The Myth of Global Warming

[Andy]

Nuclear power would go a long way toward solving that problem, and the technology is available today -- if only the environmentalists would stop their fear-mongering and let us do it.

Because we have enough uranium to power all our homes, shops, factories, and cars indefinitely using only uranium.

 

[Diogenes]

Because we have enough uranium to power all our homes, shops, factories, and cars indefinitely using only uranium.

I don't see nuclear powered cars in the future, but it nuclear sure beats burning coal, oil and gas for generating electricity.

 

[tecoyah]

I don't see nuclear powered cars in the future, but it nuclear sure beats burning coal, oil and gas for generating electricity.

If someone can build this:

http://www.teslamotors.com/index.php?js_enabled=1

and charge it with this:

http://www.newciv.org/nl/newslog.php/_v13/__show_article/_a000013-000199.htm

Count me in

 

[ALiberalModerate]

Nuclear power would go a long way toward solving that problem, and the technology is available today -- if only the environmentalists would stop their fear-mongering and let us do it.

Actually the world is much better than it was in the past when a person could freeze to death on a glacier (like the Iceman) or get eaten by a sabre-tooth tiger. Happiness is a warm planet.

While Nuclear will certainly be a component of a sustainable economy, the problem with Nuclear is that there is simply not nearly enough uranium 235 around to power the world for very long. The fact is, other than their opposition to Nuclear, the enviros are largely right, efficiency improvements and renewable energy is largely the wave of the future.

As to your climate argument, I would say that the majority of scientists and the majority of economists would tell you that our entire way of life is built around the climate we have today. A 3 degree worldwide increase in temps, would by many estimates lead to a huge reduction in the amount of land worldwide suitable for farming, and massive water shortages in large areas of the world. It would be a human and environmental catostrophe any way you look at it.

 

[Diogenes]

While Nuclear will certainly be a component of a sustainable economy, the problem with Nuclear is that there is simply not nearly enough uranium 235 around to power the world for very long.

The difference between "proven reserves" and "reserves" is that proven reserves can be profitably recovered at today's prices. I read some time ago that if the price of nickel doubled, then the proven reserves would increase by a factor of 20. That certainly applies to oil, and I suspect it also applies to uranium.

The fact is, other than their opposition to Nuclear, the enviros are largely right, efficiency improvements and renewable energy is largely the wave of the future.

On the evidence to date, renewable energy is largely hot air (which no doubt adds to global warming). Ethanol, for instance, is more expensive for driving because your mileage drops so dramatically. I get less mileage from a tank of 91 octane with 10% ethanol than from a tank of 87 octane gasoline, and the reports are that if you spring the extra money for an E85 enabled vehicle your mileage will drop by 25%.

As to your climate argument, I would say that the majority of scientists and the majority of economists would tell you that our entire way of life is built around the climate we have today. A 3 degree worldwide increase in temps, would by many estimates lead to a huge reduction in the amount of land worldwide suitable for farming, and massive water shortages in large areas of the world. It would be a human and environmental catostrophe any way you look at it.

It's happened before. I understand the Sahara was lush green prairie when Europe was covered by glaciers some millenia back, and there is certainly a water shortage there now. The question is whether or not we could actually forestall the coming change by adopting an Amish lifestyle, and the science is pretty thin on that issue. Without better evidence of what we can accomplish with the proposed changes, I don't expect much to happen.

 

[ALiberalModerate]

The difference between "proven reserves" and "reserves" is that proven reserves can be profitably recovered at today's prices. I read some time ago that if the price of nickel doubled, then the proven reserves would increase by a factor of 20. That certainly applies to oil, and I suspect it also applies to uranium.

Uranium 235 is already one of the most valuable elements on the planet. Everybody wants it already. In fact, I am sure that Iran would be willing to pay a lot for it. Right now at current usage rates we have about 85 years worth of Uranium. However, if worldwide usage went up substantially, then of course more reserves might become available, but also, the cost of nuclear energy would go up. It is not renewable though, thus, at some point we would run out. By then one would hope that power generated by Nuclear Fusion would be practical. However, that is a big if. The point is that while Nuclear Energy is a major component of reducing CO2 emissions, it is the only piece of the puzzle.

