The heat is on for AGW supporters

Browsing the web last night, I came across this interesting article from Web Commentary. Take a look at this graph.

I expect most people are aware - actually, no they probably aren't - I expect most people who have bothered to look for themselves are aware that the more CO2 is released into the atmosphere, the progressively less effective it becomes as a greenhouse gas - but this is the first time I have seen a graph that so clearly demonstrates how rapidly that effect diminishes and how little effect is caused by recent changes to CO2 emissions.

Notice that the biggest effect comes from the first 20 ppm (parts per million) of CO2 and that this first 20 ppm has a greater effect than the next 400 ppm combined. Please note, that this is not a "forecast" or a model-based prediction. This is established scientific fact. We KNOW this.

Current levels of atmospheric CO2 are estimated at 380 ppm with the IPCC warning that global catastrophe awaits us if this increases much beyond 420 ppm. The study (pdf) from which this graph comes from actually tells us that an increase of atmospheric CO2 to 620 ppm will actually only induce a rise of 0.16C. We will reach a CO2 level of 620 ppm - if nothing changes and if China continues its economic expansion at the current rate - somewhere around 2150.

As Web Commentary points out, even the level of 620 ppm is not anything unprecedented.

The geologic record of past climate (paleoclimate) reveals that over the past 500 million years, atmospheric carbon dioxide has been an order of magnitude higher than it is today (up to 16 times higher)! Over that same time span, Earth has experienced four ice eras (colder than normal climate regimes lasting 45 million to 65 million years). During the coldest of those four ice eras, 450 million years ago, Earth was a virtual snowball of ice - while atmospheric carbon dioxide was 15 times higher than it is today (about 5600 ppm)! According to the IPCC/Al Gore theory, that would have been impossible. Yet the record is clear. Oh yes, it should be noted that Earth is still in the last of those four ice eras, though the record reveals the current ice era is the mildest of the four and Earth should emerge from the current ice era in a relatively short time (within the next five million years).

Also rather interesting, to me anyway, is that the Archibald study - Climate Outlook to 2030 - actually focuses more on the forthcoming Solar Cycle than atmospheric CO2. It notes that....

The increased length of Solar Cycle 23 supports the view that Solar Cycle 24 will be weak, with the consequence of increased certainty that that there will be a global average temperature decline in the range of 1° to 2° C for the forecast period. The projected increase of 40 ppm in atmospheric carbon dioxide to 2030 is calculated to contribute a global atmospheric temperature increase of 0.04°C. The anthropogenic contribution to climate change over the forecast period will be insignificant relative to natural cyclic variation. (My emphasis)

This is a prediction to 2030 - just 23 years away - suggesting that, contrary to what the IPCC, Al Gore and all the MSM are telling you, there is likely to be a drop in global temperature of 1-2 C in the next 23 years. To put this into context, the lower level of temperature drop in the coming 25 years will be greater than the total increase in global temperature that has been estimated to have taken place over the last 100 years! In the worst case scenario - a drop of 2C - we will see a temperature drop to levels last experienced during The Little Ice Age when the Thames frequently froze over.

Now, given that this change in climate is predicted to start very soon - we should know within the next five years I would guess - then does it not make sense to adopt a "wait and see" policy? The fact that this isn't happening and that, in fact, the calls for action on "Global Warming" have become ever more strident and immediate suggests to me that those who support AGW are starting to realise that their time is running out. Not because the world will endure catastrophic global warming or that a “tipping point” will soon be reached, but because they could very soon be proved wrong.

My view is that there are going to be an awful lot of people who are going to look very silly in the not too distant future - and these people have a huge vested interest riding on this. If they fail to achieve their ambitions within the next five years then there will be a significant backlash against them all - the NGO's of course, but particularly the IPCC, the UN and the EU. The collapse of the AGW scam could herald the collapse of supranationalism too. Is it any wonder that these organisations are now going all out to gain the control they need before it's too late?