Prof. Horst Malberg: Climate Change At Most 10% Because Of CO2 – Dominated by The Sun

Wolfgang Mueller of the European Institute For Climate And Energy (EIKE) conducted an interview with Prof. em. Dr. Horst Malburg at the Gegenwind [Counter Wind] Conference at the German North Sea island of Sylt. A translation of the entire interview follows the video below:

Start interview:

Mueller: We are here on the island of Sylt at the conference “Gegenwind” and I have with me Professor Dr. Malberg from Berlin. Professor Malberg, what do you say about wind power with regards to the climate discussion?
Prof. Malberg: Wind power plants cannot be justified by the climate issue. I examined in detail what drives the climate and I looked at all the available data, from Europe, from USA, from Japan –  all data were evaluated, and naturally the global data. It clearly shows that the climate is dominated by the sun, and then on top of that by the oceans, and then a little bit by the CO2 effect. I would estimate it has a magnitude of 10%, for Co2, and not more. More than 80% of the climate change is driven by the sun. That means relative to natural climate change, the influence by CO2 is very small, and so it does not justify any action for climate protection, where wind parks are built in order to save CO2. Sure you can do it, but it won’t have any impact on our climate, at least no real impact.

Mueller (1:33): Germany is a leader in installing wind-parks, and so are the German efforts sensible?
Prof. Malberg: It’s naturally a political decision, that’s clear. But it is also an economic decision because we know it is very expensive. And when we have to transmit the power from wind parks at the coast and into the country all the way to south Germany. Then it is going to be a very expensive transmission. Here at the conference we have seen that it is much cheaper to transport coal or oil than it is to transport electricity. And I believe one day there’s going to be an ugly awakening when we realize how expensive electricity has become.

Mueller (2:25): One reason we should expand wind energy, as you mentioned, is climate change. How true is it that yes, there always has been climate change, but the increase over the last years is especially frightening?
Prof. Malberg: That is in no way based on anything. That is really a huge myth. During the last 13 years, the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere has risen more than at any time since the last Ice Age, especially since the start of the Industrial Revolution. But since the last 10 to 12 years, we have not had any more global warming. The temperature has reached a plateau and has even shown a slight declining trend. That means that while CO2 has increased strongly, the temperature has not reacted at all.

Mueller (3:24): And what do you say to politicians and media who tell us every day to be active for the climate?
Prof. Malberg: My conclusion is one that is completely different: I say it is a basic human right to have clean air, clean water, uncontaminated soil and an ecological system that is intact. That means the highest priority is environmental protection. But humans do not have “a right to a stable climate”. That just does not exist. It never has existed. What is natural about the climate system is that it is not constant, it always changes.  When people speak so often about species dying, then one has to address environmental protection, and not assign everything to climate protection, and to blame it all on a phantom. The temperature increase we have had over the last 150 years of about 0.7°C has occurred multiple times since the last Ice Age, and nature repeatedly withstood it. Today there would be no polar bears if nature was unable to cope in balancing out the natural temperature fluctuations.

Mueller (4:50): What can you take home [from this conference] here in Sylt?
Prof. Malberg: We’ve had an interesting spectrum here. We discussed the climate behaviour. We’ve discussed the clearly measured non-acceleration of sea level. Of course there is a natural sea level rise, but it has not accelerated. We’ve discussed legal topics here at this conference. And finally we have learned from an energy expert that if we go ahead with wind and solar energy, then we have to understand that these two forms of energy depend on the weather. The wind doesn’t always blow, and very often the sun doesn’t shine here. And building solar plants in the desert would mean huge losses of energy because of the long transmission distances. That means we looked at a very broad spectrum of issues that absolutely belong in the public debate.

Mueller (6:00): Professor Mahlberg, thank you for the discussion.
– End –
========================================================

Professor Dr. Horst Malberg is the former director of the Meteorological Institute at the Free University of Berlin and a member of the EIKE Committee. Further Reading: Prof Malberg’s analysis

52 responses to “Prof. Horst Malberg: Climate Change At Most 1052 Because Of CO2 – Dominated by The Sun”

  1. Harry Dale Huffman

    “…it is much cheaper to transport coal or oil than it is to transport electricity”

    No one since Tesla, the founder of AC generation and transmission, seems to have had the vision to pursue wireless transmission of electricity. We have to learn to inject energy into the air and ground, and pluck it out at a distance, as he did. So, as a physicist, I say we will find the way. What lightning can do, we can do; it is that simple.

    1. Richard Wakefield

      So we should be shooting huge balls of electricity through the atmosphere aimed at a target to capture that energy? You watch too much sci-fi at the movies.

      1. DirkH

        Wireless energy transfer with 90% efficiency over 10 inches.
        http://news.hjnews.com/news/article_46671138-a766-11e0-8e0e-001cc4c03286.html

        1. FirkinRidiculous

          My remote control works at least 10 feet (between my couch and TV) with 100% accuracy.

      2. Sparks

        You’d be surprised how easy it is to generate electricity, the issues are about national grids, the suppliers and regulators. If your home is connected to a grid you pay no-matter what! in the UK it works out at around £15-£20 per quarter, it’s all about keeping the meters running, If you go of grid and produce your own electricity through what ever means, governments can not tax or regulate it and that also means the suppliers who make trillions in profits per year loose out.
        As our technology in energy production is advancing light years faster (Very similar to Moore’s law) than bureaucratic tax regulators and energy suppliers can keep up with, who stand to lose their control of regular profits and regulation of taxes are confusing the issue, while installing smart meters in every home and business and passing laws where you have to feed into the grid (feed in tariffs) at the same time pay for electricity that you consume.
        why do you think Cold fusion was destroyed by the same people who brought you “Man Made global warming” and “Climate Change” Etc… the very same people who promoted hot fusion that hasn’t produced a single watt of electricity through decades of research costing the tax payer billions+.

        People will eventually be able to go off grid in the future, governments around the world know this, wind farms and solar farms are a futile attempt to cash in on the public’s gullibility and temporary ignorance about energy with lies, but doing so they are forcing people to reduce their demand on the grid while they get everyone to pay a high price for the same type of grid that will eventually have a meter running in every home and business for their tax, regulations and profits.
        Great men like Tesla understood the amazing possibilities of the future and great men like J.P. Morgan who’s fortune grew as he continued to make investments and provide funding to Thomas Edison throughout the 1870’s and 1880’s would take us here through exploitation.

        Man Made Global warming and the disgraceful climate propaganda is nothing but the exploitation of honest people, the hard working professionals, scientists and engineers of all fields that go against the grain who stick up for human ingenuity are the same people who can make a difference in this world that will effect our lives for the best.