On the evidence to date, renewable energy is largely hot air (which no doubt adds to global warming). Ethanol, for instance, is more expensive for driving because your mileage drops so dramatically. I get less mileage from a tank of 91 octane with 10% ethanol than from a tank of 87 octane gasoline, and the reports are that if you spring the extra money for an E85 enabled vehicle your mileage will drop by 25%.

That is one of the reasons why moving to renewable fuels will also have to occur in junction with significant CAFE Standards increases, and investments in mass transit. However, Brazil would be a perfect example of a nation making a successful transition to alternative fuels. Currently some 40% of their vehicle fleet each day runs on ethanol. Within 15 years, that number will jump to 80%.

It's happened before. I understand the Sahara was lush green prairie when Europe was covered by glaciers some millenia back, and there is certainly a water shortage there now. The question is whether or not we could actually forestall the coming change by adopting an Amish lifestyle, and the science is pretty thin on that issue. Without better evidence of what we can accomplish with the proposed changes, I don't expect much to happen.

No offense, but I think the science is quite thin in your argument here. At the time of the last ice age, the total number of humans worldwide probably numbered less than a few million. Today we are at 6 billion. The resources we need to survive are thus exponentially higher. It is the scientific consensus that Anthropogenic Global Warming is real. It is the scientific consensus that future warming could largely be mitigated if over the next 30 years carbon emissions were reduced enough. However, the problem is whether governments will be willing to take the steps to do so. Moreover, I really wish you would take some time to review the peer-reviewed science behind Anthropogenic Global Warming. You seem like an intelligent individual, but you repeatedly seem to spread a lot of misinformation as it relates to Global Warming Science. In my first post in this thread, I provided a high level overview, with links of the science behind Anthropogenic Global Warming. That would be a good place to start.

Finally, no one is making the claim that we need to go to some Amish Lifestyle to curb Global Warming.

 

[Diogenes]

Uranium 235 is already one of the most valuable elements on the planet. Everybody wants it already. In fact, I am sure that Iran would be willing to pay a lot for it. Right now at current usage rates we have about 85 years worth of Uranium. However, if worldwide usage went up substantially, then of course more reserves might become available, but also, the cost of nuclear energy would go up. It is not renewable though, thus, at some point we would run out. By then one would hope that power generated by Nuclear Fusion would be practical. However, that is a big if. The point is that while Nuclear Energy is a major component of reducing CO2 emissions, it is the only piece of the puzzle.

Ultimately, there are no renewable resources since even the sun will not last forever. On the other hand, it will last so far beyond our time frame that it need not concern us. The same can be said, on an unpredictably shorter time scale, of coal, oil, natural gas and uranium. And alternative sources will probably become available - nuclear energy wasn't even contemplated a century ago.

Malthus had the best available current science on his side when he predicted world-wide famine two centuries ago, but he was wrong because he didn't anticipate the enourmous strides we have made in agricultural productivity since then. Fifty years later, we started drilling for oil because we were running out of whales and whale oil. I see no reason to discount the possibility that alternative energy sources will become available as the price of our present practices rises.

No offense, but I think the science is quite thin in your argument here. At the time of the last ice age, the total number of humans worldwide probably numbered less than a few million. Today we are at 6 billion. The resources we need to survive are thus exponentially higher.

That was my point in raising the population issue. We also use much more of our resources per person and live much better lives than our distant ancestors. So if we accept the pseudo-equation (population x consumption = resources) and assume that resources are finite and limited, we will eventually reach the conclusion that either or both population and consumption must be limited. This will be hard to sell politically, particularly since the assumption about total resources available has consistently been proven wrong.

It is the scientific consensus that Anthropogenic Global Warming is real. It is the scientific consensus that future warming could largely be mitigated if over the next 30 years carbon emissions were reduced enough.

