproven), they, their children, and children's great great grandchildren will be all dead and gone. ...

I got tired of repeating myself on Slashdot, so I wrote an article showing that abrupt climate change is a matter of serious concern. Climate change is already have negative effects, and they'll get worse over the next century. Hundreds of thousands of years is wishful thinking according to the best scientific evidence available today.

... "Cap and Trade" is not a constructive tax -- it is destructive. We have technologies other than coal and oil to produce energy ...

I've directly addressed cap and trade, which seems like a very constructive, capitalistic approach that will jumpstart a new industrial revolution. My hope is that the United States invests heavily in nuclear fission technology, preferably using waste reprocessing and newer designs like pebble bed reactors.

... It's just the next buzz-word in politics: "omgs, it might destroy human life on the earth in a few hundred years in a worst case scenario!!" ...

As I've stressed, the existence of abrupt climate change is a scientific topic. It's a good idea to ignore politicians and their ridiculous claims, and focus on the science.

and natural CO2 production is 20x mans ... but it damn well won't stop the "consensus" train. The only good thing about N2O is that its not something you can tax the population over, at least directly. Can't wait to see who the N2O bogeymen are going to be.

I got tired of repeating myself on Slashdot, so I wrote an article showing that abrupt climate change is a matter of serious concern. There seem to be an endless number of internet ninjas promoting claims like this, despite the fact that CO2 hasn't risen above 300ppm in the last 650,000 years. But then we come along and the concentration skyrockets to 380ppm in a matter of decades, which is 35x faster than any increase in the last 650,000 years.

As other posters have remarked, natural CO2 production and absorption aren't relevant to the current CO2 problem because they balance each other. Our emissions and volcanoes are the only sources of CO2 that aren't balanced, and humans emit 100x more CO2 than volcanoes.

I am seeing more and more surprises like this that are not really surprising from alternative viewpoints, such as the Electric Universe (I said those two words, so I guess that makes me automatically Flamebait eh?). The same thing can be found by regarding the solar wind as an electrical current instead of viewing it in mechanical terms. The solar wind is the flow of charged particles from the Sun. "The flow of charged particles" is the very definition of an electric current but mainstream science doesn't regard the solar wind (or any other celestial phenomena) in those terms.

As I mention here, the solar wind is electrically neutral. The Sun isn't "electric." It's a giant ball of fusing hydrogen and helium, and the solar wind is primarily thermally-driven (with exceptions due to solar flares, etc.)

You're not flamebait, just confused or seriously lacking in graduate physics education. The Electric Universe idea has been disproven for many years. It's fair to say that it isn't science, but rather a conspiracy theory promoted by people who don't understand physics (or science) very well.

In addition to my critique, Tim Thompson has rebutted the electric sun idea in depth, and W.T. Bridgman examines the idea in detail on his site "Dealing with Creationism in Astronomy." Unfortunately, my internet connection is screwed up so I can't provide direct links to these articles at the moment.

If it's a bad idea, it will die on its own merits; but if it's a good idea, killing it prematurely by putting it down simply because it goes against conventional wisdom is doing nobody any good.

He may have been overly harsh, but the Electric Universe idea has been disproven for many years. It's fair to say that it isn't science, but rather a conspiracy theory promoted by people who don't understand physics (or science) very well.

In addition to my critique, Tim Thompson has rebutted the electric sun idea in depth, and W.T. Bridgman has a lengthy critique of the same notion on his site "Dealing with Creationism in Astronomy." Unfortunately, my internet connection is screwed up so I can't provide direct links to these articles at the moment.

I realize you're joking, but it's important to note that the Coriolis force doesn't affect small objects in any significant sense. Sinks and toilets don't drain the other way in the southern hemisphere, nor would coins circulate differently.

No it does not, though I made the same mistake when I first read it. It may below the mean at the present time, it is show a recovery.

Answered in another comment to you here. Again, I'm saying your conclusions don't flow from these cherry-picked examples, I'm NOT disputing the AMSR-E ice minima record.

I do not know at this point who's website dumbscientist.com is, but it excludes, very typically, Maurder Solar minimum / Little Ice age data. I am still going through it.

It's mine, and this point was also answered in another comment to you here.