        All the very best NoTricksZone, Germany and all the readers here!

        (I’m in a rush so my comment is rough and ready, apologies in advance)

  2. DirkH

    Re the “transport of Electricity”:
    Now Die Welt suggests that Greece should deliver renewable energy in the form of electricity to… well, who will need it, Germany, as we decided to switch off our nukes. As usual the article ignores the technical difficulties, the intermittence of solar energy, the enormous distances and transmission losses and the abysmal economics of PV. Article has picture of PV installation near Athens.
    http://www.zeit.de/2011/27/Europa-Energie/seite-1

    Believing in AGW really makes you dumb.

    1. DirkH

      Die Zeit, not Die Welt, sorry…

    2. Edward

      It’s “the age of [the] stupid” Dirk, that’s an unbelieveable link – true science fiction:>) – whack jobs all.

  3. NikFromNYC

    The LA Times featured cold fusion in ’89 before its debunking. Greens were aghast!
    “It’s like giving a machine gun to an idiot child.” – Paul Ehrlich (mentor of John Cook of the SkepticalScience blog, author of “Climate Change Denial”)
    “Clean-burning, non-polluting, hydrogen-using bulldozers still could knock down trees or build housing developments on farmland.” – Paul Ciotti (LA Times)
    “It gives some people the false hope that there are no limits to growth and no environmental price to be paid by having unlimited sources of energy.” – Jeremy Rifkin (NY Times)
    “Many people assume that cheaper, more abundant energy will mean that mankind is better off, but there is no evidence for that.” – Laura Nader (sister of Ralph)

    CLIMATEGATE 101: “For your eyes only…Don’t leave stuff lying around on ftp sites – you never know who is trawling them. The two MMs have been after the CRU station data for years. If they ever hear there is a Freedom of Information Act now in the UK, I think I’ll delete the file rather than send to anyone….Tom Wigley has sent me a worried email when he heard about it – thought people could ask him for his model code. He has retired officially from UEA so he can hide behind that.” – Phil “Hide The Decline” Jones to Michael “Hockey Stick” Mann

    Here I present A Global Warming Digest:
    Denial: http://i.min.us/ibyADs.jpg
    Oceans: http://k.min.us/idAw6Y.gif
    NASA: http://i.min.us/idFxzI.jpg
    Thermometers: http://i.min.us/idAOoE.gif
    Earth: http://k.min.us/ibtB8G.gif
    Ice: http://k.min.us/ibBgw2.jpg
    Authority: http://k.min.us/iby6xe.gif
    Prophecy: http://i.min.us/idEHdo.jpg
    Psychopathy: http://i.min.us/ibubmk.jpg
    Icon: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v
    Thinker: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v

    -=NikFromNYC=- Ph.D. in Carbon Chemistry (Columbia/Harvard)

  4. Nonoy Oplas

    “But humans do not have “a right to a stable climate”. That just does not exist. It never has existed. What is natural about the climate system is that it is not constant, it always changes. ” — I like that.

    Hi Wolfgang, good job at interviewing Prof. Malberg.

  5. Lauren

    Anthropogenic global warming is a total fraud, an international effort of power and money grabbing based on the marxist concept of “wealth redistribution”.
    On April 28 1975 Time Magazine had on its front cover the title THE BIG FREEZE!!, with an article, signed by “climate scientists”, concluding that the Earth is cooling to the point it will all be covered in ice and all living creatures will die.
    The “scientists” even came up with a solution: collect all the ashes and residues generated by coal-burning power plants and spreat it over the North Pole, to capture the heat generated by the sun….
    This could only have come from sick, perverted minds, but at the time it was viewed as a real option….the media loved it.
    After a few years, when it obviously turned out that such a theory was nonsense, the “climate scientists”, in their quest for government grants, have invented a new fantasy, that of global warming……the world is warming due to us, human beings and we are all going to die unless we give up all of our liberties to one big world government which is going to regulate every single aspect of our lives, how many times to flush our toilets, what kind of cars to drive, where, for what reason and how far, how many children to have , what kind of food to eat, etc.
    In 1992 Al Gore said that “the time for a debate is over, the science is settled”…..
    This obviously is a lie for the time for a debate is never over and the science is far from being settled.
    Science does not work as a democracy , meaning that in science, the majority does not rule as it does in a democracy.
    If 1000 scientists have a debate and 999 of them agree on the subject, but only one of them disagrees, it may very well turn out , as it has so many times in history, that the lone scientist is the only one that is right.
    After 20 years of advancing a false theory based on fraudulent data, the “scientists” noticed that the planet is not warming, so they changed the name of their theory yet again from global warming to “Climate Change”, just in case, to have all possibilities covered.
    Soon the whole thing will be unequivocally exposed for a premeditated fraud.
    People who perpetrated this scam, will then be held responsible for the enormous psychological, social and financial damage that their actions have caused.
    There must be parents out there whose children have suffered mental trauma because of this great scam.
    All these parents should get together and get a pit bull of a lawyer to file a class action law suit in a civil court and take the global warming crooks to the cleaners.

  6. Lauren

    Terrorists are being brought to justice in criminal courts these days…
    Al Gore and the global warming alarmists such as left wing politicians, pseudo scientists, and journalists, have been inflicting psychological terrorism upon a whole generation of children all over the world for the last 20 years.
    These charlatans should be brought to justice as the perpetrators of the biggest scam in the history of this planet.
    The social,financial and psychological damages that they caused are beyond comprehension.
    No criminal organization in history has ever come even close to having such a dezastruous impact on so many people, for such a long time, and make so much money in the process.
    They should not be permitted to get away with it.Hundred of billions have been wasted on a fraud, social and economical policies have been altered based on a fraud….the moral authors of this fraud should be in jail for the rest of their lives and their fortune seized.

    1. Kirt Griffin

      Lauren,
      As much as I think it is unlikely, what you say is true. I’d like to sit on the jury.

  7. Dr. Killpatient

    An alarmist will never, ever be able to tell you what is “normal climate”.

    I’m assuming they mean room temperature until the Sun goes Red Giant in a few billion years.

  8. BigT

    ‘No criminal organization in history has ever come even close to having such a dezastruous impact on so many people, for such a long time, and make so much money in the process.’

    Except perhaps the Catholic Church.

  9. renewable guy

    It clearly shows that the climate is dominated by the sun, and then on top of that by the oceans, and then a little bit by the CO2 effect. I would estimate it has a magnitude of 10%, for Co2, and not more. More than 80% of the climate change is driven by the

    (((((sun)))))
    .