That's the heart of the problem. What is "reduced enough" and what steps would we have to take to achieve them? If we took those steps, how much "mitigation" would there be and what would that do for (or to) the environment? Until we have reliable numbers for costs and benefits, the science remains pretty thin on the issue and the political will to take painful steps now to perhaps stave off a hypothetical future disaster will not materialize.

 

[aquapub]

Here's my question: who should I believe, aquapub or the National Academy of Science?

Here's my question: how many times do liberals have to advocate policies based on numerous scientists swearing something is right only to find out the whole thing was bogus before they start applying common sense skepticism to things they are told by environmental hysterics?

breast implants, PCBs, DDT, pesticides, etc.

 

[ALiberalModerate]

Here's my question: how many times do liberals have to advocate policies based on numerous scientists swearing something is right only to find out the whole thing was bogus before they start applying common sense skepticism to things they are told by environmental hysterics?

breast implants, PCBs, DDT, pesticides, etc.

Here is a question.

Do you want to conduct your little narcissistic hatemongering attacks, or do you actually want to debate the peer reviewed science behind Anthropogenic Global Warming?

In my first post in this thread, I provided a basic overview of the current science behind Global Warming. All of it with peer reviewed sources. If you actually want to debate the science here, then that would be a nice place to start.

If you think that PCBs are harmless, then I regret to inform you that according to the National Academy of Sciences, you are completely wrong.

Source: http://fermat.nap.edu/execsumm_pdf/10041.pdf

If you think that many pesticides are harmless, then I once again regret to inform you that according the National Academy of Sciences, you are completely wrong>

Source: http://fermat.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=665&page=R1

The problem with DDT was not a public health issue, (although there is some evidence of high levels of DDT being harmful) but rather it was an environmental issue. DDT is extremely toxic to a variety of birds, fish, and mammals.

As far as Breast Implants go, I think that was more an issue with greedy lawyers rather than flawed science.

The fact is, if you want to get on here and throw out your little missinformation bombs, then unless you want to just look like an idiot, you need to actually provide peer reviewed sources to back up your claims. As it is, the irony of your attacks are that they would not apply to liberals, or for that matter pragmatic conservatives, but instead to yourself. You seem to make a lot of claims that have little to no basis in actual science.

 

[Diogenes]

The problem with DDT was not a public health issue, (although there is some evidence of high levels of DDT being harmful) but rather it was an environmental issue. DDT is extremely toxic to a variety of birds, fish, and mammals.

Actually, DDT is a public health issue. Malaria was endemic to the southeastern US until 1941, when the Rockefeller Foundation financed a massive DDT campaign to eliminate the mosquitos. DDT was then used (and overused) until Rachel Carson's book Silent Spring came out 20 years later. Her emotional appeal, backed by flawed science, helped create a backlash (and the enviro movement) that resulted in global UN ban on DDT that has cost many thousands of lives in the years since then.

The problem with any technology such as DDT (or CO2 producing engines) is that there are costs and benefits in using it and in not using it. Real, objective science evaluates the costs and benefits both of the technology and the side effects, and provides hard numbers for decision makers to decide which course to take.

 

[ALiberalModerate]

Actually, DDT is a public health issue. Malaria was endemic to the southeastern US until 1941, when the Rockefeller Foundation financed a massive DDT campaign to eliminate the mosquitos. DDT was then used (and overused) until Rachel Carson's book Silent Spring came out 20 years later. Her emotional appeal, backed by flawed science, helped create a backlash (and the enviro movement) that resulted in global UN ban on DDT that has cost many thousands of lives in the years since then.

The problem with any technology such as DDT (or CO2 producing engines) is that there are costs and benefits in using it and in not using it. Real, objective science evaluates the costs and benefits both of the technology and the side effects, and provides hard numbers for decision makers to decide which course to take.

The problem with your assertion is that DDT was banned from being used agriculturally. It has never been banned for use in developing nations to combat malaria.

