Criminal Conspiracy and Agenda 21

By Roger Fredinburg (News with Views)


Lets put the monsters behind bars


The Anti-Human environmental movement is inundated with un-American Ideals and they are a far more dangerous threat to our safety and well being than any of the other radical terror groups on earth.

The plotting and planning, the hidden agendas and the penetration into our government and media at every level, is easily the most successful infiltration of communitarian and communist agents inside the US media and our government ever.

Their ultimate goal? Total annihilation of the US and Global population to 15% of current levels, and I can prove that from their own training documents. Even Adolph Hitler wasn't that committed.

They do it through programs like Agenda 21, a UN sanctioned global initiative designed to place infil-TRAITORS [spelling intentional] inside key US Government agencies at every level, local to national, for the sole purpose of stealing the most valuable asset any American has, our individual freedom and liberty.

The champions of this Globalist criminal conspiracy use those same infil-TRAITORS to bind together as a collateral political force to coerce and intimidate any detractors, and to physically and financially support candidates to elective offices to do their bidding. These criminal conspirators are helping to ruin America and destroy the nation by separating the people from their source of power; the US Constitution, one stupid rule at a time.

The dumbed down brainwashed masses in America today, mostly have a low work ethic and see no fault in robbing their fellow Americans through senseless regulations, taxes and moronic policies. These leaches on society are happy to comply with these anti-human, anti-American infil-TRAITORS for a hand full of food stamps, a rent voucher and a medical marijuana card. 

The solution is obvious to me. It is to gather the last few remaining patriots together in a do or die effort to pool financial resources and to demand criminal charges. We must find a way to fund civil lawsuits against these rotten people and use media to push for criminal charges. These folks are empowered by their useless government or media positions to quietly bring about the collapse of this nation. Like a Trojan horse, they are the enemies within and they are succeeding.

The most important thing to remember in my view is this fact; EVERY one of these folks in the bureaucracy, appointed, elected or hired took an oath of office that requires them to "defend" the US Constitution. Can they really claim that they are doing that?  We can easily prove that they meet in secret to plot and conspire about how best to rob us of our money, life force, inalienable rights and our future. And a criminal conspiracy to over-throw the United States of America by fiat, as best as I can tell, under the rules of the Patriot act is an act of terrorism.

One of the primary material losses we have suffered as individuals, and as a group, is that of the American dream. There is no way to put a dollar value on that. We can prove that it's been damaged beyond repair by these treacherous un-American people who pushed extreme land use planning laws, and forced anti-traditional family values regulations, robbing families of their sovereignty. These over-paid charlatans have even put animal rights over human rights and indebted the next 100 generations of un-born Americans. That is involuntary servitude where I live. This nonsense has developed into the most egregious Human Rights assault in American history. We need a new civil rights movement now, and I am asking you to be part of it.

Criminal conspiracy is defined as an agreement between two or more people to commit a crime or to perpetrate an illegal act. Conspiracy crimes that are federal can include conspiracy to engage in criminal activity such as conspiracy to violate federal laws. [and I think Oaths of Office] Conspiracy charges in state court are very similar, but there are many more crimes that will give rise to state conspiracy charges. While intent is key in any federal conspiracy case, only "general intent" to violate the law is necessary; proof of the defendants' specific intent to violate the law is not needed, only an agreement to engage in an illegal act. The end may be legal, but the planned means are illegal. For example, two persons making a plan to "take" another person's property (illegal) to donate to another undeserving person (legal) would be guilty of conspiracy.

U.S.C. Title 18, Chapter 19 prohibits conspiracies to defraud the United States, conspiracies to impede or injure an officer, and conspiracies to commit violent crimes. However, conspiracy is prohibited in several other federal statutes. It is important to note that an actual crime is not necessary to prosecute a conspiracy case - only the stated intent to break the law.  [So, I contend that a conspiracy to break your oath as a group might qualify] This means that even if the ultimate crime was not committed, the conspirators can be prosecuted under federal law. 

However, most states have laws that prevent conspiracy charges to be pressed if no actions were taken to actually carry out the conspiracy. This prevents people from effectively being prosecuted for having thoughts of breaking the law. While this caveat does prevent some conspiracy cases from going to court, it does not reduce the severity of a criminal conspiracy claim. In many cases, conspiracy to commit a crime such as murder is regarded as a crime as severe as murder itself.