And are you refuting the fact that water vapor makes up %95 of the greenhouse effect on earth? If so, what percentage does it make up?

I've been strenuously trying to say that it's the conclusions you're reaching that are wrong, not necessarily these details. As a matter of fact, CO2 makes up 66% to 85% of the greenhouse effect in our current atmosphere. But that's not the point. As I've repeatedly explained to you, water vapor reaches equilibrium with the oceans in a matter of weeks, so we can't really change its concentration except by changing Earth's average temperature. Water vapor is also not present in the top level of the atmosphere where the greenhouse effect is most important. CO2, on the other hand, is well-mixed even to the highest level of the atmosphere, and it stays in the atmosphere for many decades which is why it's so dangerous.

I'm sorry, but I don't see any point to having a conversation where all my words hit a brick wall, requiring me to immediately repeat them. Have a nice day.

Yeah I read it wrong the first time as well. It actually shows growth for the last three years.

More importantly, it shows a trend where recent years have a lower minimum than later years. Remember not to confuse weather with climate like Fieldings is. The long-term trend simply has irrelevant noise due to ENSO events, etc imposed on top of it. As I said before, the real problem scientists face is here

I see the statistics on your web site removed the Maurader Solar Minimum / Little ice age; most CO2 proponents do.

You might be referring to this paragraph: Abrupt climate change is a long-term warming trend imposed on top of natural variations which tend to swing wildly in both directions. If you mean that the temperatures remain inexplicably high after subtracting all those natural variations, you're almost right.

But that reference removed the ENSO events, and figure 2 shows a warming trend even before this subtraction.

Also, contrary to popular belief, climatologists aren't denying the fact that natural variations such as changes in the Sun's brightness affect the climate. Climatologists aren't saying that our emissions are completely responsible for everything that's happening to the climate. It's just that once we account for all known natural variations, an artificial signal remains which is best explained by accounting for greenhouse gas emissions.

If we do not get some cycle 24 sunspots soon, we might be hoping for some global warming. I thought we where on the way but a cycle 23 spot showed up the the sun went quiet now for over a month; not good.

No, solar variability is smaller than greenhouse effects.

Yeah I read it wrong the first time as well. It actually shows growth for the last three years.

More importantly, it shows a trend where recent years have a lower minimum than later years. Remember not to confuse weather with climate like Fieldings is. The long-term trend simply has irrelevant noise due to ENSO events, etc imposed on top of it. As I said before, the real problem scientists face is here

I see the statistics on your web site removed the Maurader Solar Minimum / Little ice age; most CO2 proponents do.

You might be referring to this paragraph: Abrupt climate change is a long-term warming trend imposed on top of natural variations which tend to swing wildly in both directions. If you mean that the temperatures remain inexplicably high after subtracting all those natural variations, you're almost right.

But that reference removed the ENSO events, and figure 2 shows a warming trend even before this subtraction.

Also, contrary to popular belief, climatologists aren't denying the fact that natural variations such as changes in the Sun's brightness affect the climate. Climatologists aren't saying that our emissions are completely responsible for everything that's happening to the climate. It's just that once we account for all known natural variations, an artificial signal remains which is best explained by accounting for greenhouse gas emissions.

If we do not get some cycle 24 sunspots soon, we might be hoping for some global warming. I thought we where on the way but a cycle 23 spot showed up the the sun went quiet now for over a month; not good.

No, solar variability is smaller than greenhouse effects.

What evidence?

The scientific articles referenced all over this article, which is what the whole issue is about... and with all due respect you still haven't said exactly which point I've made that you think is wrong.

Certainly no evidence of consensus.

As I said in a comment: First of all, I've repeatedly stressed that science isn't democratic, so I don't give "consensus" any weight. For example, I once said "... I don't see how the popularity of an idea has anything to do with its veracity."

And later: "Uniformity of opinion is neither expected nor desired. Consensus is irrelevant; evidence is all that matters."

So if you have some credible evidence, please let me know.

Does the phrase "cherry picking" mean anything to you?

Where- exactly- in the article did I do that?

A peripheral observation: the earth's climate is a complex adaptive system. I know of no computer model that takes this into account.

A good place to start is chapter 8 of the IPCC report. I've also previously discussed this general issue.

That's why they can't predict the past, much less the future.