Moreover, as far as cost benefit analysis, a Chief Economist for the World Bank just released a study on that very issue today:

The scientific consensus, as far as you can pin it down, urges something in the order of a 60% cut in global greenhouse gas emissions - it would like them today, but 2050 makes a more feasible target.

Bring in considerations of equity, and for richer nations like Britain that means cuts in the order of 90%.

Sir Nicholas Stern, in his new report, broadly endorses these figures, and the overall message is clear: richer countries must cut, and cut now.

Money must be spent not only on low-carbon technologies but on protection, especially for the most vulnerable communities, he says.

And his case to the business and economics communities, which as a former World Bank economist he is well placed to make, is that action now will cost a mere 1% of global GDP by 2050, whereas business as usual could cost up to 20%.

The overall message of the report is not fundamentally new. In its 2001 report the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) calculated costs in the same ballpark.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/6098124.stm

 

[Rhapsody1447]

First it was an Ice Age, then it was overpopulation, than it was world starvation, now it is Global Warming. Conservatives: Just wait it out, time will prove liberals wrong again yet another time.

 

[ALiberalModerate]

First it was an Ice Age,

Newsweek reported that, not Peer Reviewed Scientific Journals. In fact, the majority of Climatologists at the time critisized the News obsession with it say that it was unfounded.

then it was overpopulation,

There are 6 billion people in the world today, we have been using resources at a higher rate that the earth can replenish them since 1984.

than it was world starvation,

Someone starves to death in this world every 2 seconds.

 

[Diogenes]

From Stern Review, a commentary on the economics by a fellow who seems to have his head screwed on properly:

The report on climate change by Nicholas Stern and the U.K. government has sparked publicity and scary headlines around the world. Much attention has been devoted to Mr. Stern's core argument that the price of inaction would be extraordinary and the cost of action modest.

Unfortunately, this claim falls apart when one actually reads the 700-page tome. Despite using many good references, the Stern Review on the Economics of Climate Change is selective and its conclusion flawed. Its fear-mongering arguments have been sensationalized, which is ultimately only likely to make the world worse off.

-- snip --

But nowhere is the imbalance clearer than in Mr. Stern's central argument about the costs and benefits of action on climate change. The review tells us that we should make significant cuts in carbon emissions to stabilize the concentration of atmospheric carbon dioxide at 550 ppm (parts per million). Yet such a stark recommendation is not matched by an explicit explanation of what this would mean in terms of temperature.

The U.N. Climate Panel estimates that stabilizing at 550 ppm would mean an increase in temperature of about 2.3 degrees Celsius in the year 2100. This might be several degrees below what would otherwise happen, but it might also be higher. Mr. Nordhaus estimates that the stabilization policy would reduce the rise in temperature from 2.53 degrees Celsius to just 2.42 degrees Celsius. One can understand the reluctance of the Stern review to advertise such a puny effect.

-- snip --

In other words: Given reasonable inputs, most cost-benefit models show that dramatic and early carbon reductions cost more than the good they do. Mr. Stern's attempt to challenge that understanding is based on a chain of unlikely assumptions.

-- snip --

Faced with such alarmist suggestions, spending just 1% of GDP or $450 billion each year to cut carbon emissions seems on the surface like a sound investment. In fact, it is one of the least attractive options. Spending just a fraction of this figure--$75 billion--the U.N. estimates that we could solve all the world's major basic problems. We could give everyone clean drinking water, sanitation, basic health care and education right now. Is that not better?

-- snip --

Last weekend in New York, I asked 24 U.N. ambassadors--from nations including China, India and the U.S.--to prioritize the best solutions for the world's greatest challenges, in a project known as Copenhagen Consensus. They looked at what spending money to combat climate change and other major problems could achieve. They found that the world should prioritize the need for better health, nutrition, water, sanitation and education, long before we turn our attention to the costly mitigation of global warning.

We all want a better world. But we must not let ourselves be swept up in making a bad investment, simply because we have been scared by sensationalist headlines.