Environmental Effects of Increased Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide

{This article supports the observation that Anthropogenic sources of carbon dioxide are not causing global warming or climate change. As can clearly be seen in the Figures, the Medieval warming period shows much greater temperatures than those of post modern industrialization. Additionally, sea levels have been rising well before the onset of the oil and gas age.

This is an abridged version of the original piece by Arthur Robinson, Noah Robinson and Willie Soon, a bit lengthy but well worth the read. It is reprinted by permission of the authors. The complete article is available here. - Ed. }

by Arthur Robinson, Noah E. Robinson, and Willie Soon


Figure 1 (Main photo): Average length of 169 glaciers from 1700 to 2000 (4). The principal source of melt energy is solar radiation. Variations in glacier mass and length are primarily due to temperature and precipitation (5,6). This melting trend lags the temperature increase by about 20 years, so it predates the 6-fold increase in hydrocarbon use (7) even more than shown in the figure. Hydrocarbon use could not have caused this shortening trend.

Political leaders gathered in Kyoto, Japan, in December 1997 to consider a world treaty restricting human production of "greenhouse gases," chiefly carbon dioxide (CO2). They feared that CO2 would result in "human-caused global warming" – hypothetical severe increases in Earth's temperatures, with disastrous environmental consequences. During the past 10 years, many political efforts have been made to force worldwide agreement to the Kyoto treaty.

When we reviewed this subject in 1998 (1,2), existing satellite records were short and were centered on a period of changing intermediate temperature trends. Additional experimental data have now been obtained, so better answers to the questions raised by the hypothesis of "human-caused global warming" are now available.

Figure 2: Surface temperatures in the Sargasso Sea, a two million square mile region of the Atlantic Ocean, with time resolution of 50 to 100 years and ending in 1975, as determined by isotope ratios of marine organism remains in sediment at the bottom of the sea (3). The horizontal line is the average temperature for this 3,000-year period. The Little Ice Age and Medieval Climate Optimum were naturally occurring, extended intervals of climate departures from the mean. A value of 0.25 °C, which is the change in Sargasso Sea temperature between 1975 and 2006, has been added to the 1975 data in order to provide a 2006 temperature value.

The average temperature of the Earth has varied within a range of about 3°C during the past 3,000 years. It is currently increasing as the Earth recovers from a period that is known as the Little Ice Age, as shown in Figure 2. George Washington and his army were at Valley Forge during the coldest era in 1,500 years, but even then the temperature was only about 1° Centigrade below the 3,000-year average.

During the Medieval Climate Optimum, temperatures were warm enough to allow the colonization of Greenland. These colonies were abandoned after the onset of colder temperatures. For the past 200 to 300 years, Earth temperatures have been gradually recovering (26). Sargasso Sea temperatures are now approximately equal to the average for the previous 3,000 years.

The historical record does not contain any report of "global warming" catastrophes, even though temperatures have been higher than they are now during much of the last three millennia.

Figure 3: Arctic surface air temperature compared with total solar irradiance as measured by sunspot cycle amplitude, sunspot cycle length, solar equatorial rotation rate, fraction of penumbral spots, and decay rate of the 11-year sunspot cycle (8,9). Solar irradiance correlates well with Arctic temperature, while hydrocarbon use (7) does not correlate.

The most recent part of this warming period is reflected by shortening of world glaciers, as shown in Figure 4. Glaciers regularly lengthen and shorten in delayed correlation with cooling and warming trends. Shortening lags temperature by about 20 years, so the current warming trend began in about 1800.

Figure 4: Average length of 169 glaciers from 1700 to 2000 (4). The principal source of melt energy is solar radiation. Variations in glacier mass and length are primarily due to temperature and precipitation (5,6). This melting trend lags the temperature increase by about 20 years, so it predates the 6-fold increase in hydrocarbon use (7) even more than shown in the figure. Hydrocarbon use could not have caused this shortening trend.

Surface temperatures in the United States during the past century reflect this natural warming trend and its correlation with solar activity, as shown in Figure 3. Compiled U.S. surface temperatures have increased about 0.5 °C per century, which is consistent with other historical values of 0.4 to 0.5 °C per century during the recovery from the Little Ice Age (13-17). This temperature change is slight as compared with other natural variations. Three intermediate trends are evident, including the decreasing trend used to justify fears of "global cooling" in the 1970s.