Hindcast validations are one of the standard ways to validate dynamical climate models. They've been tested against instrumental records and proxy data like borehole measurements, tree rings and ice cores. The eruption of Mt. Pinatubo showed that climate models can predict climate response very accurately.

Even if they did, the best they could produce is probabilities with wide multimodal distributions. They'd be useless for decision making.

Yes, the error bars are large, but the separation between the future scenarios is larger still. The models are plenty good enough to see that we need a new industrial revolution, or risk further damaging the climate.

What evidence?

The scientific articles referenced all over this article, which is what the whole issue is about... and with all due respect you still haven't said exactly which point I've made that you think is wrong.

Certainly no evidence of consensus.

As I said in a comment: First of all, I've repeatedly stressed that science isn't democratic, so I don't give "consensus" any weight. For example, I once said "... I don't see how the popularity of an idea has anything to do with its veracity."

And later: "Uniformity of opinion is neither expected nor desired. Consensus is irrelevant; evidence is all that matters."

So if you have some credible evidence, please let me know.

Does the phrase "cherry picking" mean anything to you?

Where- exactly- in the article did I do that?

A peripheral observation: the earth's climate is a complex adaptive system. I know of no computer model that takes this into account.

A good place to start is chapter 8 of the IPCC report. I've also previously discussed this general issue.

That's why they can't predict the past, much less the future.

Hindcast validations are one of the standard ways to validate dynamical climate models. They've been tested against instrumental records and proxy data like borehole measurements, tree rings and ice cores. The eruption of Mt. Pinatubo showed that climate models can predict climate response very accurately.

Even if they did, the best they could produce is probabilities with wide multimodal distributions. They'd be useless for decision making.

Yes, the error bars are large, but the separation between the future scenarios is larger still. The models are plenty good enough to see that we need a new industrial revolution, or risk further damaging the climate.

What evidence?

The scientific articles referenced all over this article, which is what the whole issue is about... and with all due respect you still haven't said exactly which point I've made that you think is wrong.

Certainly no evidence of consensus.

As I said in a comment: First of all, I've repeatedly stressed that science isn't democratic, so I don't give "consensus" any weight. For example, I once said "... I don't see how the popularity of an idea has anything to do with its veracity."

And later: "Uniformity of opinion is neither expected nor desired. Consensus is irrelevant; evidence is all that matters."

So if you have some credible evidence, please let me know.

Does the phrase "cherry picking" mean anything to you?

Where- exactly- in the article did I do that?

A peripheral observation: the earth's climate is a complex adaptive system. I know of no computer model that takes this into account.

A good place to start is chapter 8 of the IPCC report. I've also previously discussed this general issue.

That's why they can't predict the past, much less the future.

Hindcast validations are one of the standard ways to validate dynamical climate models. They've been tested against instrumental records and proxy data like borehole measurements, tree rings and ice cores. The eruption of Mt. Pinatubo showed that climate models can predict climate response very accurately.

Even if they did, the best they could produce is probabilities with wide multimodal distributions. They'd be useless for decision making.

Yes, the error bars are large, but the separation between the future scenarios is larger still. The models are plenty good enough to see that we need a new industrial revolution, or risk further damaging the climate.

What evidence?

The scientific articles referenced all over this article, which is what the whole issue is about... and with all due respect you still haven't said exactly which point I've made that you think is wrong.

Certainly no evidence of consensus.

As I said in a comment: First of all, I've repeatedly stressed that science isn't democratic, so I don't give "consensus" any weight. For example, I once said "... I don't see how the popularity of an idea has anything to do with its veracity."

And later: "Uniformity of opinion is neither expected nor desired. Consensus is irrelevant; evidence is all that matters."

So if you have some credible evidence, please let me know.

Does the phrase "cherry picking" mean anything to you?

Where- exactly- in the article did I do that?

A peripheral observation: the earth's climate is a complex adaptive system. I know of no computer model that takes this into account.

A good place to start is chapter 8 of the IPCC report. I've also previously discussed this general issue.

That's why they can't predict the past, much less the future.

Hindcast validations are one of the standard ways to validate dynamical climate models. They've been tested against instrumental records and proxy data like borehole measurements, tree rings and ice cores. The eruption of Mt. Pinatubo showed that climate models can predict climate response very accurately.