 

[ALiberalModerate]

From Stern Review, a commentary on the economics by a fellow who seems to have his head screwed on properly:

This is exactly what I am talking about. You are attempting to debate a Scientific Issue with an OP-ED off of the Opinion Pages of the Wallstreet Journal. If Bjorn Lomborg has some issues with this study, then why would he not submit them for peer review?

Probably because his last publication was deemed to be:

1. Intellectually dishonest, and fabricated.

2. Lacking in expertise.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bjørn_Lomborg

You cannot debate science with OP-EDs. If Lomborg has issues with this study and wants any credibility given to his critiques at all, then he need to publish them in a peer reviewed journal such as Science. Do you even understand modern science and the peer review process?

 

[Diogenes]

I wasn't debating science with op-ed pieces. I merely pointed out that a respected economist (Wikipedia is not entirely reliable, especially when it comes to opinions) has pointed out that it is not economically practical to take the proposed steps to ward off "global warming" - the resources would be much more effectively employed to eliminate malaria, provide clean water, etc. as the diplomats concluded, rather than lower the global temperature by 0.11 degrees a century from now.

To make your case, you need numbers. And I hope you can do better than Stern did with his off-the-wall estimates.

 

[Morrow]

I wasn't debating science with op-ed pieces. I merely pointed out that a respected economist (Wikipedia is not entirely reliable, especially when it comes to opinions) has pointed out that it is not economically practical to take the proposed steps to ward off "global warming" - the resources would be much more effectively employed to eliminate malaria, provide clean water, etc. as the diplomats concluded, rather than lower the global temperature by 0.11 degrees a century from now.

To make your case, you need numbers. And I hope you can do better than Stern did with his off-the-wall estimates.

O, he thought it would be better spent in other areas. How noble of him to offer that.

A lot of respected economists have also said the coal and oil industries are lying. And even some oil and coal companies agree in the long term it would save them money.

 

[Andy]

Here's my question: how many times do liberals have to advocate policies based on numerous scientists swearing something is right only to find out the whole thing was bogus before they start applying common sense skepticism to things they are told by environmental hysterics?

breast implants, PCBs, DDT, pesticides, etc.

Here is a question.

Do you want to conduct your little narcissistic hatemongering attacks, or do you actually want to debate the peer reviewed science behind Anthropogenic Global Warming?

In my first post in this thread, I provided a basic overview of the current science behind Global Warming. All of it with peer reviewed sources. If you actually want to debate the science here, then that would be a nice place to start.

If you think that PCBs are harmless, then I regret to inform you that according to the National Academy of Sciences, you are completely wrong.

Source: http://fermat.nap.edu/execsumm_pdf/10041.pdf

If you think that many pesticides are harmless, then I once again regret to inform you that according the National Academy of Sciences, you are completely wrong>

Source: http://fermat.nap.edu/openbook.php?r...id=665&page=R1

The problem with DDT was not a public health issue, (although there is some evidence of high levels of DDT being harmful) but rather it was an environmental issue. DDT is extremely toxic to a variety of birds, fish, and mammals.

As far as Breast Implants go, I think that was more an issue with greedy lawyers rather than flawed science.

The fact is, if you want to get on here and throw out your little missinformation bombs, then unless you want to just look like an idiot, you need to actually provide peer reviewed sources to back up your claims. As it is, the irony of your attacks are that they would not apply to liberals, or for that matter pragmatic conservatives, but instead to yourself. You seem to make a lot of claims that have little to no basis in actual science.

National Academy of Science > aquapub

 

[ALiberalModerate]

I wasn't debating science with op-ed pieces. I merely pointed out that a respected economist (Wikipedia is not entirely reliable, especially when it comes to opinions) has pointed out that it is not economically practical to take the proposed steps to ward off "global warming" - the resources would be much more effectively employed to eliminate malaria, provide clean water, etc. as the diplomats concluded, rather than lower the global temperature by 0.11 degrees a century from now.

To make your case, you need numbers. And I hope you can do better than Stern did with his off-the-wall estimates.

