Excellent article, to bad the nuts in the Whithouse won't read it! If they want to see the effects of very little water vapor look at Mars. If you want to learn more about living on a world with very little water vapor read Frank Herbert's award winning novel: Dune.As far as I'm concerned the enviromentalist can go stick their collective heads in the sand!

Brett,
I enjoyed your article and most of the facts appear to be correct. Like you I am convinced the whole AGW appears to be based on faulty or fake data and analysis. That said, I agree with David, I think your usage of heat capacity is not appropriate.

Heat capacity determines the temperature increase of a material when a given amount of heat is added. It would relate to how much the earths temperature would increase with a given heat addition. But the "green house gas" modelers are claiming the atmosphere is causing the planet to warm because more of the suns energy is being absorbed or trapped in the atmosphere. There claim is the amount of energy is increasing. Not that the planet is warming more from the same net energy input.

The global warming guys are claiming more of the suns energy is reaching the earth and less is being radiated back into space because of more Co2 in the atmosphere.

I am a mechanical engineer with a masters degree specialization in heat transfer and thermodynamics.

Absolutely the best, most rational presentation that I have read of late. Thank you, sir. I feel indebted to you and will use it often (with full credit) in conversations with worthy but misguided persons. Not to be a wet blanket, but the article will do no good with those "true believers" who foster global, climate whatever. They'll either use Global Warming/Climate Change for their agenda, or treat like a religion. Either way, they have concretized their position(s) and discussing with them is a waste of time.

Of course! They'll be getting their ADD-constrained 'information' from Woof Blister in ten-second gulps.

That's a critique of the Readers, not the Author.

Oh, wait... did you read Atlas Shrugged or the synopsis of the Cliff Notes about it?

So i copied the URL and posted it to my FB home page. Are you all checked out and did you pass your driving test for this newfangled 'technology'?

Or are you dead in the water without a Share To Facebook Button?

Oh, wait... your car probably has a 'push to start' button, right? No more complicated "Ignition Switches" for you! Feh!

At Joanne Nova's site her husband David Evans has just completed a devastating but careful review of the physics and mathematics involved in AGW.

Here is Part 20 of his lengthy series.
http://joannenova.com.au/2015/11/new-...

Try to read all the parts. David's work is fascinating, and his work instructing the proper use of partial derivatives (I think that's part 4) draws indignant fire from warmists who refuse to believe their maths could be wrong.

Here's the link: https://straightlinelogic.wordpress.c...

And right your were to do so, that is the issue they've framed. I like the way you've framed your argument and I mean it when I say that you'd fit right in at S.O. Many amazing people there from extraordinary amateurs to multi-doctorate scholars and well know scientific researchers.
At suspicious 0bservers we've discovered many interesting things about cycles and about carbon...it's funny they might wish there was a whole lot more carbon in the atmosphere. It's an electrical dispersent; which in sufficient %'s would help mitigate a electromagnetic event. That is a worry cause our shields are down close to 25%. The shields and our atmosphere are sustained by constant minor flaring...with out it, everything gets weak and contracts, we become more and more vulnerable...especially these days with all our electronics- difficult to wrap everything in chicken wire, hahahah.

Ha, that is another good angle on my same argument, I think. After all, our air only has 0.04% of CO2 in it!! The plants are crying out for more!!! If we could only hear them...

Thanks for the comment and link Snezzy. There's plenty of targets and directions for others to attack the issue if they like (including you). :-) I thought it worthwhile to attack the scientific foundation and "factual" basis of the scheme. If we eliminate the problem from having any credibility, we don't even have to argue about proposed solutions.

Thanks for your long comment Carl. I briefly thought about mentioning other phenonema like sun cycles but I thought it best to focus on CO2 as a human-created pollutant and destroy that premise.

Thanks for your comment and thoughts here Hawron. I'm not as pessimistic about threats to our freedom of speech on this topic. Although that freedom is important to use while we can and how we can today! (As I mentioned in my P.S.) The positive reaction and feedback from people here in the Gulch has been very rewarding and encouraging. Maybe more of us should talk about how we are thinking for ourselves and asking uncomfortable questions about popular assumptions?!?