Even if they did, the best they could produce is probabilities with wide multimodal distributions. They'd be useless for decision making.

Yes, the error bars are large, but the separation between the future scenarios is larger still. The models are plenty good enough to see that we need a new industrial revolution, or risk further damaging the climate.

What evidence?

The scientific articles referenced all over this article, which is what the whole issue is about... and with all due respect you still haven't said exactly which point I've made that you think is wrong.

Certainly no evidence of consensus.

As I said in a comment: First of all, I've repeatedly stressed that science isn't democratic, so I don't give "consensus" any weight. For example, I once said "... I don't see how the popularity of an idea has anything to do with its veracity."

And later: "Uniformity of opinion is neither expected nor desired. Consensus is irrelevant; evidence is all that matters."

So if you have some credible evidence, please let me know.

Does the phrase "cherry picking" mean anything to you?

Where- exactly- in the article did I do that?

A peripheral observation: the earth's climate is a complex adaptive system. I know of no computer model that takes this into account.

A good place to start is chapter 8 of the IPCC report. I've also previously discussed this general issue.

That's why they can't predict the past, much less the future.

Hindcast validations are one of the standard ways to validate dynamical climate models. They've been tested against instrumental records and proxy data like borehole measurements, tree rings and ice cores. The eruption of Mt. Pinatubo showed that climate models can predict climate response very accurately.

Even if they did, the best they could produce is probabilities with wide multimodal distributions. They'd be useless for decision making.

Yes, the error bars are large, but the separation between the future scenarios is larger still. The models are plenty good enough to see that we need a new industrial revolution, or risk further damaging the climate.

Don't be precious. The issue isn't the specific facts you're referencing, but rather the bizarre conclusions you're using them to support. As SilverEyes said, the first graph shows Arctic sea ice is decreasing. I'm not surprised; I use AMSR-E data in my hydrology research, and they've got high quality data. I've already shown that the second link about water vapor is wrong in a previous comment to you. The third link was addressed in that same previous comment.

Don't be precious. The issue isn't the specific facts you're referencing, but rather the bizarre conclusions you're using them to support. As SilverEyes said, the first graph shows Arctic sea ice is decreasing. I'm not surprised; I use AMSR-E data in my hydrology research, and they've got high quality data. I've already shown that the second link about water vapor is wrong in a previous comment to you. The third link was addressed in that same previous comment.

You probably dislike giving source sites because none of the sources you've used are reputable, peer-reviewed scientific journal articles. See 7(a) in the index to see why this bothers scientists.

I know you were joking, but some people genuinely do confuse local weather and global climate.

Earth cooled a degree last year ...

As I've explained, ENSO events are irrelevant to the long term climate.

Satellite images show arctic ice cap growing the last three years ...

In the same link as above, I referenced this paper titled "Arctic sea ice decline: faster than forecast."

... lack of sunspots is pointing to a scary minimum.

Again in the same link, I explain that this means the Sun is unusually dim, which (if anything) would tend to cool the Earth slightly.

The CO2 increase contributes to less than a than 1/2 of a percent increase in green house gasses ...

As I explain in the fifth paragraph of that article, CO2 has jumped 26% above the highest value it's reached in the last 650,000 years. And this staggering increase occurred in the span of several decades due to human emissions, which is 35x faster than at any point in the last 400,000 years.

... (do not exclude the largest green house gas, water vapor)

As I've explained, water vapor reaches equilibrium in a matter of weeks, so we can't change its concentration except by changing Earth's average temperature. Water vapor is also not present in the top level of the atmosphere where the greenhouse effect is most important. CO2, on the other hand, is well-mixed even to the highest level of the atmosphere, and it stays in the atmosphere for many decades which is why it's so dangerous.

Earth cooled a degree last year ...

As I've explained, ENSO events are irrelevant to the long term climate.

Satellite images show arctic ice cap growing the last three years ...

In the same link as above, I referenced this paper titled "Arctic sea ice decline: faster than forecast."

... lack of sunspots is pointing to a scary minimum.

Again in the same link, I explain that this means the Sun is unusually dim, which (if anything) would tend to cool the Earth slightly.

The CO2 increase contributes to less than a than 1/2 of a percent increase in green house gasses ...