It is his opinion, as expressed in an OP-ED, that it is not economically practical. However, being that in his only work concerning environmentalism, he was found to be intellectually dishonest by his peers, I don't know how much weight I would give that opinion.

Moreover, when one puts it against a study released by the Chief Economist for the World Bank, otherwise, one of the most if not the most, respected economist in the world. I think most reasonable people would go with the Chief Economist for the World Bank on this one. Especially, when one considers that the study that this OP-ED is critiquing, is a published peer reviewed study.

So therefore, if Mr. Lomborg would like to credibly challenge the scientific concensus on this issue, one would think he would dispute their findings in peer reviewed scientific journals rather then in an ideological OP-ED column.

In fact, there is no basis at all for Lomborg's claim that significant Carbon Emissions reductions would not significantly curb future warming. The Executive Summary for the Stern Report is here:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/shared/bsp/hi/pdfs/30_10_06_exec_sum.pdf

I think you will find that Lomborg's .11 degree reduction claim is absurd. The fact is, we know what will happen if we do nothing. We know what will happen if we succeed in significantly reducing carbon emissions. We know the cost of doing nothing. We know the costs of doing something. The question at this point is simply political will, not science or economics.

 

[tryreading]

Here's my question: how many times do liberals have to advocate policies based on numerous scientists swearing something is right only to find out the whole thing was bogus before they start applying common sense skepticism to things they are told by environmental hysterics?

breast implants, PCBs, DDT, pesticides, etc.

It seems to me the mounting peer reviewed evidence on global warming is pretty strong. And the issue is so important that we ought to seriously consider this data. What is more important than the health of the planet, and potential danger to our lives on the ultimate scale? That was probably too dramatic. Maybe the studies are wrong. I guess its possible. But I'm going to have to agree with this man on the proper course to follow, just in case:


"This is a complex case with serious issues. But in extraordinary circumstances like this, it is wise to always err on the side of life."

George Bush, President of the United States

 

[FreeThinker]

so uuummmm:shock: you really think cancer is a liberal idea......wow thats........interesting

Um... breast implants causing cancer?

Hi. Read before you type. It helps.

 

[tryreading]

Um... breast implants causing cancer?

Well, I've heard of it happening. There has been a rise in tongue cancer among American men due to breast implants...

 

[FreeThinker]

Well, I've heard of it happening. There has been a rise in tongue cancer among American men due to breast implants...

brb getting webcam.

 

[paminator]

The AGW scientific debate is not about whether or not CO2 causes the surface temperature to rise. Rather, the debate involves how much the temperature will rise. That is, it is centered around the temperature forcing parameter that predicts temperature rise at the surface due to a change in net power flux at the surface. This is usually given in degrees C per Watt per meter^2. Hundreds of peer-reviewed papers have estimated this number to lie between 0.1 C/W/m^2 and 1.5 C/W/m^2, a range of a factor of 15, hardly settled science. Depending on which value you choose, the effects of doubling CO2 concentrations from 280 ppm/C to 560 ppm/C (a reasonable estimate of CO2 levels sometime between 2100 and 2200 AD), which gives a net power flux increase of about 3 - 4 W/m^2, results in temperature increases that range between 0.3 C and 6 C. Add in some additional parametrized positive feedback, and estimates as high as 10.5 C can result.

Natural experiments that look at the temperature response of the Earth's climate system to changes in net power flux indicate a temperature forcing parameter of 0.1 - 0.3 C/W/m^2, depending on the time-scale being considered (decadal, centennial or millenial).

Using the Earth's measured response to power flux changes, a doubling of CO2 concentration from 280 to 560 ppm will give a temperature rise of 0.3 - 1.2 C, RELATIVE TO SURFACE TEMPERATURES IN 1850-1900.

This change will likely be swamped out by solar forcing of climate, as recent studies have reported a strong correlation between total solar irradiance and surface temperature. Note that natural experiments that measure the Earth's climatic response to power flux changes do not require an in-depth understanding of the positive and negative feedbacks present in the climate system. In stark contrast, Climate models are a long way from achieving accurate representations of all known and unknown climate feedbacks.