    #######################

    That one is a big no!

    http://www.skepticalscience.com/solar-activity-sunspots-global-warming-basic.htm

    Figure 1: Global temperature (red, NASA GISS) and Total solar irradiance (blue, 1880 to 1978 from Solanki, 1979 to 2009 from PMOD).

    This German is all the proof you need that climate science is a fraud. Did you ever read the science before disputing it?

    1. DirkH

      I’m so impressed, Cartoonist John Cook’s site and GISSTEMP, Hansen’s personal rewriting-the-past-with-every-new-version effort.

    2. Sparks

      renewable guy Says:

      “Figure 1: Global temperature (red, NASA GISS) and Total solar irradiance (blue, 1880 to 1978 from Solanki, 1979 to 2009 from PMOD).”

      I see an obvious problem right away with that chart, they are using a linear model to represent a non-linear cyclical process.

      Here’s a example of the difference http://www.graphpad.com/curvefit/linear_vs__nonlinear.htm

      The solar cyclical process is very well understood yet I constantly see it’s effects being distorted by those who are pushing the Man made climate change, their nonsense has a view of one model fits all, that’s poor science.

      The other thing I noticed was the dishonesty of a web-site calling it’s self “skeptical science” but who are clearly Man Made Global Warming/climate change/climate disruption proponents, reading through the site I was dismayed by the self appointed authoritarianism over scientific issues and their utter disregard for those who disagree with their views,
      Please read the profiles of John Cook and his affiliate Mr Sinclare who’s youtube videos frequently appear on the website, Read the profile of these activists who’s opinions and authority you accept as gospel, I certainly would not accept any authority of any scientific subject from that website or it’s affiliates.

      John Cook of “Skeptical Science” Basic profile;
      “Skeptical Science is maintained by John Cook. He studied physics at the University of Queensland, Australia. After graduating, he majored in solar physics in his post-grad honours year. He is not a climate scientist. Consequently, the science presented on Skeptical Science is not his own but taken directly from the peer reviewed scientific literature. To those seeking to refute the science presented”

      Mr Sinclare’s Basic profile;
      “Greenman Studio LLC is a graphic design and animation studio located in Midland, MI. Owner Peter Sinclair is a longtime advocate of environmental awareness and energy alternatives. An award winning graphic artist, illustrator, and animator, Mr. Sinclair runs Greenman Studio from his home in Midland, MI.
      Mr. Sinclairs cartoons and illustrations have appeared in newspapers around the world, and his work has been profiled in numerous publications, including the New York Times, The Utne Reader, and HaAretz of Jerusalem.

      30 years of writing and activism in the areas of energy and environment, including extended study in Nashville with Al Gore and the worlds leading climate experts, in addition to skillful
      creation of audio visual presentations, have made Mr. Sinclairs
      presentation on Climate change and alternative energy one which has been called a must see!

      Constantly updated information, made vivid with striking, clear graphics and animations, many derived from NASA, The National Snow and Ice Data Center, and top international sources, an expert knowledge of the issues of energy and environment, and an informal, good humored delivery, make difficult concepts easy to see and grasp.

      No issue will have a greater impact on the new century than the decisions we make on energy and the impact of global climate change, and Peter Sinclairs presentation makes the critical points
      dramatically clear and immediate. ”

      I’m more qualified than these hacks for ***** sake!

      1. renewable guy

        Sparks:

        http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Instrumental_temperature_record#Warmest_years

        http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Instrumental_temperature_record#Warmest_Decades

        Its starts with temperature taking and works its way from there. SKeptical science is a team of people now. Everything they do is based on proven science. If you disagree you may read the several science papers they are presenting as there foundation for argument.

  10. Lauren

    BigT, are you completely out of touch with reality?
    Is the catholic church trying to impose a law that would raise your electricity bill by 35%?
    The catholic church or any church for that matter is not able or trying to impose anything on anyone, what they say or think can be easily disregarded by people like you and i….the global warming charlatans want to control your life by imposing the kind of laws that would make you a slave and make your life miserable, and it will not be optional either.

  11. Robin Pittwood

    Hi Renewable Guy,
    Yup – that’s right, temperature and TSI don’t line up very well.
    The science isn’t settled. There’s still heaps to learn.

    There are other solar effects that could be causing change too. For instance consider work by H Svensmark and J Kirkby on cosmic effects and cloud formation. Maybe these studies which look at the possibility of cosmic effects modulating cloud nucleation tie in with R Spencer’s work on clouds?

    1. renewable guy

      Spencer’s work has not got off the ground, Meanwhile Dr. Andrew Dessler has shown cloud feedback is pos or mildly negative. That was with early satellite data.

      The earth has an energy imbalance of about.75 to .9 watts per meter squared. Hansen wrote a paper confirming this back in 2005 or 2006.

      1. Ed Caryl

        Hansen has blown his credibility with his activism. He is not an unbiased observer.

      2. DirkH

        You wouldn’t believe how hot it gets here on a cloudy summer day. Must be, oh, 20 centigrade; i think i’m melting.

      3. DirkH

        Hansen & Schmidt confirmed the energy imbalance using … a model.

        1. renewable guy

          The model has real world data put into it and then compared again to real world data. That is discussed at deeper levels.

  12. renewable guy

    Hansen has blown his credibility with his activism. He is not an unbiased observer.
    ################

    Hansen knows what he needs to do. Tell me what science of his is wrong.

    1. Ed Caryl

      All of it!

  13. slimething

    renewable guy,
    Do climate models have gross errors in one or more key climate system metrics?

    As for Dessler, he’s done nothing to refute Spencer. His latest regurgitated paper is nothing new.