As I explain in the fifth paragraph of that article, CO2 has jumped 26% above the highest value it's reached in the last 650,000 years. And this staggering increase occurred in the span of several decades due to human emissions, which is 35x faster than at any point in the last 400,000 years.

... (do not exclude the largest green house gas, water vapor)

As I've explained, water vapor reaches equilibrium in a matter of weeks, so we can't change its concentration except by changing Earth's average temperature. Water vapor is also not present in the top level of the atmosphere where the greenhouse effect is most important. CO2, on the other hand, is well-mixed even to the highest level of the atmosphere, and it stays in the atmosphere for many decades which is why it's so dangerous.

Huh? You're not under the impression that climate models are empirical models, are you?

I am not, I am sufficiently well informed to know that those models are solving huge set of nonlinear PDE representing simplified thermal radiation equation, convection, gaz exchanges, ..., so they are based on basic laws of physics.

Problem is, i am more informed than that: I solve big sets linear PDE for a living, create the models and simplification under it, and had a go to nonlinear PDE during my Phd. Not a climatologist, i worked more in fluid dynamic and vibro-acoustic...

Now, you are not trying to tell me that the tuning of adjustable numerical parameters, grid size, time steps, simplifications, linearisation techniques, and choosing of unknown physical parameters in the simplified mathematical models are not of the utmost importance, are you? That, except if you are extremely careful and work in a field for which mathematical modeling is not under discussion, your numerical models are, when you are honest, sophisticated empirical models that may give insight to fine details, but always produce pretty color plots in 3D? The validations I have seen for those models (single curve fitting over small period) are not convincing enough, too much local errors for such a model to be reliable imho. I am aware that it is the best we can currently do, but I have enough experience in numerical models to consider it is far from being enough to trust...

... no model takes clouds into account.

Actually, all models take clouds into account. Which journal article led you to this conclusion? I've discussed this issue in the comments and linked to a new paper describing recent improvements to models of clouds.

I do not have seen any attempt of applying models to past conditions where CO2 concentration was higher than today ... I have read your article, and it is not convincing. Especially, the way you insist that the model should be applyied to recent time only is not sound: a numerical model should be tested in as much conditions as possible, especially for other input that the ones that have been used to calibrate it!!!

Because, as I state in a popup on the words "very slightly" in the third paragraph of the article, there are so many changes to the Earth over such long periods of geological time (you have to go back tens of millions of years to see higher CO2 concentrations) that the dynamical models wouldn't be expected to apply. Plus, proxy data are unreliable at such timescales, so we're stuck with "recent" data like the last 650,000 years from EPICA.

models predictions seems much better in the 1990-2000 region than in 2000-2010, but adjustable parameters were tuned to fit 1990-2000 data...not a good sign for a numerical model...

Huh? You're not under the impression that climate models are empirical models, are you?

... cyclic variation of solar power is taken into account, but other effects on cloud formations are not (not surprising, as cloud are not taken into account anyway). But recent studies suggest that the main effect of solar cycles is linked to magnetic effects, not incoming solar radiation.

That's because those other effects have been shown to be very small. See 7 (b) in the index: "Cosmic rays are responsible for global warming." If you've found evidence contradicting these papers, please let us know.

much more emphasis (as in your article) to positive feedback effects than negative one. In fact, positive feedback is set at the stability limit: a little bit more and the system would be instable and the climate we had before industrialisation would simply not have been possible, you would have had a runaway warming or cooling.

I've explicitly addressed this point. The point is that feedback effects act on different time scales, and our forcing is geologically very rapid.

And man produced CO2 is just the same as natural CO2, any attempt to spearate the two (one have a greater effect that the other???) is highly suspect.

I didn't mean that man-made CO2 has a greater effect, just that feedback CO2 appears after the temperature rises, not before. Therefore the recent CO2 rise is anthropogenic, and we should expect the natural feedback CO2 (observed in Vostok) to add to it.

In fact, I think many reader objections in your article are valid, and you seem to agree as you do not really debunk the well formulated ones...

For instance? (I've got my own research distracting me, so I don't always have time to answer each and every question, but I've tried really hard to answer all the scientific questions that people have posed. I'd l

... no model takes clouds into account.

Actually, all models take clouds into account. Which journal article led you to this conclusion? I've discussed this issue in the comments and linked to a new paper describing recent improvements to models of clouds.

