Given that I am not a climate scientist I will accept DR.Glickson’s statement as true.
“Humans can not argue with the physics and chemistry of the atmosphere.”

None-the-less humans can and must question the processes that lead to this conclusion.

• Firstly, we can ask questions about methodology. What are the methods used to measure atmospheric CO2. What is their accuracy and sensitivity? What are the smallest detectable differences? What are the errors and assumptions made in the measurement? What are the sampling (statistical) methods employed? How frequently are instruments calibrated? etc.

• Secondly, there is the argument of cause and effect. It is well recognised that a correlation by itself is not a proof of causality. The eminent statistician the late Sir Austin Bradford Hill suggested some nine criteria that can be applied in the discussion of causality. Of course not all of his criteria apply to every situation. The last word is that decisions regarding cause and effect relationships require scientific judgment. In the other words there is an inevitable subjective element in decision making.

• For instance the sixth Hill criterion is called ‘plausibility’; clearly what is plausible to me, may not be plausible to you or vice versa.

I have seen some ridiculous articles, but this is a front runner in packing so much nonsense into so few pages.

If you wish to advocate reduction of human emissions, Andrew, give some scientific basis for it.

If there is now some scientific proof that human emissions make any difference to the carbon cycle, the IPCC would have heard about it and told us.

After billions of taxpayers dollars poured into research, to prove that human emissions have any significance, the answer, so far, is that they do not.

Even the mendacious IPCC would not venture more than an unscientific “very likely”. They depended for this on an allocation of unaccounted warming to human emissions. This warming has now been accounted as natural, by a published, peer reviewed paper, so any basis for impugning human emissions is non existent.

http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2009/2008JD011637.shtml

Professor Robert Carter comments:

“Our paper confirms what many scientists already know: which is that no scientific justification exists for emissions regulation, and that, irrespective of the severity of the cuts proposed, ETS (emission trading scheme) will exert no measurable effect on future climate.”

Your paper reads like low grade science fiction, Andrew.

Curmudgeon

There are a wide range of scenarios listed in the emissions paper you referred to. As they say, they are very difficult to make predictions from as it is an attempt to forecast not only natural systems, but also human activity systems which are in many ways even more complex and less predictiable. Not all of them assume the worst-case scenario.

If the emissions growth were linear, 2ppm/pr would still see 568.63 ppm by 2010. Not an attractive scenario. If you look at the paper, Implications of Proposed CO2 Emissions Limitations of 1997, Figures 5 and 6 show the exponential curves of projected CO2 concentrations, 388ppm in 2010 is right near or at the upper scenario curve IS92e. I am using these curves because it plots CO2 concentration over time.

Note that the Mauna Loa record is non-linear. The ocean response to changes in atmospheric CO2 is non-linear due to its carbon chemistry and bilogical systems. Anthropogenic CO2 production rates at this stage is also nonlinear. I would be loathe to make a linear projection based on ten years of data. All changes can be linearised over a small enough time scale.

Stable isotope chemistry tells us the CO2 is from fossil fuel and not expelled from the ocean, if the rise in CO2 was strictly due to a change in ocean currents, for instance. This has been suggested as the major contributor to the rise in atmospheric CO2, probably due to outgassing from the Southern Ocean, at the end of the last ice age.
The rise in global temperature ove the last century is twice that seen at the end of the last ice age and the increase in CO2 is more than twice the rate seen then. The major solar input cycle peaked about 16,000 years or so ago, bringing the planet out of the last ice age. If you have another suggestion for the driver of these rates of change in carbon dioxide and heat, then I would be happy to hear it.

When will these people wake up.

Andrew youve been caught out. Shouting more often, louder, or with more people is not going to work.

Get used to it. It's over.

Find another line of work. You've had so much experience with this garbage, perhaps you could get a job driving a garbage truck. At least you'd be doing something useful, for a change.

Hasbeen,

As some spindoctor noted elsewhere ... it's called shooting the messenger - good stuff maaate.

You want to gag Dr Glickson and suggest he finds another line of work, driving a garbage truck? Even better.

From where I stand, the shrill is coming from the promoters of FUD (fear, uncertainty and doubt) - often deliberate, sometimes unintentional, never constructive ... you're doing just fine.

Dr.Glickson.
Reasoned, coherent argument. Thank you.

The problem you face here is that of armchair experts (AEs) who don't understand the nature of scientific theories, the questions let alone the answers/conclusions. As you say the chemistry physics is beyond reasonable dispute.

AEs believe good old fashioned, down to earth sense, tops years of training, specialization, quadruple checked careful research then ore expert scrutiny by other qualified scientists. By their thinking why have scientists? Let's just have average folks run science. What could go wrong? Apart from everything.

They believe that science theory is binary either absolutely correct or absolutely wrong. Regardless of endless explanations to the contrary, including details of what we know, what we can surmise and areas needing more work or don't know.

Many still have difficulty distinguishing between weather and Climate.
Also, they don't comprehend that weather/climate changes at either of the spectrum are explained by the theory.

As you say, the science and chemistry is beyond question as are the observable facts.

Now the AEs, contrarians etc, are claiming it's all natural. Yes of course it is, we don't make the climate we are *affecting* it. We don't make water either, but we can pollute it or cause its distribution to change, by changing the hydrology or climate.

Dr, If I understand you correctly you are agreeing that high CO2 levels have been as high (er) before.Even agree that many of the observable events (facts) have also happened before and the *world* survived.

Part2 following