ATMOSPHERIC CARBON DIOXIDE

During the past 50 years, atmospheric CO2 has increased by 22%. The magnitude of this atmospheric increase is currently about 4 gigatons (Gt C) of carbon per year. Total human industrial CO2 production, primarily from use of coal, oil, and natural gas and the production of cement, is currently about 8 Gt C per year (7,56,57). Humans also exhale about 0.6 Gt C per year, which has been sequestered by plants from atmospheric CO2. Office air concentrations often exceed 1,000 ppm CO2.

Much of that CO2 increase is attributable to the 6-fold increase in human use of hydrocarbon energy. However, figures 2, 3, &4 show that human use of hydrocarbons has not caused the observed increases in temperature.

Between 1900 and 2000, on absolute scales of solar irradiance and degrees Kelvin, solar activity increased 0.19%, while a 0.5 °C temperature change is 0.21%. This is in good agreement with estimates that Earth's temperature would be reduced by 0.6 °C through particulate blocking of the sun by 0.2%(18).

Figure 5: U.S. surface temperature from Figure 3 as compared with total solar irradiance (19).


Between 1900 and 2006, Antarctic CO2 increased 30% per 0.1 °C temperature change (72), and world CO2 increased 30% per 0.5 °C. In addition to ocean out-gassing, CO2 from human use of hydrocarbons is a new source. Neither this new source nor the older natural CO2 sources are causing atmospheric temperature to change.

Carbon dioxide has a very short residence time in the atmosphere. Beginning with the 7 to 10-year half-time of CO2 in the atmosphere estimated by Revelle and Seuss (69), there were 36 estimates of the atmospheric CO2 half-time based upon experimental measurements published between 1957 and 1992 (59). These range between 2 and 25 years, with a mean of 7.5, a median of 7.6, and an upper range average of about 10. Of the 36 values, 33 are 10 years or less.

There is no experimental evidence to support computer model estimates (73) of a CO2 atmospheric "lifetime" of 300 years or more.


FERTILIZATION OF PLANTS BY CO2


How high will the CO2 concentration of the atmosphere ultimately rise if mankind continues to increase the use of coal, oil, and natural gas? At ultimate equilibrium with the ocean and other reservoirs there will probably be very little increase. The current rise is a non-equilibrium result of the rate of approach to equilibrium. One reservoir that would moderate the increase is especially important.

Plant life provides a large sink for CO2. Using current knowledge about the increased growth rates of plants and assuming increased CO2 release as compared to current emissions, it has been estimated that atmospheric CO2 levels may rise to about 600 ppm before leveling off. At that level, CO2 absorption by increased Earth biomass is able to absorb about 10 Gt C per year (100).

Does a catastrophic amplification of these trends with damaging climatological consequences lie ahead? There are no experimental data that suggest this. There is also no experimentally validated theoretical evidence of such an amplification.

GLOBAL WARMING HYPOTHESIS

Predictions of catastrophic global warming are based on computer climate modeling, a branch of science still in its infancy. The empirical evidence – actual measurements of Earth's temperature and climate – shows no man-made warming trend. Indeed, during four of the seven decades since 1940 when average CO2 levels steadily increased, U.S. average temperatures were actually decreasing. While CO2 levels have increased substantially and are expected to continue doing so and humans have been responsible for part of this increase, the effect on the environment has been benign.

Not only has the global warming hypothesis failed experimental tests, it is theoretically flawed as well. It can reasonably be argued that cooling from negative physical and biological feedbacks to greenhouse gases nullifies the slight initial temperature rise (84,86).

Figure 6: Qualitative illustration of greenhouse warming. "Present GHE" is the current greenhouse effect from all atmospheric phenomena. "Radiative effect of CO2" is the added greenhouse radiative effect from doubling CO2 without consideration of other atmospheric components. "Hypothesis 1 IPCC" is the hypothetical amplification effect assumed by IPCC. "Hypothesis 2" is the hypothetical moderation effect.


When an increase in CO2 increases the radiative input to the atmosphere, how and in which direction does the atmosphere respond? Hypotheses about this response differ and are schematically shown in Figure 6. Without the water-vapor greenhouse effect, the Earth would be about 14 ºC cooler (81). The radiative contribution of doubling atmospheric CO2 is minor, but this radiative greenhouse effect is treated quite differently by different climate hypotheses.