I do not have seen any attempt of applying models to past conditions where CO2 concentration was higher than today ... I have read your article, and it is not convincing. Especially, the way you insist that the model should be applyied to recent time only is not sound: a numerical model should be tested in as much conditions as possible, especially for other input that the ones that have been used to calibrate it!!!

Because, as I state in a popup on the words "very slightly" in the third paragraph of the article, there are so many changes to the Earth over such long periods of geological time (you have to go back tens of millions of years to see higher CO2 concentrations) that the dynamical models wouldn't be expected to apply. Plus, proxy data are unreliable at such timescales, so we're stuck with "recent" data like the last 650,000 years from EPICA.

models predictions seems much better in the 1990-2000 region than in 2000-2010, but adjustable parameters were tuned to fit 1990-2000 data...not a good sign for a numerical model...

Huh? You're not under the impression that climate models are empirical models, are you?

... cyclic variation of solar power is taken into account, but other effects on cloud formations are not (not surprising, as cloud are not taken into account anyway). But recent studies suggest that the main effect of solar cycles is linked to magnetic effects, not incoming solar radiation.

That's because those other effects have been shown to be very small. See 7 (b) in the index: "Cosmic rays are responsible for global warming." If you've found evidence contradicting these papers, please let us know.

much more emphasis (as in your article) to positive feedback effects than negative one. In fact, positive feedback is set at the stability limit: a little bit more and the system would be instable and the climate we had before industrialisation would simply not have been possible, you would have had a runaway warming or cooling.

I've explicitly addressed this point. The point is that feedback effects act on different time scales, and our forcing is geologically very rapid.

And man produced CO2 is just the same as natural CO2, any attempt to spearate the two (one have a greater effect that the other???) is highly suspect.

I didn't mean that man-made CO2 has a greater effect, just that feedback CO2 appears after the temperature rises, not before. Therefore the recent CO2 rise is anthropogenic, and we should expect the natural feedback CO2 (observed in Vostok) to add to it.

In fact, I think many reader objections in your article are valid, and you seem to agree as you do not really debunk the well formulated ones...

For instance? (I've got my own research distracting me, so I don't always have time to answer each and every question, but I've tried really hard to answer all the scientific questions that people have posed. I'd l

... no model takes clouds into account.

Actually, all models take clouds into account. Which journal article led you to this conclusion? I've discussed this issue in the comments and linked to a new paper describing recent improvements to models of clouds.

I do not have seen any attempt of applying models to past conditions where CO2 concentration was higher than today ... I have read your article, and it is not convincing. Especially, the way you insist that the model should be applyied to recent time only is not sound: a numerical model should be tested in as much conditions as possible, especially for other input that the ones that have been used to calibrate it!!!

Because, as I state in a popup on the words "very slightly" in the third paragraph of the article, there are so many changes to the Earth over such long periods of geological time (you have to go back tens of millions of years to see higher CO2 concentrations) that the dynamical models wouldn't be expected to apply. Plus, proxy data are unreliable at such timescales, so we're stuck with "recent" data like the last 650,000 years from EPICA.

models predictions seems much better in the 1990-2000 region than in 2000-2010, but adjustable parameters were tuned to fit 1990-2000 data...not a good sign for a numerical model...

Huh? You're not under the impression that climate models are empirical models, are you?

... cyclic variation of solar power is taken into account, but other effects on cloud formations are not (not surprising, as cloud are not taken into account anyway). But recent studies suggest that the main effect of solar cycles is linked to magnetic effects, not incoming solar radiation.

That's because those other effects have been shown to be very small. See 7 (b) in the index: "Cosmic rays are responsible for global warming." If you've found evidence contradicting these papers, please let us know.

much more emphasis (as in your article) to positive feedback effects than negative one. In fact, positive feedback is set at the stability limit: a little bit more and the system would be instable and the climate we had before industrialisation would simply not have been possible, you would have had a runaway warming or cooling.

I've explicitly addressed this point. The point is that feedback effects act on different time scales, and our forcing is geologically very rapid.

And man produced CO2 is just the same as natural CO2, any attempt to spearate the two (one have a greater effect that the other???) is highly suspect.

