In return for many tens of billions of dollars the claim by the warmist science is that human emissions of the satanic gas, annual volume currently at 4 parts per million (0.0004% of the atmosphere), drives warming.
To support that claim climate science has yet to explain how sum annual emissions of oceans and land at a guesstimated 98 ppm (UN IPCC ARFour report fig. 7.3) are reabsorbed as well as 2 ppm from human emissions leaving less than 2 ppm of human emissions in the air. (According to NOAA global additions average ~1.9ppm p.a.)
Natural absorbers of CO2 do not show preference otherwise there would be e.g. a 4 ppm addition to the air in 2007 and global increases would be escalating along with human production. They aren't. There is an almost perfect straight line increase of ~1.9 ppm p.a. When the raw data for CO2 additions are considered, there is no resemblance to escalating human output.
Science has yet to show how almost 2 parts per million (0.0002% of the atmosphere) per year addition drives the climate both up and down. Weather cannot be predicted by human CO2 emissions let alone all emissions. Climate cannot be predicted at anytime in the past by CO2 volume. Gang-green scientists have yet to show evidence of CO2 leading temperature or prove how it drives warming when it rises and falls after temperature changes. Ice cores around the world agree CO2 volume follows temperature up to a thousand years after temperature change. Ice core data has been ~confirmed by sediment core data. Yet climate variation can and has been predicted by the Pacific Southern Oscillation Index (SOI), a measure of El Nino influence on surface layer ocean temperature variation together with solar emissions. For the last few years, Piers Corbyn of Weather Action has very accurately predicted weather events ahead of time using solar "weather" conditions. He uses a hand-held calculator.
The only support the warmista has is models that crazily assume CO2 drives warming. There are dozens of them that all produce different outcomes by "tweaking" included variables. The UN IPCC selected a dozen that best suited their contention and declared the science was settled. None has been able to predict the climate. The UN IPCC put the results of the models together and said there you go, we got it right. Projecting the "homogenised" model results gives millennia scale projections of between Uranus conditions (-200C) to solar surface temperatures. The fact is that none of the selected models predicted that, and as one of the UN IPCC's central scientists admitted, there was no warming of any significance for the last 15 years. There has been almost continuous criticism of the faith put in climate models as predictors of climate, even notable modellers admit that all they can produce are "what if" scenarios. Since 1988, being extremely generous, models have scored the first 7right from 22 years. Next year it will be from 23 and so on.
The famous consensus is just another glint in the IPCC's one eye. Link (consensus=1) Link (consensus=a few dozen)
What other credible scientific evidence is there that human emissions in any way significantly affect the climate? None. Joanne Nova has produced the Sceptic's Handbook I and II that detail why the protagonist claims are false.
Scientists unconvinced by warmist rhetoric are searching for the real drivers of the climate. Debunks of the fancy that CO2 is a climate driver abound. The leading contender is that the Sun is the primary source. The amount of radiation that reaches the top of the troposphere after passing through high atmosphere filters is guessed to be around 341 Watts per sq. mtr (Wm2). The amount that reaches the surface, that is available as IR is guessed to be 161 Wm2. This last is a highly variable number, the reason being that we have ozone, a strong absorber of UV, oxygen and water in the air that diffuse sunlight and of course clouds that reflect much sunlight back to space. We also have to account for the albedo of ice that varies depending on the season, penetration of warm currents and crops. Light coloured crops have a high albedo and darker crops absorb more solar energy. Models based on CO2 being the agent of doom are hopeless at predicting albedo, cloudiness, precipitation etc. i.e. useless.
Dr Spencer is the most public and possibly leading researcher and theorist concerning the influence of cloud and he has found that small changes in cloud extent can have a large impact on lower atmosphere temperatures.
The deeply superstitious Sir J Houghton (spawner of the Hadley clan and co-architect of the UNEP/IPCC disaster) in cahoots with the fugitive former UN/FCCC/UNEP/IPCC star M. Strong looks to have been the main instigator in the UK for all the CO2 crud that spawned all the gang-green crap.
His theory. His perfect creator made us to emit CO2 and absorb oxygen in return for biomass absorbing CO2 and emitting oxygen. More of one causes more of the other. We are to be punished for the sin of emitting CO2. Words escape me. (That was a joke.)
Fraud 1. Maldives, Tuvalu, sea levels
Fraud 2. Carbon Capture and Storage (CCS)
Fraud 3. Carbon credits
Fraud 4. The Wind Energy Boondoggle
Supplement to Fraud 4. Wind Energy
Fraud 5. Biofuel Boondoggle
Fraud 6. AGW by CO2 is settled science (by consensus)
Fraud 7. The IPCC - Its Reason For Being
Physicist decries the returned radiative energy warming amplification notion. (how can thermal energy at a level lower than the emitting surface level cause the emitting surface to warm?)
Given the emissivity of the soil (0.82) (references 1 and 5) compared with the emissivity of the carbon dioxide (0.0017), the load of energy from the surface to the space capable of causing induced emission from the mass of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is 53 W/m^2 sr; in contrast, the load of energy emitted by the carbon dioxide to all directions gives a total of 0.28 W/m^2 sr, at all wavelengths corresponding to the spectral emission of carbon dioxide at all bands.
Other physicists' POV.
Freeman Dyson: The real world is muddy and messy and full of things that we do not yet understand. It is much easier for a scientist to sit in an air-conditioned building and run computer models, than to put on winter clothes and measure what is really happening outside in the swamps and the clouds. That is why the climate model experts end up believing their own models.
Robert Laughlin: The geologic record suggests that climate ought not to concern us too much when we’re gazing into the energy future, not because it’s unimportant, but because it’s beyond our power to control.
Edward Teller: Society's emissions of carbon dioxide may or may not turn out to have something significant to do with global warming--the jury is still out.
Frederick Seitz: Research data on climate change do not show that human use of hydrocarbons is harmful. To the contrary, there is good evidence that increased atmospheric carbon dioxide is environmentally helpful.
Robert Jastrow: The scientific facts indicate that all the temperature changes observed in the last 100 years were largely natural changes and were not caused by carbon dioxide produced in human activities.
William Nirenberg: The available data on climate change, however, do not support these predictions, nor do they support the idea that human activity has caused, or will cause, a dangerous increase in global temperatures. ...These facts indicate that theoretical estimates of the greenhouse problem have greatly exaggerated its seriousness.
Ferenc Miskolczi's (former NASA physicist) new peer-reviewed paper places a well-deserved death knell on the crumbling greenhouse gas theory of man-made global warming, stating:
The data negate increase in CO2 in the atmosphere as a hypothetical cause for the apparently observed global warming. A hypothesis of significant positive feedback by water vapor effect on atmospheric infrared absorption is also negated by the observed measurements. Apparently major revision of the physics underlying the greenhouse effect is needed.
Jeffrey A. Glassman, (PhD) has contributed severally to the dismissal of CO2 additions as a significant factor :
CO2 acquittal. (rev. 11/16/09)
On why CO2 is known not to have accumulated in the atmosphere & what is happening with CO2 in the modern era. (rev. 3/14/10)
The cause of Earth's climate change is the Sun. (3/27/10. Cor. 4/17/10)