The hypotheses that the IPCC (82,83) has chosen to adopt predict that the effect of CO2 is amplified by the atmosphere, especially by water vapor, to produce a large temperature increase. Other hypotheses, shown as hypothesis 2, predict the opposite – that the atmospheric response will counteract the CO2 increase and result in insignificant changes in global temperature (81,84,85,91,92). The experimental evidence, as described above, favors hypothesis 2.

The computer climate models upon which "human-caused global warming" is based have substantial uncertainties and are markedly unreliable. This is not surprising, since the climate is a coupled, non-linear dynamical system. It is very complex. Figure 7 illustrates the difficulties by comparing the radiative CO2 greenhouse effect with correction factors and uncertainties in some of the parameters in the computer climate calculations. Other factors, too, such as the chemical and climatic influence of volcanoes, cannot now be reliably computer modeled.

Figure 7: The radiative greenhouse effect of doubling the concentration of atmospheric CO2 (right bar) as compared with four of the uncertainties in the computer climate models.

The greenhouse effect amplifies solar warming of the earth. Greenhouse gases such as H2O, CO2, and CH4 in the Earth's atmosphere, through combined convective readjustments and the radiative blanketing effect, essentially decrease the net escape of terrestrial thermal infrared radiation. Increasing CO2, therefore, effectively increases radiative energy input to the Earth's atmosphere. The path of this radiative input is complex. It is redistributed, both vertically and horizontally, by various physical processes, including advection, convection, and diffusion in the atmosphere and ocean.

The reasons for the failure of the computer climate models are subjects of scientific debate (87). For example, water vapor is the largest contributor to the overall greenhouse effect (88). It has been suggested that the climate models treat feedbacks from clouds, water vapor, and related hydrology incorrectly (85,89-92).

The 3,000-year temperature record illustrated in Figure 1 also provides a test of the computer models. The historical temperature record shows that the Earth has previously warmed far more than could be caused by CO2 itself. Since these past warming cycles have not initiated water-vapor-mediated atmospheric warming catastrophes, it is evident that weaker effects from CO2 cannot do so.

There is no indication whatever in the experimental data that an abrupt or remarkable change in any of the ordinary natural climate variables is beginning or will begin to take place.

CONCLUSIONS

There are no experimental data to support the hypothesis that increases in human hydrocarbon use or in atmospheric carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases are causing or can be expected to cause unfavorable changes in global temperatures, weather, or landscape. There is no reason to limit human production of CO2, CH4, and other minor greenhouse gases as has been proposed (82,83,97,123).

We also need not worry about environmental calamities even if the current natural warming trend continues. The Earth has been much warmer during the past 3,000 years without catastrophic effects. Warmer weather extends growing seasons and generally improves the habitability of colder regions.

As coal, oil, and natural gas are used to feed and lift from poverty vast numbers of people across the globe, more CO2 will be released into the atmosphere. This will help to maintain and improve the health, longevity, prosperity, and productivity of all people.


References:

1. Robinson, A. B., Baliunas, S. L., Soon, W., and Robinson, Z. W. (1998) Journal of American Physicians and Surgeons 3, 171-178.

2. Soon, W., Baliunas, S. L., Robinson, A. B., and Robinson, Z. W. (1999) Climate Res. 13, 149-164.

3. Keigwin, L. D. (1996) Science 274, 1504-1508. ftp://ftp.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/paleo/contributions_by_author/keigwin1996/

4. Oerlemanns, J. (2005) Science 308, 675-677.

5. Oerlemanns, J., Björnsson, H., Kuhn, M., Obleitner, F., Palsson, F., Smeets, C. J. P. P., Vugts, H. F., and De Wolde, J. (1999) Boundary-Layer Meteorology 92, 3-26.

6. Greuell, W. and Smeets, P. (2001) J. Geophysical Res. 106, 31717-31727.

7. Marland, G., Boden, T. A., and Andres, R. J. (2007) Global, Regional, and National CO2 Emissions. In Trends: A Compendium of Data on Global Change. Carbon Dioxide Information Analysis Center,Oak Ridge National Laboratory, U.S. Department of Energy, Oak Ridge, TN, USA, http://cdiac.ornl.gov/trends/emis/tre_glob.htm

8. Soon, W. (2005) Geophysical Research Letters 32, 2005GL023429.

9. Hoyt, D. V. and Schatten, K. H. (1993) J. Geophysical Res. 98, 18895-18906.

10. - 132. are available in the original publication.



