wow, had some technical trouble to read the video. However I got the main issues.

You refer to the measurement posts in urban and rural areas. Do you have a global result on their positions?

Here in Germany the most people are convinced that CO2 is the culprit -- however I am discussing that with cleanstate (cleanstate.de)

kind regards
Jörg Kampmann

Thanks for the work you have done to prepare your presentation.

I agree with many of the observations made in your presentation, including some of the areas in which science remains uncertain, but view the uncertainty as a major argument for immediate action to reduce emissions and the potential threats they pose to our children and grandchildren. In this regard you may wish to review Jim Hansen's new book:

stormsofmygrandchildren.com/

which was published after your video was made.

My further observations and comments may be summarized as follows:

1) The impact of carbon dioxide and other green house gases (collectively GHGs) on climate has been understood since the 1820’s, and reasonably well estimated since the turn of the 19th century.

2) Human activity is having a massive and growing impact on atmospheric chemistry, both in relative and absolute terms, such that it would be irresponsible to assume (contrary to science that has remained undisputed since the 19th century) that the change will not have a substantial and detrimental effect on climate.

3) The reference to changes over a short term period (such as the last decade) are not proof of climate change (or the speed of same) – factors such as the massive discharges of cooling aerosols by countries such as China and India, cyclical changes ocean currents, minor cyclical variations in solar output, etc. can all mask the inexorable long term impact of GHG emissions (for the short term).

4) There are numerous reasons to fear positive feedbacks and out of control climate change (these include the rapid warming of the arctic and Antarctic regions due to loss of ice cover, massive releases of frozen methane from tundra and ocean floors, desertification of rain forests, etc.

5) Positive feedbacks will predictably lead to massive human and security impacts due to rising sea levels which will increasingly and predictably lead to loss of seashore areas inhabited by hundreds of millions, and the vulnerability of billions to potential climate impacts on their food supply. These potential impacts far outweigh any potential costs of mitigation.

6) Carbon taxes such as those imposed in Europe and the UK (on the order of $4 per gallon of gas), are in fact effective and have resulted in Europeans enjoying a comparable standard of living while emitting less than half of the GHG emissions per capita of North Americans.

7) Many experts agree with your suggestion that a tax and dividend (or tax reduction) is far preferable to a cap and trade model.

The following are some numerical data and other support for the foregoing:

1) During most of the time of our existence as a species, the amounts of carbon in the atmosphere has ranged from 190 ppm (during the ice ages) to 280 ppm (a difference of 90 ppm) during the interglacial periods such as that leading up to the current period. The difference between these two levels is approximately 220 billion tons. Human activity around the globe has added more than 220 billion tons of carbon to the atmosphere since 1750 (with most of it being added in the last 50 years). The current concentration is approaching 390 ppm. The rate of GHG emissions continue to increase and are currently increasing atmospheric concentrations by more than 2 ppm per year. This corresponds to approximately 4.8 billion tons per year (and average of approximately 0.7 tons per year per each of the planet’s 6.8 billion inhabitants – keep in mind that North Americans are responsible for approximately 20 Tons per person per year).

2) The ability of carbon dioxide, methane and other greenhouse gases to trap heat (in the form of infrared radiation) have been know and understood since the 1820's (Fourier) and is the basis of the relatively simple, model developed by Arrhenius at the end of the 19th century which predicts substantial increases in average temperature as a result of increased GHG concentrations.

3) The thawing of frozen methane (methane hydrates) is known to have led to sudden climate change in the geologic past and has been identified as are one of the factors which could well lead to run away climate change. Methane hydrates are found all over the world. Methane produced by anaerobic decay gets trapped in ice or silt as methane hydrates until increased temperature or reduced pressure leads to its release. Frozen methane hydrates can contain 170 times their own volume of methane and are found in seabed deposits in the Arctic. Methane is also trapped by permafrost which covers layers of vegetable material that is decaying and producing methane. Melting the permafrost allows the methane to escape into the atmosphere. It has been estimated that hundreds or thousands of billions of Tons of methane are trapped in the permafrost and methane hydrates. Since methane is approximately 60 times as effective (for a ten year time frame) as carbon dioxide in terms of its green house impact it is easy to see how methane emissions could quickly overtake the human emissions of GHGs and lead to uncontrollable, runaway climate change.

4) Such rapid warming could dramatically accelerate the melting of the ice in the arctic and on Antarctica (which is currently expected to take place over centuries). To put this in context, the melting of all of that ice would increase sea levels by about 230 feet, with the obvious catastrophic impacts on all coastal areas below that level. (While sea levels are currently rising quite slowly plans to relocate residents from low elevation islands are in the process of being implemented.) Climate changes involving the monsoon rains would threaten the food supply of the billions who live there, with obvious implications for global security.

5) While these models are not perfectly proven, the significant risk of such outcomes requires that we protect civilization from these potential outcomes.

Thanks again.

Richard.

Richard,

Various published assessments of the value of the climate models, including by the IPCC WG1, concluded that the models are worthless in predicting any climate behavior for any length of time, even a year. Scientists claiming confidence in identifying the effects of human activity on long-term climate or predicting the environmental impact GHG reduction measures, while knowing their models are practically useless in explaining any observations, are dishonest.

There have been numerous systematic exposures of the shaky scientific foundations and deliberate distortions of IPCC statements. For example, read the book "Global Warming False Alarms" by Russell Lewis - it's posted fully on line at globalwarminghype.com/upld-book403pdf_.pdf . Since it was published years ahead of the recent revelations of scientific misconduct, it's quite prescient.

Doron

Doron;
Agreed; the core error in the CAGW position is the postulation of a positive feedback mechanism which is grossly un-physical (contrary to science), and which is totally contrary to observation.

Warren; you may want to stop ceding the 270 ppm pre-industrial number. Here's a chart of the 1938 cherry-picking used by Collandar, and relied on ever since: canadafreepress.com/images/uploads/ball122809-1.jpg from canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/18343

The actual average since 1790 was about 335 ppm, with wide variation -- up to 500 ppm.

Further, don't cede too much re CH4. It's persistence in atmosphere is 10-15 years. CO2 is even less.

another non scientist causing trouble. if he lives another 40 years he will definately be proven wrong. typically it's an American - the biggest consumers on the planet who cause the most damage. China will be a model of sustainability in the 21st Century. America will not. We will all suffer. Some are guilty, all are responsible.