  14. cleanwater

    The Experiment that Failed and saved the World trillions.
    By Berthold Klein P.E November 16, 2010 revision 11-19-2010 REVISED STARTING JULY 4,2011

    PREAMBLE: After hearing from a Ph. D in mechanical engineering and a teacher of environmental studies that they could not follow this experiment it is necessary to rewrite this experiment. It is necessary that anyone that can read to be able to understand this experiment and what it means. I made a mistake in the first edition as it is created as I thought about it and did the experiment. This edition is for everyone -the man on the street who would suffer the most by government “1984 Big Brother” control and the Ph. D in social studies or science.
    I have been communicating with some ordinary people and some Ph. D’s and I realize that my mission is a “Mission Impossible” being able to read does not mean that the reader can comprehend and that having a Ph. D means that their ego and arrogance will get in the way of comprehension. I will do my best with the help of those that edit the new version , so here goes.
    Before this is released it will have been reviewed and edited by knowledge individuals most will have minimal science education but do understand that the Greenhouse Gas effect does not exist.
    There are several words or terms used in this revision that need some explanation:
    IR= infrared radiation is a form of radiation(invisible light also know as heat rays) that is present in sun light and is also radiated by every body of mater whether it is a gas, a liquid or a solid. If it is a living thing it will radiate more IR that if it is an inanimate object because of its temperature.
    IRag= Certain gases will absorb different wavelengths (a characteristic of the light ) depending on the construction of the gas. Some gases do not absorb IR , there construction will not allow them to absorb the IR, they may absorb other forms of radiation but as was said above they still radiate IR. Many other materials including water will absorb IR. These should not be included in the term IRags.
    Water/l/v/s=Water has some very important characteristic that are important to earth and to live on earth. Because of earth’s fortunate location in the universe ,it’s temperature varies from a low of-90 F to a high 130 F+. But in the majority of the earth temperatures are between 0 F to 100 F. and water can change from a gas at all temperature ,to a liquid at 32F(0C) or above,and a solid below 32 F.(0 C). Many people who pretend to be scientists choose to ignore these facts and call Water/l/v/s a “greenhouse gas” As we go through this experiment it will become clearer why this is bad science.
    CO2= a gas that is breathed out by every living mammal and most other living creature,it is absorbed by plants and algae and is them converted back to oxygen which we need to live. Most process that produce mechanical movements and electrical energy convert fossil fuels to CO2( carbon dioxide) A very important and necessary part of live on this planets.
    CH4= methane a part of “natural gas” used to heat homes ,cook food and run engines as cars,buses and trucks,etc .It is present in the ground along with oil but is only present in the air(atmosphere) at very tiny amounts.( part per billion) While millions of tons of this gas escape into the atmosphere most of this is destroyed by interaction with Ozone(O3) and UV a very active radiation present in sunlight.(this reaction is documented by a paper in the EPA library) The Methane that is formed by bacteria is almost everywhere. Its from swamps,rice paddies, bottom of oceans, lakes and streams, decaying leave piles etc. It is a part of natures process of recycling.
    NO2= a gas formed by nature when there is lightening. It is also formed in any high temperature burning including engines. The gas is washed out of the atmosphere in every rainstorm. It is used by plants, and is very necessary for their growth.
    To demonstrate if the “greenhouse gas effect exists it is necessary to define it.
    The hypotheses of the “greenhouse gas effect” is the process where a combination of IR absorbing gases including
    Water/vapor/liquid/solid, CO2.CH4. NO2 and others are super insulation and cause the atmosphere to be 33 degrees warmer than would be explained by the “black body temperature” A term developed by a renowned physicist as a theoretical way to compare radiation. There are only a few materials and conditions that approach these theoretical properties. (The earth and its atmosphere is not one of them.).
    How is this done? The hypothesis says that the IRag’s absorb the IR radiation then it is “back radiated to earth causing the earth to be warmer by the resonating of this heat energy.
    This is just the tip of the iceberg of the magic caused by the “greenhouse gas effect”
    as has been said the truth is in the details therefore anyone that wants to get into more of the details,please join in.
    As others have not started to define “The greenhouse gas effect” lets start with what are the “features that should be testable!” Because water/liquid, vapor,solid (H2O /lvs) is different than gases IRag’s as CO2 ,Ch4,NO2 and others gases -the IRag’s will be dealt with first.
    Critical features:
    1. The IRags absorb the IR radiation and thus prevents it from escaping into space reducing the rate of atmospheric cool- it causes the air to be warmer.
    2. The IRags will “back radiate” IR radiation to earth to cause increased heating of the surface.
    3. The IRags will heat up by the absorption of the IR radiation thus heating the air.
    4. The IRag’s have different levels of “back-forcing”.Thus CO2 is supposed to be from 23 to 70 times more “back radiation “ than air and CH4 (methane) is 1000 times that of air. Having ask others how this is determined,( no answer yet) ,it is assumed that someone has reviewed the amount of IR that a particular molecule absorbs by a spectrophotometer analysis then comparing this to the absorption of CO2. (I have not seen any experimental data that the “back-forcing” relates to absorption).(an assumption based on The Bohr model however a time factor is needed) This is a very important feature of the “ghg effect”
    5. The higher the concentration of IRags the greater the amount of “back-radiation” the higher the “global atmospheric temperature will become.(were is the experimental data )
    6. The concentration of CO2 found in million year old Ice cores can be used as proof that the “ghg effect” exists. When there is no experimental data that proves that the “ghg effect”exists.
    7. Where does this lead?
    We all know that the “greenhouse” effect exist. Anyone that has gotten into a hot car on a sunny day.(summer or winter). Has walked into a store with south facing window , its temperature will be much higher than a car ,or window in the shade. This is caused by confined space heating- this was established in 1909 by R.W. Wood a professor of Physics and Optics at John Hopkins University from 1901 to 1955.
    What experiment could be performed to “prove” that the ”greenhouse gas effect exists.
    All the AGW point out it is impossible to simulate what actually happens in the atmosphere therefore they propose using computer models, the problem with “computer models” is that unless all the factors that effect the atmosphere are included into the program it is “garbage in is garbage out”. When this is tried there are no computers made that have sufficient capacity to handle all of the factors. Many of the factors are not even fully know yet. Then the big guess is what are the factors to include and which are really of minor importance and can be left out and still get usable results. To data no one has come up with the “right model”

    Using the list of “critical factor” lets see if there are some way of indicating if the concept may exist.
    To use the concentration of IRags in the atmosphere for testing does not work otherwise there would not be the controversy that exists today. In the field of engineering and research there is the use of “models”” or model similar factors that can be either up sized or down sized that are either similar in behavior or can be proportioned to a larger or smaller series of events that relate to an actual set of events.

    As the amount of heating that is supposed to be added is on the order of fractions of a degree per year- we need a more dramatic experiment to show that the concept actually exists. If the experiment at a much higher concentration does not demonstrate the effect then the Concept does not exist. If the concept works at high concentration then it can be tried with lower and lower concentrations until a threshold of effects is reached.