I didn't mean that man-made CO2 has a greater effect, just that feedback CO2 appears after the temperature rises, not before. Therefore the recent CO2 rise is anthropogenic, and we should expect the natural feedback CO2 (observed in Vostok) to add to it.

In fact, I think many reader objections in your article are valid, and you seem to agree as you do not really debunk the well formulated ones...

For instance? (I've got my own research distracting me, so I don't always have time to answer each and every question, but I've tried really hard to answer all the scientific questions that people have posed. I'd l

... no model takes clouds into account.

Actually, all models take clouds into account. Which journal article led you to this conclusion? I've discussed this issue in the comments and linked to a new paper describing recent improvements to models of clouds.

I do not have seen any attempt of applying models to past conditions where CO2 concentration was higher than today ... I have read your article, and it is not convincing. Especially, the way you insist that the model should be applyied to recent time only is not sound: a numerical model should be tested in as much conditions as possible, especially for other input that the ones that have been used to calibrate it!!!

Because, as I state in a popup on the words "very slightly" in the third paragraph of the article, there are so many changes to the Earth over such long periods of geological time (you have to go back tens of millions of years to see higher CO2 concentrations) that the dynamical models wouldn't be expected to apply. Plus, proxy data are unreliable at such timescales, so we're stuck with "recent" data like the last 650,000 years from EPICA.

models predictions seems much better in the 1990-2000 region than in 2000-2010, but adjustable parameters were tuned to fit 1990-2000 data...not a good sign for a numerical model...

Huh? You're not under the impression that climate models are empirical models, are you?

... cyclic variation of solar power is taken into account, but other effects on cloud formations are not (not surprising, as cloud are not taken into account anyway). But recent studies suggest that the main effect of solar cycles is linked to magnetic effects, not incoming solar radiation.

That's because those other effects have been shown to be very small. See 7 (b) in the index: "Cosmic rays are responsible for global warming." If you've found evidence contradicting these papers, please let us know.

much more emphasis (as in your article) to positive feedback effects than negative one. In fact, positive feedback is set at the stability limit: a little bit more and the system would be instable and the climate we had before industrialisation would simply not have been possible, you would have had a runaway warming or cooling.

I've explicitly addressed this point. The point is that feedback effects act on different time scales, and our forcing is geologically very rapid.

And man produced CO2 is just the same as natural CO2, any attempt to spearate the two (one have a greater effect that the other???) is highly suspect.

I didn't mean that man-made CO2 has a greater effect, just that feedback CO2 appears after the temperature rises, not before. Therefore the recent CO2 rise is anthropogenic, and we should expect the natural feedback CO2 (observed in Vostok) to add to it.

In fact, I think many reader objections in your article are valid, and you seem to agree as you do not really debunk the well formulated ones...

For instance? (I've got my own research distracting me, so I don't always have time to answer each and every question, but I've tried really hard to answer all the scientific questions that people have posed. I'd l

... no model takes clouds into account.

Actually, all models take clouds into account. Which journal article led you to this conclusion? I've discussed this issue in the comments and linked to a new paper describing recent improvements to models of clouds.

I do not have seen any attempt of applying models to past conditions where CO2 concentration was higher than today ... I have read your article, and it is not convincing. Especially, the way you insist that the model should be applyied to recent time only is not sound: a numerical model should be tested in as much conditions as possible, especially for other input that the ones that have been used to calibrate it!!!

Because, as I state in a popup on the words "very slightly" in the third paragraph of the article, there are so many changes to the Earth over such long periods of geological time (you have to go back tens of millions of years to see higher CO2 concentrations) that the dynamical models wouldn't be expected to apply. Plus, proxy data are unreliable at such timescales, so we're stuck with "recent" data like the last 650,000 years from EPICA.

models predictions seems much better in the 1990-2000 region than in 2000-2010, but adjustable parameters were tuned to fit 1990-2000 data...not a good sign for a numerical model...

Huh? You're not under the impression that climate models are empirical models, are you?

... cyclic variation of solar power is taken into account, but other effects on cloud formations are not (not surprising, as cloud are not taken into account anyway). But recent studies suggest that the main effect of solar cycles is linked to magnetic effects, not incoming solar radiation.