The bulk of recent peer-reviewed climate change related literature has moved on to determining the impacts of dramatic temperature increases over the next 100 years, leading to lots of scary scenarios having a very shaky a-priori assumption of what the temperature rise will actually be. It makes good copy and sells papers/magazines/club memberships/carbon trading schemes/etc. I predict that we have about 3-5 more years of dire global warming scares before solar forcing reductions now underway begin to reduce surface temperatures and the "next-ice-age" articles start flowing.

By the way, CO2 is not a pollutant. It is a core ingredient in sustaining almost all life on Earth. Cheers.

 

[ALiberalModerate]

The AGW scientific debate is not about whether or not CO2 causes the surface temperature to rise. Rather, the debate involves how much the temperature will rise. That is, it is centered around the temperature forcing parameter that predicts temperature rise at the surface due to a change in net power flux at the surface. This is usually given in degrees C per Watt per meter^2. Hundreds of peer-reviewed papers have estimated this number to lie between 0.1 C/W/m^2 and 1.5 C/W/m^2, a range of a factor of 15, hardly settled science. Depending on which value you choose, the effects of doubling CO2 concentrations from 280 ppm/C to 560 ppm/C (a reasonable estimate of CO2 levels sometime between 2100 and 2200 AD), which gives a net power flux increase of about 3 - 4 W/m^2, results in temperature increases that range between 0.3 C and 6 C. Add in some additional parametrized positive feedback, and estimates as high as 10.5 C can result.

Natural experiments that look at the temperature response of the Earth's climate system to changes in net power flux indicate a temperature forcing parameter of 0.1 - 0.3 C/W/m^2, depending on the time-scale being considered (decadal, centennial or millenial).

Using the Earth's measured response to power flux changes, a doubling of CO2 concentration from 280 to 560 ppm will give a temperature rise of 0.3 - 1.2 C, RELATIVE TO SURFACE TEMPERATURES IN 1850-1900.

I am not sure what your sources are here. It would seem that they are very outdated. Especially your arrival at that last paragraph. The National Academy of Sciences recently released a study that found that we are already warmer than we have been in approximately 12,000 years.

http://www.nap.edu/catalog/11676.html

As to your other claims, yes estimates vary as to the degree of warming. However, it is the consensus as reflected by the IPCC and virtually every scientific society with expertise in climate on earth that unmitigated, warming over this century will be between 3 and 5 degrees Celsius.

This change will likely be swamped out by solar forcing of climate, as recent studies have reported a strong correlation between total solar irradiance and surface temperature. Note that natural experiments that measure the Earth's climatic response to power flux changes do not require an in-depth understanding of the positive and negative feedbacks present in the climate system. In stark contrast, Climate models are a long way from achieving accurate representations of all known and unknown climate feedbacks.

Once again, I am not sure what your sources are here. I would suspect they are quite old.

As I stated earlier in the thread:

There are those who have argued that warming is simply due to "natural variances". They make the claim that it could simply be due to solar variances. The problem with that argument, is that last May the U.S. Climate Change Science Program released a peer reviewed study on warming at the Surface, the Troposphere, and Stratosphere.

They found that the Earth has warmed at the surface, warmed in the Troposphere, yet cooled in the Stratosphere. This is very important to this debate. The reason is that warming due to natural variances, such as solar or orbital variances, is contingent on a warming Stratosphere. Greenhouse Warming, is contingent on a cooling Stratosphere. The reason for this is basic thermal physics. Increased solar activity or orbital variations would result in top down warming, essentially, the stratosphere would have to be warming as well. On the other hand, Greenhouse Effect Warming results in a cooling Stratosphere, because more heat is trapped at the surface and the troposphere and less heat escapes into the stratosphere and thus back into space.

Therefore, we can definitively state today, as a result of this study and others like it, that our current warming is due to Greenhouse Effect Warming.

Source: http://www.climatescience.gov/Library/sap/sap1-1/finalreport/default.htm