    Some numbers are needed now: By definition 10,000 ppm is 1%, therefore 100 % equals 1million parts per million( 1×10+6) . Another way to put it is if there are 1 million soldiers in the army and only one has a gun ,he better have a lot of bullets if he is going to defend the country. The atmosphere is supposed to contain 400 ppm (round Number) therefore a concentration of 100% CO2 is 2500 time that of what is in the atmosphere. If the effect exists it should be much easier to measure and demonstrate that “back radiation” Is causing a heating effect on the earth. .
    Now it is claimed that CH4 is from 23 to 70 time the effect of CO2,thus using the lowers figure by using a concentration of 100 % CH4 ,the effect should be 57500 time stronger that using CO2. It is claimed that NO2 is 100 time more powerful that CO2 thus it should cause 250,000 X the effect of CO2 in the atmosphere
    As CH4 is found to be about 2ppB ( 2 X 10 -9)in the atmosphere , a concentration of 100 % CH4 should give a results that is 5 X 10 + 10 times what exists in the atmosphere.
    . Now if CH4 is 23 times the effect of CO2 another longer chain hydrocarbon molecule will be even more powerful thus the proposed experiment shown below was done with 100 % butane.
    The experiment shown below substituted “natural gas” a mixture of 70% CH4 about 29% CO2 and the remainder is H2 and other trace gases. This is readily available for test purposed from any natural gas stove. Now 100 % CO2 is available for several sources, but one that is not too expensive is from any Paint ball supply store, another is from a supplier of Dry ice. Do not use Alka Seltzer as you have to put this in water to get the CO2 thus you have a mixture of CO2 and water and water vapor – you are not testing the effect of CO2 only. Discussion of H2O/lvs in the atmosphere will follow later.
    The natural gas mixture should have a combined effect of less that 100% CH4 by a weighted average of 70% CH4+ 29% CO2or 3.500000725X10+9 times the effect of CO2 in the atmosphere. If this occurs the temperature increase must be measurable.

    How does the experiment contain the high concentration of the IRags for this test? Having reviewed several experiments that contained the IRags is glass containers then they measures the increase in temperature of the gas which had increased, they claimed this increase was do to the “ghg”effect, they are absolutely wrong. The cause of the temperature increase was do to the heating of the glass by its absorbing the IR and the glass heating. ( A Master’s thesis (peer reviewed) with this information is available on request). Another failure of these tests were their including a black cardboard inside the containers, thus additional heating of the IRag’s from conduction of heat from the black cardboard. (They created a Greenhouse effect-confined space heating)
    The proper way to contain the high concentration of IRags is in a thin walled material that will not absorb the IR and heat. The experiment used crystal clear Mylar balloons. They are available in various sizes, several 20 inch diameter(major diameter) were chosen. If you want you can use larger ones to contain larger numbers of IRag molecules.

    Now lets discuss the experiment.
    1. Fill the balloons with the various IRags ,and one with dry air as a control.
    2. Let the balloons reach ambient temperature. If you are going to use sunlight let it adjust outside in the shade.
    3. Use an IR thermometer to check the temperatures of each balloon, use a digital thermometer that reads to 0.1 degree to check air temperature in the shade. Record data.
    4. Take a large black mate board or a large black cloth or sheet and lay it on the ground in the sun. Use the IR thermometer to check the temperature as it raises in the sun. Record the data. When it appears to reach a maximum then go to step 5.
    5. Suspend the balloons over the black background (about 1 foot above) and measure the temperature of the balloons initially. Record the temperature.
    6. Measure the temperature of the black background in the “shadow” of each of the balloons also measure the temperature of the black background outside of the “shadows” of the balloons.

    Now lets repeat the Critical factors and note the result of my test to the critical factor.
    Critical features:
    1. The IRags absorb the IR radiation and thus prevents it from escaping into space reducing the rate of atmospheric cool- it causes the air to be warmer. The air between the balloons and the black background did not change temperature.
    2. The IRags will “back radiate” IR radiation to earth to cause increased heating of the surface. The black background did not change temperature either in the “shadow” or outside the shadow. The temperature of the black background heated to 20 t0 30 degrees above ambient before the balloons were placed over the black background. When this was done outside in bright sun light the black background heated to 130 to 140 degrees F. Similar temperature can be measured from black asphalt. When the experiment was done with the 500 watt power shop light (see below)inside the black background went from ambient of 70-72 degrees to 100 -110 degrees. Again when measuring the temperatures of the black background with the IR thermometer there was no measurable temperature difference anywhere along the surface.
    3. The IRags will heat up by the absorption of the IR radiation thus heating the air. The balloons did not warn any warmer than ambient. The IRags in the balloons will not warm because that would be a violation of the Bohr Model.
    4. The IRag’s have different levels of “back-forcing”. Having ask others how this is determined,( no answer yet) ,it is assumed that someone has reviewed the amount of IR that a particular molecule absorbs by a spectrophotometer analysis then comparing this to the absorption of CO2. (I have not seen any experimental data that the “back-forcing” relates to absorption).(an assumption based on The Bohr model however a time factor is needed) As there was no temperature difference under any of the balloons, there was no stronger “back-forcing” because the IRag absorbed more IR radiation.
    5. The higher the concentration of IRags the greater the amount of “back-radiation” the higher the “global atmospheric temperature will become.(were is the experimental data )
    6. The concentration of CO2 found in million year old Ice cores can be used as proof that the “ghg effect” exists. When there is no experimental data that proves that the “ghg effect”exists.
    Specifications of the IR thermometer: model: MTPRO laser-Micro Temp; temperature range: -41degree C/F to 1040 degrees F. IR range 5 to 16 nm. Angle of view D:S =11:1
    cost about $60.00. many other models available.
    I have thought about several refinements, but it would not change the bottom line that the “ghg effect” is a fairy-tale.

    I’m sure that the AGW’s will not believe this proves that the “greenhouse gas effect does not exists , therefore I challenge them to come up with an experiment that they claim “proves the existence of the “greenhouse gas effect”.
    As an alternate light source the experiment has been performed with an incandescent light. By using a 500 watt shop power light which because of the temperature of the filament approach the spectral characteristics of the Sun light ( should have more long wave IR because of a lower temperature) It was place one(1) meter away from the balloons to avoid conduction and convection heating of the balloons. As is stated above there was no difference in the final results.