Cold Facts on Global Warming: Global temperature caused by doubling atmospheric CO2 is bounded by an upper limit of 1.4-2.7 degrees centigrade

{The article below supports the observation that Anthropogenic sources of carbon dioxide are not significantly affecting either global warming or climate change. These man made sources of CO2 are calculated and documented in Global Warming or global fraud? This is an abridged version of the original T. J. Nelson piece, still quite lengthy but well worth the read. It is reprinted by permission of the author. The complete article is available here. - Ed. }

Photo above: Absorption of ultraviolet, visible, and infrared radiation by various gases in the atmosphere. Most of the ultraviolet light (below 0.3 microns) is absorbed by ozone (O3) and oxygen (O2). Carbon dioxide has three large absorption bands in the infrared region at about 2.7, 4.3, and 15 microns. Water has several absorption bands in the infrared, and even has some absorption well into the microwave region. {Peixoto, J.P. and Oort, A.H., Physics of Climate, Springer, 1992, p. 118.}



by T. J. Nelson

What is the contribution of anthropogenic carbon dioxide to global warming? This question has been the subject of many heated arguments, and a great deal of hysteria. In this article, we will consider a simple calculation, based on well-accepted facts, that shows that the expected global temperature increase caused by doubling atmospheric carbon dioxide levels is bounded by an upper limit of 1.4-2.7 degrees centigrade. This result contrasts with the results of the IPCC's climate models, whose projections are shown to be unrealistically high.

There is general agreement that the Earth is naturally warmed to some extent by atmospheric gases, principally water vapor, in what is often called a "greenhouse effect". The Earth absorbs enough radiation from the sun to raise its temperature by 0.5 degrees per day, but is theoretically capable of emitting sufficient long-wave radiation to cool itself by 5 times this amount. The Earth maintains its energy balance in part by absorption of the outgoing longwave radiation in the atmosphere, which causes warming.

On this basis, it has been estimated that the current level of warming is on the order of 33 degrees C. That is to say, in the absence of so-called greenhouse gases, the Earth would be 33 degrees cooler than it is today, or about 255 K (-0.4° F). Of these greenhouse gases, water is by far the most important. Although estimates of the contribution from water vapor vary widely, most sources place it between 90 and 95% of the warming effect, or about 30-31 of the 33 degrees. Carbon dioxide, although present in much lower concentrations than water, absorbs more infrared radiation than water on a per-molecule basis and contributes about 84% of the total non-water greenhouse gas equivalents, or about 4.2-8.4% of the total greenhouse gas effect.

The 33 degree increase in temperature is not caused simply by absorption of radiation but mostly by the Earth's adaptation to higher temperatures, which includes secondary effects such as increased water vapor, cloud formation, and changes in albedo or surface reflectivity caused by melting and aging of snow and ice. Accurately calculating the relative contribution of each of these components presents major difficulties.

Traditionally, greenhouse gas levels are presented as dimensionless numbers representing parts per billion (ppb) multiplied by a scaling factor (global warming potential- GWP) that allows their relative efficiency of producing global temperature increases to be compared. For carbon dioxide, this scaling factor is 1.0. The factors for methane and nitrous oxide are 21 and 310, respectively, while sulfur hexafluoride is 23,900 times more effective than carbon dioxide. The GWP from carbon dioxide is primarily due to the position of its absorption bands in the critical longwave infrared region at 2, 3, 5, and 13-17 micrometers.

Methane, nitrous oxide, ozone, CFCs and other miscellaneous gases absorb radiation even more efficiently than carbon dioxide, but are also present at much lower concentrations. Their high GWP results from their molecular structure which makes them absorb strongly and at different wavelengths from water vapor and carbon dioxide. For example, although ozone is usually thought of as an absorber of ultraviolet radiation, it also absorbs longwave infrared at 9.6 micrometers. These gases account for another 1.3% of the natural greenhouse gas effect. The increase in the global energy balance caused by greenhouse gases is called "radiative forcing".