Thanks a lot for these and the agreements! I need more time to come back to these so I can weigh them and reply fully. I really appreciate the thoroughness and time you took to write it all out.

Nice.

Thanks very much!! I really appreciate that and am honored.

LOL, thanks. Persuading people on the climate change side was one of my motivations, but giving those of us who intuitively know (or suspect) it's a sham some slam-dunk facts and arguments to know and use ourselves was another big motivation of mine.
Religion is not going to disappear in any of our lifetimes, but the threat of a worldwide tax on carbon or CO2 is something more urgent and a fight I wanted to throw a few punches in.

Thanks for that feedback. I see your point, but I thought it better (and enjoyed more) starting from initial assumptions and premises. I also was trying to eliminate major objections pre-emptively and plant seeds in people's heads (like the quip about who cares about 2%).

Hi Professor. Comments from people on my website need approval for the first time. I just approved your 2nd comment, thanks a lot for leaving them. Excellent point about the social media share buttons too--I'm working on that.

Great work. The Bigger problem is that, according to AGW proponents, if I get a computer virus it will somehow be caused by global warming or climate change. For example, Islamic terrorism began when Islam began. However, today political lunatics claim Islamic terrorism is caused by climate change. Those involved in the climate change cabal, don't want to let that cash cow disappear in... well thin air.

Love it, great job.

No, we can't just wish c[lie]mate change away...but we sure as H could empower society with the truth of it so that we could prepare; cause as you state, the climate is changing.
Now that we know it's not carbon [actually many did know], society should know definitively in which of two directions it is changing.
Well, if we took the daily or even weekly reports from NOAA and averaged them out, the cold records would win out globally. We have to do this because for some reason if these reports are left unrecorded outside the lamestream the numbers seem to change...something about what happens to numbers unattended when no one is looking anymore. We also have another resource called history, specifically cyclical patterns in climate. (as you might well know, climate is weather over a loooooong period of time)(and of course, environment is very different from climate or weather)

So, looking back upon climate history we do in fact see cyclical patterns. Patterns of warmth and patterns of cold and they seem to be, (they are in fact) related to activity on our sun. What's that? Yes, "It's the Sun silly". Well I'll be?...you insert.

Ok, cats out of the bag...it's called a "Grand Minimum" happens every 400 years. Last grand minimum was called the "Maunder Minimum" and was characterized by a marked decrease in sunspots and the resulting flaring.

We see that now, and just as Mr. and Mrs. Maunder observed, the sunspots that face earth during a minimum seem to go to sleep and when they get to the limn, then they magnetically mix and flair, lately we have dodged the bullet, cause they often have been big ones and would have caused damage to our electrical grids and devices. Can you say...Carrington event? see: http://suspicious0bservers.org (you'd fit right in with these amazing folks) There is a plethora of historic information together with new exciting integrations and new understandings about how our sun even has influence upon earthquakes. You will not regret checking this site out.

Now THAT is a risk worth spending money on together with food production indoors due to lower soil temperatures and wacky weather events, (Normal one day...nonseasonal snow or freezing the next) Hmm, somewhere I've read about such events recently. see: adapt2030 on youtube. Interesting that '2030' cause that's what agenda21 just changed to...now agenda2030...Hmm somethin's afoot!?!?!?

post script Your captcha is dysfunctional.

This anti-market statement only shows a lack of understanding of economics.

Given the (probably faulty) assumption that emitting carbon imposes a cost on others, carbon trading does the important job of moving mandated cuts to the emitter that can cut its output most cheaply. It's senseless to oppose that.

Thank you for your article. I appreciate the time you took and the consideration you have given the subject.

Agree with you wholeheartedly. Have always thought that.

Environmental "controls" are, for me, arguments that magic really exists. The creation of money from thin air. Who needs a base metal when one has everyday alchemy that results in such things as RINs?