    Now lets talk about water( H2O/lvs):
    Yes H2O/lvs has a major effect on weather conditions, where I’m at in Northern Ohio it just started to rain, if it gets any colder we will have snow or sleet. Of course tomorrow it may be sunny and clear. As is said in the Great Lakes region if you don’t like the weather wait 15 minutes and it will change. Now the “climate” has not changed for the last 300 years just ask the Indians.
    Any way lets look a H2O/lvs in the atmosphere : If its clear the humidity can be from near 0 % relative humidity to 100%. Now if it ‘s cloudy the “relative Humidity” can vary from 30 to 100% depending on temperatures, Now we know that the air temperature where the clouds are forming is at or below the “dew point”, now as the H2O vapor cools to form clouds there is a release of energy( Heat of condensation), if the general air temperature is low enough ( below freezing) more energy is released as ice or snow is formed. This energy has to be dissipated either as IR radiation or as lightening or probably high winds or tornado.
    This is only one phase of the complex weather conditions when H2O/lvs is being evaluated another is the solar heating of clouds both day and night. During the day the warming of the top of clouds is obvious but it is also relevant that in spite of significant solar absorption the “clouds “ have not absorbed enough radiation to convert the water or solids back to vapor; there is probably a rapid turbulent exchange of energy in both directions from evaporation/ sublimation to condensing, to freezing. This is why “climatologists” can not get the correct “sign” on the “forcing” it is a constantly changing set of conditions, non are wrong and non are correct.
    Now lets add the next variable- solar heating at night of the clouds. Having taken IR radiation measurements at night for the last year at many different times by solar time it is apparent that when the sun goes down below the visible horizon , the clouds are still receiving solar energy. This has been confirmed by both measurements and visible lighting (multiple colors ) of the clouds. The clouds and the atmosphere cool until about 2:00 am when there is measurable increases in cloud temperatures and air temperatures. This warming continues until daylight is visible. The degree of warming is related to the time of year and what is happening with the jet stream and arctic storms.
    There are other factors that are being monitored by real astrophysics researcher that are showing that Solar flares, and different type of radiation have an effect on cloud formation,this is only a beginning of learning about our atmosphere.
    There is no way in the world of Fairy-tales that CO2 can have an effect on weather or “climate”

    The nice thing about this experiment is that it can be done by high school physics classes or freshmen college physics lab classes . It would teach a very important lesson in that “not all experiments have to have a “positive” end result to be meaningful.
    Mann-made global warming is a hoax,because the “greenhouse gas effect” is a fairy -tale.

    Berthold Klein P.E.

    November 19, 2010
    List of references:
    The paper “Falsification of the Atmospheric CO2 greenhouse effect within the frame of physics” by Gerhard Gerlich and Ralf D. Tscheuschner is an in-depth examination of the subject. Version 4 2009
    Electronic version of an article published as International Journal of Modern Physics
    B, Vol. 23, No. 3 (2009) 275{364 , DOI No: 10.1142/S021797920904984X, c World
    Scientific Publishing Company, http://www.worldscinet.com/ijmpb.
    Report of Alan Carlin of US-EPA March, 2009 that shows that CO2 does not cause global warming.

    Greenhouse Gas Hypothesis Violates Fundamentals of Physics” by Dipl-Ing Heinz Thieme This work has about 10 or 12 link
    that support the truth that the greenhouse gas effect is a hoax.
    R.W.Wood
    from the London, Edinborough and Dublin Philosophical Magazine , 1909, vol 17, p319-320. Cambridge UL shelf mark p340.1.c.95, i
    The Hidden Flaw in Greenhouse Theory
    By Alan Siddons
    from:http://www.americanthinker.com/2010/02/the_hidden_flaw_in_greenhouse.html at March 01, 2010 – 09:10:34 AM CST

    The below information was a foot note in the IPCC 4 edition. It is obvious that there was no evidence to prove that the ghg effect exists.

    “In the 1860s, physicist John Tyndall recognized the Earth’s natural greenhouse effect and suggested that slight changes in the atmospheric composition could bring about climatic variations. In 1896, a seminal paper by Swedish scientist Svante Arrhenius first speculated that changes in the levels of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere could substantially alter the surface temperature through the greenhouse effect.”

    After 1909 when R.W.Wood proved that the understanding of the greenhouse effect was in error and the ghg effect does not exist. After Niels Bohr published his work and receive a Nobel Prize in Physics in 1922. The fantasy of the greenhouse gas effect should have died in 1909 and 1922. Since then it has been shown by several physicists that the concept is a Violation of the Second Law of Thermodynamics.

    Obviously the politicians don’t give a dam that they are lying. It fits in with what they do every hour of every day .Especially the current pretend president.
    Paraphrasing Albert Einstein after the Publishing of “The Theory of Relativity” –one fact out does 1 million “scientist, 10 billion politicians and 20 billion environmental whachos-that don’t know what” The Second Law of thermodynamics” is.

    University of Pennsylvania Law School
    ILE
    INSTITUTE FOR LAW AND ECONOMICS
    A Joint Research Center of the Law School, the Wharton School,
    and the Department of Economics in the School of Arts and Sciences
    at the University of Pennsylvania
    RESEARCH PAPER NO. 10-08
    Global Warming Advocacy Science: a Cross Examination
    Jason Scott Johnston
    UNIVERSITY OF PENNSYLVANIA
    May 2010
    This paper can be downloaded without charge from the
    Social Science Research Network Electronic Paper Collection:
    http://ssrn.
    Israeli Astrophysicist Nir Shaviv: ‘There is no direct evidence showing that CO2 caused 20th century warming, or as a matter of fact, any warming’ link to this paper on climate depot.
    Slaying the Sky Dragon – Death of the Greenhouse Gas Theory [Kindle Edition]
    Tim Ball (Author), Claes Johnson (Author), Martin Hertzberg (Author), Joseph A. Olson (Author), Alan Siddons (Author), Charles Anderson (Author), Hans Schreuder (Author), John O’Sullivan (Author)

    Web- site references:
    http://www.americanthinker.com Ponder the Maunder
    wwwclimatedepot.com
    icecap.us
    http://www.stratus-sphere.com
    SPPI
    The Great Climate Clash -archives December, 2010 , G3 The greenhouse gas effect does not exist.( not yet peer reviewed).
    many others are available.
    The bottom line is that the facts show that the greenhouse gas effect is a fairy-tale and that Man-made global warming is the World larges Scam!!!The IPCC and Al Gore should be charged under the US Anti-racketeering act and when convicted – they should spend the rest of their lives in jail for the Crimes they have committed against Humanity.
    The only thing more dangerous than ignorance is arrogance.”
    —Albert Einstein
    “Democracy is two wolves and a lamb deciding what to have for dinner. Liberty is a well-armed lamb.” Benjamin Franklin
    I am in the process of editing the text so it is more understandable And adding two more balloons for O2 and N2 but in it current text it should be usable.

    1. renewable guy

      cleanwater
      11. Juli 2011 at 23:08 | Permalink | Reply
      The Experiment that Failed and saved the World trillions.