The GWP of a greenhouse gas is the ratio of the time-integrated radiative forcing from 1 kg of the gas in question compared to 1 kg of carbon dioxide. These GWP values are calculated over a 100 year time horizon and take into consideration not only the absorption of radiation at different wavelengths, but also the different atmospheric lifetimes of each gas and secondary effects such as effects on water vapor. For some gases, the GWP is too complex to calculate because the gas participates in complex chemical reactions. Most researchers use the GWPs compiled by the World Meteorological Organization (WMO).

Even though most of the so-called greenhouse effect is caused by water vapor, about 1-2 degrees of our current empirically-measured temperature of roughly 288 K (59° F) can be attributed to carbon dioxide. Water vapor is at least 99.99% of 'natural' origin, which is to say that no amount of deindustrialization could ever significantly change the amount of water vapor in the atmosphere. Thus, climatologists have concentrated mostly on carbon dioxide and methane.

Figures from the U.S. Department of Energy show that the pre-industrial baseline of carbon dioxide is 288,000 ppb. The total current carbon dioxide is 368,400 parts per billion, or 0.0368% of the atmosphere. The ocean and biosphere possess a large buffering capacity, mainly because of carbon dioxide's large solubility in water. Because of this, it's safe to conclude that the anthropogenic component of atmospheric carbon dioxide concentration will continue to remain roughly proportional to the rate of carbon dioxide emissions and therefore is in no danger of being saturated, which would allow all the emitted carbon dioxide to go into the atmosphere.

Of course, climate, like weather, is complex, nonlinear, and perhaps even chaotic. Increased solar irradiation can lower the albedo, which would amplify any effect caused by changes in solar flux, making the relation between radiation and temperature greater than linear.

Increased temperatures also cause increased evaporation of sea water, which can cause warming because of water's greenhouse effect, and also can affect the radiation flux by creating additional clouds.

The arithmetic of absorption of infrared radiation also works to decrease the linearity. Absorption of light follows a logarithmic curve -->

Figure 1: Transmitted light is a logarithmic function of concentration. This curve is the familiar Beer's Law.

as the amount of absorbing substance increases. It is generally accepted that the concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is already high enough to absorb almost all the infrared radiation in the main carbon dioxide absorption bands over a distance of only a few km. Thus, even if the atmosphere were heavily laden with carbon dioxide, it would still only cause an incremental increase in the amount of infrared absorption over current levels.

The net effect of all these processes is that doubling carbon dioxide would not double the amount of global warming. In fact, the effect of carbon dioxide is roughly logarithmic. Each time carbon dioxide (or some other greenhouse gas) is doubled, the increase in temperature is less than the previous increase. The reason for this is that, eventually, all the longwave radiation that can be absorbed has already been absorbed. It would be analogous to closing more and more shades over the windows of your house on a sunny day -- it soon reaches the point where doubling the number of shades can't make it any darker.

What does saturation mean?

The "saturation" argument does not mean that global warming doesn't occur. What saturation tells us is that exponentially higher levels of CO2 would be needed to produce a linear increase in absorption, and hence temperature. This is basic physics. Beer's law has not been repealed. CO2 is very nearly homogeneous throughout the atmosphere, so its concentration (as a percentage of the total) is about the same at all altitudes.

The presence or absence of water vapor has no bearing on whether radiation is absorbed by CO2. Water vapor is a red herring: it has essentially no effect on what CO2 does. Where water vapor becomes important is in the earth's response to CO2.

Saturation does not tell us whether CO2 can raise the atmospheric temperature, but it gives us a powerful clue about the shape of the curve of temperature vs. concentration.

Linear Climate projections:

The linear projection shown here, while obviously simplistic, is a more straightforward argument than those used in climate models, because it does not treat the radiative forcing caused by carbon dioxide separately from the planet's adaptation to it. In other words, we did not just build a model and add carbon dioxide, but instead took numbers that are based on empirical measurements and extended them by a small percentage.

Figure 2: Estimated greenhouse gas-induced global warming plotted against greenhouse gas concentrations expressed as a percentage of current-day values. The black curve is a linear extrapolation calculated from the DOE estimates of total current greenhouse gases. The sharp jump at the right is the data point from one computer model that predicts a nine degree increase from doubling current levels of carbon dioxide.