That's because those other effects have been shown to be very small. See 7 (b) in the index: "Cosmic rays are responsible for global warming." If you've found evidence contradicting these papers, please let us know.

much more emphasis (as in your article) to positive feedback effects than negative one. In fact, positive feedback is set at the stability limit: a little bit more and the system would be instable and the climate we had before industrialisation would simply not have been possible, you would have had a runaway warming or cooling.

I've explicitly addressed this point. The point is that feedback effects act on different time scales, and our forcing is geologically very rapid.

And man produced CO2 is just the same as natural CO2, any attempt to spearate the two (one have a greater effect that the other???) is highly suspect.

I didn't mean that man-made CO2 has a greater effect, just that feedback CO2 appears after the temperature rises, not before. Therefore the recent CO2 rise is anthropogenic, and we should expect the natural feedback CO2 (observed in Vostok) to add to it.

In fact, I think many reader objections in your article are valid, and you seem to agree as you do not really debunk the well formulated ones...

For instance? (I've got my own research distracting me, so I don't always have time to answer each and every question, but I've tried really hard to answer all the scientific questions that people have posed. I'd l

It may have been beyond reasonable doubts until about 2005. I do not think it is anymore, the recent scientific advances and newest global data are not so supportive of the idea that man-produced CO2 is responsible for the bulk of global warming, and even less of the more catastrophic predictions for future climate change...

Please link to legitimately peer-reviewed scientific articles that back up these claims, because what you're saying contradicts all the evidence I've ever seen.

Indeed, I think the consensus is shifting right now, and I guess that at one point it may become funny and some heads could start to roll...A few more years of flat or decreasing global temperatures, a few more theoretical and experimental blows to IPCC models, a few more scientists resigning from IPCC or publicly expressing doubts, and it's done.

Really? That's the impression you got from reading the legitimate peer-reviewed scientific journals? I got tired of repeating myself on Slashdot, so I wrote an article showing that abrupt climate change is well-supported by a mountain of credible evidence. If you've examined the IPCC models and found flaws that I haven't debunked in that article, by all means leave a comment describing these flaws and I'll look into them.

Throughout the Earth's history, the periods substantially warmer than today correlate with the most prolific life. The extra energy seems to make the ecosystem flourish.

Yeah, and if we could resurrect those biospheres instead of living with our own, we'd probably be just fine. But we can't. In reality, scientists are concerned with the rapid rate of the changes in our climate. It's not that these changes have dangerous magnitudes, it's that the derivative is dangerously high.

The amount of carbon dioxide that's in the greenhouse gases is very fractional and the actual human contributed amount of CO2 is a small fraction of that. In fact, its dwarfed by rotting vegitation and animal releases of it. That, in turn, is even dwarfed by the amount of CO2 the oceans give off. So, what makes you green whackos think we have any impact on this? Well, unfortunately, we've entered a cooling off period. The Earth hasn't warmed since 1998 and actually slightly cooled off the last 2 years. ...

I got tired of repeating myself on Slashdot, so I wrote an article showing that abrupt climate change is a matter of serious concern. For example, several of your claims are answered here and here.

The amount of carbon dioxide that's in the greenhouse gases is very fractional and the actual human contributed amount of CO2 is a small fraction of that. In fact, its dwarfed by rotting vegitation and animal releases of it. That, in turn, is even dwarfed by the amount of CO2 the oceans give off. So, what makes you green whackos think we have any impact on this? Well, unfortunately, we've entered a cooling off period. The Earth hasn't warmed since 1998 and actually slightly cooled off the last 2 years. ...

I got tired of repeating myself on Slashdot, so I wrote an article showing that abrupt climate change is a matter of serious concern. For example, several of your claims are answered here and here.

The amount of carbon dioxide that's in the greenhouse gases is very fractional and the actual human contributed amount of CO2 is a small fraction of that. In fact, its dwarfed by rotting vegitation and animal releases of it. That, in turn, is even dwarfed by the amount of CO2 the oceans give off. So, what makes you green whackos think we have any impact on this? Well, unfortunately, we've entered a cooling off period. The Earth hasn't warmed since 1998 and actually slightly cooled off the last 2 years. ...

I got tired of repeating myself on Slashdot, so I wrote an article showing that abrupt climate change is a matter of serious concern. For example, several of your claims are answered here and here.