"We deniers of the 23 year old theory say if the science is so clear, we all then possess the ability to interpret the facts and theories ourselves."

That's what ALL pushers of conspiracy theories start with to sell their books. "You're smart enough to make up your own mind."

EG: The 9/11 conspiracy myths. "Look, it's COMMON SENSE, you're smart enough. Here's a photo of the hole in the Pentagon wall. Here's a super-imposed photo to scale of a 747 including the wingspan. Why are all the windows along the front of the Pentagon still intact? See, it was a MISSILE that hit the Pentagon wall, only a MISSILE fits!"

D'uh! First assumption was wrong. The average citizen is NOT fully informed about the physics of an aeroplane crash, and how the wings fold backwards when impacting a concrete building because the first real point of resistance in the plane is back between where the wing struts join the main body of the plane.

The average citizen is not briefed on atmospheric physics, the strength of various forcings and how we know them, and the study of vastly old geological climate.

You are DEFINITELY NOT smart enough to deal with this MeMe, and are actually just sounding like another attention seeking little 14 year old kid unable to process new data and arguments.

When you can explain why the candle warmth did not get through the tube of Co2 I'll be interested. Until then, (yaaaaawwwwwwwwnssss), away with you.

Also MeMe, my sad little chap, just repeating your ridiculous little mantra of silly assertions when they've been comprehensively debunked time and again just reveals what a petty little troll-boy you are. They've been answered time and again, and you just IGNORE what the peer-reviewed science says in each case, NEVER explain why you ignore them, "rinse and repeat". Boring. (yawns).

Now attempt to explain (obviously from your conspiracy theory worldview) why all the following organisations concur WITH global warming instead of against it? (How was the alien probe? Anusol helps.)

The world's most prestigious scientific organizations all agree.
European Academy of Sciences and Arts,
InterAcademy Council,
International Council of Academies of Engineering and Technological Sciences
Joint science academies' statements
Network of African Science Academies
Royal Society of New Zealand
Polish Academy of Sciences
American Association for the Advancement of Science
European Science Foundation
National Research Council (US)
American Society for Microbiology
Australian Coral Reef Society
Institute of Biology (UK)
Society of American Foresters
The Wildlife Society (international)
American Geophysical Union
European Federation of Geologists
European Geosciences Union
Geological Society of America
International Union of Geodesy and Geophysics
Stratigraphy Commission of the Geological Society of London
American Medical Association
Australian Medical Association
European Centre for Disease Prevention and Control
World Federation of Public Health Associations
World Health Organization
American Meteorological Society
Australian Meteorological and Oceanographic Society
Canadian Foundation for Climate and Atmospheric Sciences
Canadian Meteorological and Oceanographic Society
Royal Meteorological Society (UK)
World Meteorological Organization
American Quaternary Association
International Union for Quaternary Research
American Astronomical Society
American Chemical Society
American Institute of Physics
American Physical Society
American Statistical Association
Engineers Australia (The Institution of Engineers Australia)

Eclipse Now,

You make a little too much of "the candle warmth did not get through the tube of Co2" in that video clip you have linked to.

What the clip clearly shows is the CO2 blocks a certain range of radiation. In short.. CO2 is a greenhouse gas.

However the clip also demonstrates that once the radiation is blocked, more CO2 isn't going to make any significant difference, since there is no more radiation in that band to block. I've not found a clear answer on it, but it appears atmospheric CO2 levels are already at that level.

Coupled with the fact that CO2 is orders of magnitude less powerful that H2O in the form of water vapour, which atmospheric effects are poorly understood, and I am left completely unimpressed with basis for linking CO2 levels with massive climate effects.

That said, CO2 levels now appear to be higher than they have been in about 20,000,000 years (since long before the first Homo Erectus) and that is alarming. Whilst I remain unconvinced that higher CO2 levels will produce very significant climate effects, I, and other climate skeptics have to concede that altering the composition of our atmosphere in ways that take it outside previous human experience may have unexpected outcomes.

In short, the poor understanding that scientists presently have of how our atmosphere works, should also make us concerned about the unpredictable effects on us of unprecedented (in human terms) CO2 levels.

In any event, quite apart from any irrational fear of CO2, there are actually very sensible geopolitical grounds for shifting away from our endless reliance on fossil fuels.

Q&A, if you are still there, could you please answer my previous questions?

Kalin you’re a breath of fresh air! At last! An intelligent question by someone actually discussing the subject, not being a troll.

