redblueamerica.com

Current solar observations show that Solar Cycle #25 will be a dud, as will the one after it as the sun dims for a few decades. NASA has modeled the result of a broad solar slowdown: A cooler climate, especially inland.

CO2 became a cause celebre as climate science became reluctantly aware of the threat posed by increased humidity from CO2 warming, the worry being that the increased water vapor would compound the CO2-driven warming (alone very modest).

The current satellite data are not showing this, however, nor are they showing the oceans heating up (from autonomous submarine drones). Spencer & Christy analyzed the satellite data & found that the increased water vapor creates more rainclouds which have a net cooling effect. CO2 does warm the air, but only moderately, increases & accelerates the water cycle, but the water cycle self-regulates and brings temperatures back within a homeostatic range.

A 2004 study corroborates this with a much lower relative humidity than expected in the mid- & upper troposphere, corroborating Singer's findings of a much cooler troposphere than expected.

A recent study by Stephen Schwartz shows fast latency between temperature & ocean response, meaning that no portion of today's global warming is swept under the rug only to blindside us tomorrow & accelerating global warming (corroborated by the submarine drone data). The time constant is around 5 years, not 20. This is crucial in dismantling the worst-case scenario.

The Arctic / boreal thaw, as significant as it looks, is largely driven by ice-melting soot that makes for dirty snow. Huge amounts of soot are heating the air and melting the ice in the Arctic & Greenland.

Likewise airborne sooty clouds of soot & sulfates has been found to in fact cause a net heating effect, up to 40 percent of the atmospheric total. Again, this is crucial and almost a climatology upset - that brown clouds both heat the air *and* dim the surface. This issue has been known since 2003, but with V. Ramanathan's field data the UN IPCC will have to eventually re-list aerosols as a heating agent instead of a cooling agent. The effects of the Asian Brown Cloud span the globe and are contributing heavily to the Arctic thaw.

Again, CO2 has played a heating role, but since CO2's heating effects are already saturating with more and more of additional CO2 being emitted, CO2's current & future warming effects become less of an issue. In other words, future CO2 emissions will be increasingly exculpated for future warming. Soot and aerosols are taking over in adding new heating effects.

The beauty however, of this scenario, is that soot & aerosols are readily scrubbed from smoke stack and diesel tail pipe emissions.

Global warming is a real thing, but it's not dangerous as global cooling. The current projections for SC#25 in 2020 show we may well be facing the onset of a "solar grand minimum," hopefully one not as intense as the Little Ice Age. Regardless we'll be griping about global cooling within 20 years as the sun dims for several decades. The more-dangerous prospects of solar dimming is already being quietly discussed by serious policy analysts.

Tim Flannery & other folks on the climate alarmist bandwagon ignore these data to the peril of their reputations. Regardless, there is little point to defending Kyoto regardless, it's successor looks to be unworkable and dead on arrival: The Japanese - one of the most efficient societies on the planet - can't afford it. The Swedes only met their target through their heavy reliance on nuclear power. The EU is looking at the problem of carbon tax overheads creating such a big competitive advantage to Asia that Europe would be cutting its own throat.

All the renewable energy and carbon-trading rent-seekers hoping to hop on this bandwagon (including Al Gore with his $5 billion carbon-credit derivative fund) are heavily into defending Kyoto since a good many bet the farm on making industries and governments pay them a toll for using energy. They have more than one horse in this race, both green: One the environment and the other MONEY.

India & China, understandably, don't want to incur energy tax overheads, they have a billion people in poverty. What we're seeing from the loudest of the climate alarmists is the same kind of political inertia as Exxon's: Money.

Anyone who wants more info on this can find my postings on alt.global-warming on hhttp://groups.google.com/group/alt.global-warming/topics

/leebert

Wanna know what I think. If humans are causing climate change, then it's already too late to fix. They always pull these numbers out of their asss "oh in a few decades it will be too late," "oh in 50 years it will be too late"

But I don't believe it's demonstrated humans are causing global warming, sure it's happening. But we're too small and insignificant to change the entire Earth's climate. Trust me, we are. Do you know how much of this planet is ocean? 70%. Think of all the land of all countries and continents on Earth then think that's less than half of the water on the surface of it. We underestimate the size of our planet.

And I think far too many people always use the excuse "oh well if we are causing global warmings its a pretty bum risk to take in debating it."

Actually no it's not, because the money we'll waste in our economy by changing all the rules would be a bigger risk if it wasn't being caused by us. That means all the money we put to changing out entire society would be wasted money for a natural cycle.

Tim Flannery is a nutcase.