      ############################

      http://books.google.com/books?hl=en&lr=&id=U-VmIrGGZgAC&oi=fnd&pg=PA1&dq=economics+of+climate+change&ots=9cnU5xknp8&sig=nEEEo24Rct18jba8FQp6m_eNgpk#v=onepage&q&f=false

      The stern report in a nutshell says that if we start now we can do the work for 2% of world gdp, at some point later of delayed action it will be 20% gdp.

    2. renewable guy

      cleanwater

      http://geosci.uchicago.edu/~archer/reprints/archer.2008.tail_implications.pdf

      Abstract The notion is pervasive in the climate science community and in the public at
      large that the climate impacts of fossil fuel CO2 release will only persist for a few centuries.
      This conclusion has no basis in theory or models of the atmosphere/ocean carbon cycle,
      which we review here. The largest fraction of the CO2 recovery will take place on time
      scales of centuries, as CO2 invades the ocean, but a significant fraction of the fossil fuel
      CO2, ranging in published models in the literature from 20–60%, remains airborne for a
      thousand years or longer. Ultimate recovery takes place on time scales of hundreds of
      thousands of years, a geologic longevity typically associated in public perceptions with
      nuclear waste. The glacial/interglacial climate cycles demonstrate that ice sheets and sea
      level respond dramatically to millennial-timescale changes in climate forcing. There are
      also potential positive feedbacks in the carbon cycle, including methane hydrates in the
      ocean, and peat frozen in permafrost, that are most sensitive to the long tail of the fossil fuel
      CO2 in the atmosphere.

      #######################

      Co2 has an incredibly long lifetime in the atmosphere. Our atmospheric peak co2
      is critical to our future generations in what kind of world they will live in. This will thaw out the earth and all the various feedbacks will take place that are positive.

      1. DirkH

        That is of course model driven rubbish. Here in reality, the temperature of the oceans drives the CO2 concentrations.
        http://debunkhouse.wordpress.com/2010/12/29/an-interesting-correlation-between-atmospheric-co2-and-sea-surface-temperatures/

  15. renewable guy

    Ed Caryl
    11. Juli 2011 at 19:14 | Permalink | Reply
    All of it!
    ##############

    Sorry Ed, but I need a little more than that for a discussion.

    http://www.skepticalscience.com/evidence-for-global-warming-intermediate.htm

    Observations show that the planet is changing in accordance with global warming theory.

    The evidence for global warming is being meticulously accumulated by scientists all over the world. This evidence includes the following independent observations that paint a consistent picture of global warming:

    Our planet is suffering an energy imbalance and is steadily accumulating heat (Hansen 2005, Murphy 2009, von Schuckmann 2009, Trenberth 2009)
    The height of the tropopause is increasing (Santer 2003, press release)
    Jet streams are moving poleward (Archer 2008, Seidel 2007, Fu 2006)
    The tropical belt is widening (Seidel 2007, Fu 2006)
    There is an increasing trend in record hot days versus record cold temperatures with currently twice as many record hot days than record cold temperatures (Meehle 2009, see press release).
    A shift towards earlier seasons (Stine 2009)
    Cooling and contraction of the upper atmosphere consistent with predicted effects of increasing greenhouse gases (Lastovicka 2008)
    Lake warming (Schneider & Hook 2010)

    1. Ed Caryl

      Oh, goody! A new list to refute or explain. This will take me a few days. Stand by.

    2. DirkH

      What does your list look like after removing computer model studies? Empty i suppose. Why would one want to ignore such studies? Simple: because the models have been wrong, are wrong and will be wrong. Why are they wrong? Because weather is chaotic and because they don’t include the necessary mechanisms. One example: To this day the models are incapable of reproducing cloudiness by latitude as observed in the real world. All that they can do is produce a global temp average that more or less resembles James Hansen’s misreconstruction of global temps (that he constantly re-adjusts to make the model hindcasting look better)

  16. renewable guy

    slimething
    11. Juli 2011 at 18:21 | Permalink | Reply
    renewable guy,
    Do climate models have gross errors in one or more key climate system metrics?
    ##################
    The uncertainty is measured and discussed in their papers.

    As for Dessler, he’s done nothing to refute Spencer. His latest regurgitated paper is nothing new.
    #################
    Its not Dessler’s job to refute Spencer. Its his job to observe climate and report to us. Here is his paper on cloud feedback.

    http://geotest.tamu.edu/userfiles/216/dessler10b.pdf

  17. renewable guy

    DirkH
    11. Juli 2011 at 20:46 | Permalink | Reply
    Hansen & Schmidt confirmed the energy imbalance using … a model.
    ###############

    And then the model is compared to actual observations

  18. renewable guy

    Dr. Killpatient
    10. Juli 2011 at 21:00 | Permalink | Reply
    An alarmist will never, ever be able to tell you what is “normal climate”.

    I’m assuming they mean room temperature until the Sun goes Red Giant in a few billion years
    #######################
    I’ll settle for a stable climate, which means reducing our ghg emissions to zero.

    1. Sparks

      “I’ll settle for a stable climate, which means reducing our ghg emissions to zero.”

      This is by far the most idiotic statement I have read so far this week from a man mad climate change proponent. Are for real? or are you joking around?

      (Laughing)

      1. Ulrich Elkmann

        “I’ll settle for a stable climate, which means reducing our ghg emissions to zero.”

        A fine illustration of what has been termed “Fractal Wrongness”: “You are not just wrong. You are wrong on every conceivable scale of resolution. Zooming in on any part of your worldview finds beliefs exactly as wrong as your entire worldview.” [e.g. /2010/03/fractal_wrongness.jpg]

        1. renewable guy

          http://www.skepticalscience.com/detailed-look-at-climate-sensitivity.html

          As the scientists at RealClimate put it,
          “Global warming of 2°C would leave the Earth warmer than it has been in millions of years, a disruption of climate conditions that have been stable for longer than the history of human agriculture. Given the drought that already afflicts Australia, the crumbling of the sea ice in the Arctic, and the increasing storm damage after only 0.8°C of warming so far, calling 2°C a danger limit seems to us pretty cavalier.”

          ######################################

          As you are so totally sure of yourself, here is a nice summary of where the scientists are.

          In this isolated little out of the way blog, a lot of you tune out the science so intensly that you are loosing touch with the basics that are absolutely true. Try studying what it is that you disagree with. Most denier blogs purposely gets the science wrong.

      2. renewable guy

        No. Its possible and taking place in many countries around the world now.

  19. renewable guy

    Lauren
    10. Juli 2011 at 07:07 | Permalink | Reply
    Anthropogenic global warming is a total fraud, an international effort of power and money grabbing based on the marxist concept of “wealth redistribution”.

