imajulianutter, something noticeable is that you scorn, mock, scoff and insult; yet, you bring no evidence forward. You say you are not a climate change denier though you provide no evidence. The conclusion reached might be that you are a troll or believe that quite rapid natural climate change is happening. You set yourself up as an expert but do not provide any evidence as to why your opinion has any validity. You show no respect for the scientists who have gathered data over many years often in less than favourable conditions.
At least cohenite and Leo Lane do provide references from their denier’s camp.

References showing relevance of CO2 in atmospheric warming
http://www.skepticalscience.com/empirical-evidence-for-global-warming-intermediate.htm
http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn11638-climate-myths-human-co2-emissions-are-too-tiny-to-matter.html#.U1BbifmSw1I
http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn11652-climate-myths-co2-isnt-the-most-important-greenhouse-gas.html#.U1BeHfmSw1I

cohenite, Figure 2 in paper referenced below shows a rise in sea levels.
http://elib-v3.dlr.de/84058/1/eps_pp_energy_env_2009.pdf0.pdf

Greenland and the Antarctic possess 99% of land based ice, there is significant retreat in Greenland of glaciers.
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2014/03/140316152955.htm
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jakobshavn_Glacier
http://www.egu.eu/news/100/greenlands-fastest-glacier-reaches-record-speeds/
http://www.the-cryosphere.net/8/209/2014/tc-8-209-2014.html

cohenite could you provide Goddard's link to the IPCC.

Cohenite,
You say, “There is a mountain of evidence from the real world which shows CO2 radiation absorbing properties are defeated or vitiated by other atmospheric components and processes which is why the models have grossly failed.”
Accordingly I have a query. How about answering?

If ocean algae plant matter absorbs CO2 and if CO2 has radiation absorbing properties even for a short period of time, would radiation be absorbed by CO2 within underwater algae plant matter, and would such absorbed radiation warmth in CO2 within such underwater algae, be defeated when absorbed by the actual plant matter?

Surely it is best to understand and model exactly what type of adaption and mitigation is needed, if any.

ant, how about you help with the question of whether or not there is radiated warmth in CO2 in ocean and lake algae.
After all it was your comment that brought radiation in CO2 to my attention.

Surely Australians can work as a team toward achieving a good future.

ant

if you say challenging the links you provide as proof of climate warming, which in fact support the reverse, is scorning, mocking, scoffing and insulting, then so be it.

I do believe in climate change but not that co2 increases cause it.

Why do I have to provide proof when you provide it for me?


'It is often said that the temperature ‘leads’ the CO2 during the warming out of a glacial period. On the most recent records, there is a hint that the temperature started to rise slightly (at most a few tenths of a degree) before the CO2, as expected if changes in Earth’s orbit cause an initial small warming. But for most of the 6,000-year long ‘transition’, Antarctic temperature and CO2 rose together, consistent with the role of CO2 as an important amplifier of climate change (see Fig. 4). In our modern era, of course, it is human emissions of CO2 that are expected to kick-start the sequence of events. We see no examples in the ice core record of a major increase in CO2 that was not accompanied by an increase in temperature.'

There even your authority says the records show temps started to rise before co2. It even acknowledges the extent of the rise. Then of course, as terrorists do, it goes on to try to disguise that recorded truth with weasel words and 'modelling'.

Why don't you believe your own propagandists?

So if co2 didn't cause warming and all the evidence now points to a pause in temps while co2 levels are still increasing how can this part of that statement be true?

'a major increase in CO2 that was not accompanied by an increase in temperature'

Why can you not understand that logic?

As it stands you don't believe your own authorities and defy logic.

Why wouldn't you expect to be scorned, mocked, scoffed at and insulted for adopting such an idiotic position.

cohenite, you say as do many deniers that temperatures stopped increasing after 1998; sorry the evidence is not there, there is also some information in relation to oceans continuing to warm using a hyperlink to a 2008 reference

http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn14527-climate-myths-global-warming-stopped-in-1998.html#.U1B92fmSw1I
http://www.skepticalscience.com/surface-temperature-measurements.htm
http://www.skepticalscience.com/global-warming-stopped-in-1998.htm

cohenite, in my last post I gave a reference to glaciers in Greenland, here is a quote from one of the references …
“The new result focuses on ice loss due to a major retreat of an outlet glacier connected to a long "river" of ice -- known as an ice stream -- that drains ice from the interior of the ice sheet. The Zachariae ice stream retreated about 20 kilometers (12.4 miles) over the last decade, the researchers concluded. For comparison, one of the fastest moving glaciers, the Jakobshavn ice stream in southwest Greenland, has retreated 35 kilometers (21.7 miles) over the last 150 years.” The reference is dated March 2014.
The Jacobshavn glacier is around 16 ks wide and up to a 1,000 meters in height; "... in the summer of 2012 the glacier reached a record speed of more than 17 kilometres per year, or over 46 metres per day." The quote taken from one of the other references provided earlier.

Factual material that does not rely on theories or computer models

Temperatures have been rising and anomalous in the Arctic region something you do not seem to be able to accept.

Idiot, moronic, mocking, scoffing, scorning and other such inference are off topic, waste time and hurt some decent people.