Seriously James, you think human emissions of CO2 are going to damage the Earth or more particularly the biosphere?

Relativity is instructive; so even if you accept the so-called AGW science and the forcing, that is energy input into the climate system by anthropogenic CO2 [ACO2] it is dwarfed by natural sources of CO2 and more particularly the energy expended by the phase changes of water.

The relevant references for this are page 263 here:

http://www.eike-klima-energie.eu/uploads/media/EE_21-4_paradigm_shift_output_limited_3_Mb.pdf

Equation 3 is the relevant one which says:

dU = CvdT + Ldq + gdh – PdV

This is a rewriting of the First Law of Thermodynamics which both allows for a determination of the relative energy input of the phase changes of water and therein a comparison of the forcing or energy input of a doubling of CO2 as predicted and calculated by AGW theory.

The forcing from 2XACO2 is 3.7 W/m2 over the next 100 years or however long it takes for ACO2 to cause a doubling of atmospheric CO2.

Compared with this the phase changes from water generate energy fluxes from Ldq and PdV that well exceeds 1000 W/m2 each and every day!

A second paper is by Makarieva which is discussed at point 8 here:

http://theclimatescepticsparty.blogspot.com.au/2013/06/man-made-global-warming-wrong-ten.html

The role of water has been overlooked in AGW science and I am fascinated that even a basic Modtran analysis clearly shows that back-radiation is dominated by humidity and that any back-radiation from CO2 only occurs when humidity is less than 1%, which happens very rarely on earth:

http://notrickszone.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/08/Caryl_11.png

That should be fatal to AGW but no one seems to notice!

And don't be so sensitive James, after all prince Charles isn't calling you a headless chicken.

Nutter
I don’t have a lot of time so if I go quiet it only means I have more important things to do.

You asked for a a single peer reviewed article demonstrating that CO2 is responsible for causing global warming which I gave you. You then objected because you claimed that it was based on a model. Well this is the way science works, first someone comes up with an idea which seems to satisfy the know facts, now this idea or model allows one to make a variety of predictions which can then be checked against the real world. Should those predictions turn out to be correct then the model becomes accepted as a theory.

In the link I gave previously that is exactly what they did, specifically they compared the type of warming that would be produced by an increase in GHGs , when they checked it against the real world data they found it matched far better than any other explanation. The important points are that the thermal profile of the atmosphere is quite odd under GHGs warming. Near the surface it heats up but at high altitudes it cools down considerably. Further to that from satellite data they have found that radiation from the frequencies that CO2 absorb have declined steadily since the 1970s. We have the smoking gun the bullet, the victim, and the perpetrator all present, now all we need to do is accept the evidence.

If you want an example of a good model we have one for how the earth, moon and planets move, which is so good that it can predict to the second when and where the next solar eclipse will occur. It is also pretty useful for predicting tides and the like.

"In the link I gave previously that is exactly what they did, specifically they compared the type of warming that would be produced by an increase in GHGs , when they checked it against the real world data they found it matched far better than any other explanation."

That's wrong; it's been explained to you why its wrong and yet you persist.

You're a troll and you have nothing better to do.

Warmair, the only problem is the models use the wrong amount value in
each of the three projection for the amount of fossil fuels available.

This has been pointed out by the Global Energy Group at Upsalla university in Sweden.

Unfortunately the IPCC contributors do not seem interested.
The correct data yields a lower temperature value than the lowest
projection of the three.

So until they use the real data it is all a bit pointless.

'You asked for a a single peer reviewed article demonstrating that CO2 is responsible for causing global warming...'

No I asked

'There are thousands of articles written supporting the claim warming is caused by human activity.

Can you cite one among all those that has actually proved the link ... with data not modelling.'

Do you warmair, often encounter difficulties in your relationships with people? A significant or complete lack of basic comprehension skills can often be a cause.

Quote Nutter
¨Can you please point out where I have attacked you or anybody personally on this thread? I have issued challenges and debated reasonably. For you to suggest otherwise is either gross misjudgement or deceitfully offensive.¨

And then this we get this from you:-
¨Do you warmair, often encounter difficulties in your relationships with people? A significant or complete lack of basic comprehension skills can often be a cause.¨

When people resort to insults as you have just done it clearly shows they have no valid arguments.