    #####################

    I don’t know of any organization that is doing what you are saying. How is co2 a ghg a fraud?

    1. Ed Caryl

      “any organization”???
      The list is too long to list here, but here is a summary:
      Most western governments, led by the US, Australia, UK, Germany, etc.
      Any organization getting money from George Soros; there are about 50.
      Any organization associated with Al Gore.
      All the various carbon exchanges.
      NASA GISS.
      Any organization that puts the phrases, “global warming” or “climate change” into a paper, unless their intent is to refute the “catastrophic” slant of most on the subject.

      1. renewable guy

        Looks like pretty strong denial. Well co2 is a ghg, that is the crux of the problem. 97 out of 100 peer review scientists in climatology say yes agw is true and will give us problems. 2 say I don’t know and 1 says no. Very strong evidence points to human origon.

        That’s it on the short side.

        The rest is in the details. If your reality is that all science is wrong, then possibly you are in a cafeteria style accepting of what you like and what you don’t.

  20. renewable guy

    Nonoy Oplas
    10. Juli 2011 at 02:19 | Permalink | Reply
    “But humans do not have “a right to a stable climate”. That just does not exist. It never has existed. What is natural about the climate system is that it is not constant, it always changes. ” — I like that.
    ################

    We are emerging from the Holocene into the Anthropocene. The climate of the Holocene is going to be the warmest in our time. The climate that gives our great civilization is going to be left behind because of human ghg’s.

  21. Ed Caryl

    Answers to “renewable guy” on Global Warming Theory

    This author and “renewable guy” had a recent exchange on the credibility of James Hansen and his crew at GISS. He gave me the following list of observations that supposedly show that:

    “Observations show that the planet is changing in accordance with global warming theory.”

    It is nice to see someone admit it is a theory, rather than “the science is settled.”

    The evidence for global warming is being meticulously accumulated by scientists all over the world. This evidence includes the following independent observations that paint a consistent picture of global warming:”

    Our planet is suffering an energy imbalance and is steadily accumulating heat (Hansen 2005, Murphy 2009, von Schuckmann 2009, Trenberth 2009)”

    Not quite. See:
    ftp://ftp.fsl.orst.edu/pub/neilson/class-climate/tea%20kettle/Zhang07DecadalVarGlobalEnergyOceanHeat.pdf

    All the papers in the list above depend on models. When actual data is used no heat accumulation is seen.

    For sea surface temperature changes see:
    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/07/10/tisdale-on-sst-correlation-with-agw/

    “The height of the tropopause is increasing (Santer 2003, press release).”

    Two related papers, the first refuting Santer.
    http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/images/stories/papers/monckton/whatgreenhouse/moncktongreenhousewarming.pdf

    http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/pdf/10.1175/1520-0493%281999%29127%3C2248%3ATHAWAT%3E2.0.CO%3B2

    Figure 9 of the second paper by Hoinka shows no long term trend of tropopause height over the period 1979 thru 1993. There is however, great year to year variability.

    “Jet streams are moving poleward (Archer 2008, Seidel 2007, Fu 2006).”

    Not anymore. The ozone hole closing is counter-acting the warming affect. But this study is still using models.
    http://www.nature.com/nclimate/journal/v1/n1/full/nclimate1065.html

    The models depend on the temperature increasing. What if the temperature doesn’t follow the rules? And it has not over the last decade plus.

    “The tropical belt is widening (Seidel 2007, Fu 2006).”

    Same as above; two sides of the same coin. If the jets move poleward, the tropical zone gets wider.

    “There is an increasing trend in record hot days versus record cold temperatures with currently twice as many record hot days than record cold temperatures (Meehle 2009, see press release).”

    Have you heard of UHI? Here is an excellent compendium of the problem:
    http://www.c3headlines.com/global-warming-urban-heat-island-bias/

    Even NOAA knows the truth about that, and has known it for over 20 years.
    http://www.met.sjsu.edu/~wittaya/journals/Urbanizations.pdf

    There is also the increased reporting phenomenon; blame the Internet. This, and satellites, are responsible for much of the recent extreme weather reporting.

    NASA also knows.
    http://notrickszone.com/2011/01/21/giss-providence-in-urban-temperature-adjustment/

    “A shift towards earlier seasons (Stine 2009).”

    I found this paper:
    http://www.nature.com/climate/2009/0902/full/climate.2009.9.html

    The change was 1.7 days over 50 years. There are cyclic changes in temperature. The beginning year in this study was 1954, a relatively cool year for the twentieth century. If the study had begun 20 years earlier, the change would have been smaller.

    http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/7/75/Instrumental_Temperature_Record_%28NASA%29.svg

    The earth has been slowly warming since the end of the Little Ice Age. Seasons were much longer during the Medieval Warm Period, when grapes were cultivated in Scotland, as they can be cultivated now (with proper care, it’s still not as warm as southern England). In the last two thousand years, there have been two other periods when the growing season in northern Europe was as long as now: the Roman Warm Period, and the Medieval Warm Period. The cycle is now turning colder and will repeat.

    http://www.biocab.org/holocene.html

    “Cooling and contraction of the upper atmosphere consistent with predicted effects of increasing greenhouse gases (Lastovicka 2008).”

    Not quite, the sun has a much larger effect.
    http://science.nasa.gov/science-news/science-at-nasa/2010/15jul_thermosphere/

    “Lake warming (Schneider & Hook 2010).”

    Sure, since 1985. Look again in another 25 years.

    All the above points have the same problem. If you look at a particular section of data, or a model, for just a few years, trends can be seen that disappear over a longer time interval. The sun and long ocean cycles last from 70 to several hundred years. Making judgements over shorter intervals is foolish.

    Models have problems such as, lack of spatial and time resolution, and assumptions that may or may not correspond to how nature actually works. Due to the complexity of the actual climate system, even a tiny piece of garbage in the input to a climate model will quickly make the output all garbage. If one knows anything about Chaos Theory, one will doubt any present or even future climate model.

    The sun, ocean cycles, recovery from the little ice age, and urban heat island effects, account for all but about 0.2 to 0.3 degrees C of the recent warming. Climate sensitivity to CO2 is about 0.5 to 0.6 degrees C for CO2 doubling.

  22. E. Keith Owens

    It clearly shows that.the climate is dominated by the sun and then on top of that by the.oceans and then a little bit by the CO2 effect. That means relative to natural.climate change the influence by CO2 is very small and so it does not.justify any action for climate protection where wind parks are built.in order to save CO2.