From the numbers, it is easy to calculate, assuming a linear dependence of temperature on greenhouse gas concentrations, that a doubling of atmospheric carbon dioxide

would produce an additional warming of (0.042 to 0.084) x 33 = 1.38 to 2.77 degrees centigrade.

Our calculation also assumes that the increase in temperature is linearly proportional to the greenhouse gas levels. However, as indicated above, the relationship is not linear, but logarithmic. A plot of temperature vs. gas concentration (expressed as a percentage of current-day levels) would be a convex curve, something like the blue curve in Figure 2. Thus, 1.4-2.7 degrees is an upper bound, and depending on the exact shape of the blue curve, could be an overestimate of the warming effect.

This 1.4-2.7 degree estimate is comparable to the estimate of 1.4 degrees associated with the "empiricist" school of the University of Delaware, University of Virginia, and Arizona State University. An increase of 1.4 degrees was also predicted by P.J. Michaels and R.C. Balling using the NCAR Community Climate Model 3 model, after the large increases in projected carbon dioxide in the original paper in which the model was described were replaced with more realistic ones.

Because a linear increase in temperature requires an exponential increase in carbon dioxide (thanks to the physics of radiation absorption described above), we know that the next two-fold increase in CO2 will produce exactly the same temperature increase as the previous two-fold increase. Although we haven't had a two-fold increase yet, it is easy to calculate from the observed values what to expect.

Between 1900 and 2000, atmospheric CO2 increased from 295 to 365 ppm, while temperatures increased about 0.57 degrees C (using the value cited by Al Gore and others). It is simple to calculate the proportionality constant (call it 'k') between the observed increase in CO2 and the observed temperature increase:

This shows that doubling CO2 over its current values should increase the earth's temperature by about 1.85 degrees C. Doubling it again would raise the temperature another 1.85 degrees C. Since these numbers are based on actual measurements, not models, they include the effects of amplification. These estimates assume that the correlation between global temperature and carbon dioxide is causal in nature. Therefore, the 1.85 degree estimate should also be regarded as an upper limit.

Figure 3: Calculated Temperature rise as a function of CO2 concentration.

It goes without saying that the results shown here depend on the accuracy of the original 33 degree estimate and the validity of extrapolating the existing curve out by an additional small increment. However, we can check the plausibility of the IPCC's result by asking the following question: Instead of 33 degrees, what number would result if we calculated backwards from the IPCC estimates?

Using the same assumption of linearity, if a 9 degree increase resulted from the above-mentioned increase of greenhouse gas levels, the current greenhouse gas level (which is by definition 100%) would be equivalent to a greenhouse gas-induced temperature increase of at least 107 degrees C. This means the for the 9 degree figure to be correct, the current global temperature would have to be at least 255 + 107 - 273 = 89 degrees centigrade, or 192° Fahrenheit! A model that predicts a current-day temperature well above the highest-ever observed temperature is clearly in need of serious tweaking.

What about secondary effects, such as ice melting, changes in albedo, and so forth? Doesn't this increase the predicted temperature beyond the 1.39 to 1.76 degree estimate? In short, no. Because these calculations are based on observed measurements, they automatically take into account all of the earth's responses. Whatever way the climate adapted to past CO2 increases, whether through melting, changes in albedo, or other effects, is already reflected in the measured temperature.

Some climatologists, making assumptions about ever increasing rates of carbon dioxide production, assert that the doubling will occur within a few decades instead of a few centuries. However, they are doing sociology, not climatology. The only honest way to estimate the change of CO2 levels is by using a simple linear extrapolation; otherwise, we are merely indulging in speculation about future social trends. At the current rate of increase, CO2 will not double its current level until 2255.

Conclusions:

Although carbon dioxide is capable of raising the Earth's overall temperature, the IPCC's predictions of catastrophic temperature increases produced by carbon dioxide have been challenged by many scientists. In particular, the importance of water vapor is frequently overlooked by environmental activists and by the media.

The above discussion shows that the large temperature increases predicted by many computer models are unphysical and inconsistent with results obtained by basic measurements. Skepticism is warranted when considering computer-generated projections of global warming that cannot even predict existing observations.


{T. J. Nelson is a practicing research scientist at a non-profit institute affiliated with a large University. - Ed.}