As someone more scientifically informed than me said:

[quote]Thy system is nonlinear. The CO2 forcing is logarithmic (at least at the current concentrations) and blackbody radiation varies as T^4. So linearly increasing concentrations represent a diminishing increase in forcing, and rising temperatures radiate proportionally more energy.

So one problem here is that the values are presented on a graph with a linear scale, when the effects are not linear. A change from 200 ppm to 1000 ppm of CO2 is going to have the same effect on forcing as the increase from 1000 ppm to 5000 ppm. An ideal blackbody at 295K radiates almost 15% more energy than one at 285 K, even though that's only a 3.5% increase in temperature.[/quote]

I hardly understand it, but get the gist that little increases now matter more than big increases later on.

“In any event, quite apart from any irrational fear of CO2, there are actually very sensible geopolitical grounds for shifting away from our endless reliance on fossil fuels.”
Absolutely! You are one of the sanest sounding skeptics I’ve met in a while. It’s not “just” the ENORMOUS threat from global warming, but our own economic energy security that is at stake (especially as peak fossil fuels hits). We buy oil and fund people that don’t like us very much.

Peak oil is also urgent and scary.
http://www.onlineopinion.com.au/view.asp?article=9149

We MUST Rezone our cities, build rail (trains, trams and trolley buses), renewables, replenish the soil with sewerage (closed loop agriculture), and relocalize much of what we do, and fast.

There is hope, but only if we act, NOW! Having personally briefed some of our politicians on this, I don't have much hope of us acting until it's too late.

Eclipse Now,

Thanks for the kind words. However, it's still game on as far as arguing about climate change.

A few points:

1. No-one should judge the merits of an argument by the apparent 'madness' of its most ardent proponents. There are mad advocates on both sides of this argument. Mem, may not be the most reasonable advocate for the 'nay' position, but the name calling indulged in retaliation, just makes you look as unreasonable.

2. To assert a long list of scientific authorities, who "concur WITH global warming" is meaningless. What exactly are they concurring with?

All you really have is a concurrence that CO2 is a greenhouse gas and that greenhouse gases have a warming effect. This is qualitative agreement, but in view of the marginal role of CO2 as a greenhouse gas v H2O (H2O in the form of vapour/clouds is about 20 times more significant as a greenhouse gas - see http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/greenhouse_data.html), the real question is quantitative - how much difference will CO2 make? Your list of scientific organisations who concur on that question will be very short indeed.

3. It is a mathematical reality that knowing that one, very minor variable has a positive effect in complex system, is of little value in predicting the final outcome. An analogy: everyone might agree that having a favourable wind is an advantage in a football game, but, being just one minor variable, no one would sensibly rely on it to predict the outcome of the game (particularly without knowing its strength).

For the same reason, knowing that CO2 makes us warmer, does not of itself meaningfully assist us in predicting what the temperature will be in a hundred years, unless we have a good handle on how other variables, particularly H2O are going to behave. Clearly, at this point, the complex greenhouse role of H2O is not well understood (clouds can, I have read, have a cooling effect and in that sense behave quite differently to greenhouse gases).

Kalin1

The effects of water vapour are clearly understood and water vapour is a big player in the atmosphere as far as climate is concerned.

In fact the heat-amplifying effect of water vapour in the atmosphere could more than double the climate warming caused by increased carbon dioxide levels.

NASA, Andrew Dessler and colleagues from Texas A&M University in College Station US calculated the heat-trapping capacity of water vapour during 2008.

"Everyone agrees that if you add carbon dioxide to the atmosphere, then warming will result," Dessler said. "So the real question is, how much warming?"

”NASA says the impact can be determined by estimating the magnitude of water vapor feedback:

“Increasing water vapor leads to warmer temperatures, which causes more water vapor to be absorbed into the air. Warming and water absorption increase in a spiraling cycle.

”Water vapor feedback amplifies the warming effect of other greenhouse gases, such that the warming brought about by increased carbon dioxide allows more water vapor to enter the atmosphere.

“The difference in an atmosphere with a strong water vapor feedback and one with a weak feedback is enormous," Dessler said. "This new data set shows that as surface temperature increases, so does atmospheric humidity. Dumping greenhouse gases into the atmosphere makes the atmosphere more humid. And since water vapor is itself a greenhouse gas, the increase in humidity amplifies the warming from carbon dioxide."

"We now think the water vapor feedback is extraordinarily strong, capable of doubling the warming due to carbon dioxide alone."

Unfortunately those in denial refuse to acknowledge that all things are bound together – all things connect.