The first is carbon emissions from Human activity. The second is carbon emissions from non-Human sources. The third is the increase in the emission of the Sun over time. And the fourth is the movement of the solar system within the Milky Way galaxy.

The increase in the density of the emission within the solar system, and its absorption by the Earth, increases the density of the emission (gravitational) field of the Earth.
The atmosphere of the Earth is retained by the Earth through the atmosphere’s interaction with the emission field of the Earth.
It’s the increase in the density of the emission field of the Earth which underpins the increase in the density of atmosphere of the Earth, which in turn underpins the green house effect and global warming.
If Human carbon emissions were reduced to zero, there would still be global warming because it’s a normal part of the evolution of the planet.
The increase in the emission of the Sun occurs over an extended period of time.
The movement of the solar system within the Milky Way galaxy sees it being subject to attraction which entails a variation of its impact upon the density of the emission within the solar system and thus a variation in its impact upon density of the Earth’s emission field and its average temperature.
As the solar system moves into and out of a source of emission within the Milky Way galaxy, the average temperature experience by the Earth would go through periods of increase and decrease within an overall increase.
This could explain the ice ages experiment by the Earth. Cold periods would be the norm, followed by periods of increased temperature within an overall increase in temperature. This is supported by the fact that the ice ages were increasingly less severe.
Then there are carbon emissions from non-Human sources.
Given the above, it’s untenable to claim that Human carbon emissions are the sole cause of global warming.
If we say that non-Human sources alone are not the cause of the present rate of increase in the average temperature, and given that the increase in the emission of the Sun occurs over an extended period of time, this leaves Human activity and the movement of the solar system within the Milky Way galaxy as two possibilities as the cause of the present rate of the increase in the average temperature of the Earth.
Until the science establishment can quantify the relative influence of these two factors, they can’t claim that the present rate of the increase in the average temperature of the Earth is caused by Human activity.
To answer the inevitable response: not far-fetched, but fundamentally fetched.
The fact that the science establishment has not even realized that the Milky Way galaxy can have an impact upon the Earth, is indicative of their lack of a truly fundamental perspective or paradigm.
The fact that the emission of the Sun increases over time, and that gravity is caused by the absorption of emission, are realizations that are derived from the fundamental paradigm that integrates science.
This is presented in the essay, “The Logic of the Universe (Debunking Physics and Discovering the Theory of Everything as the Paradigm of Science)”, located at: http://members.westnet.com.au/paradigm/forever.pdf

Yours,
Stephen Mooney
Stephen.Mooney@westnet.com.au

David sent back an email which included the paragraph below.

David is an inventor, an expert at micro currents in medical and other electronic equipment. I don’t know how good is his idea. But propostion is valid and yes, it should yield a testable experiment.

Of course his answer does move towards giving me an answer to the of “how can the CO2 move so quickly through the biosphere?”

////////////////////////////////////////////////////

If plants need CO2, they’ll get it; as a radio-type transmission more than by favorable winds that include CO2. CO2 (and everything else) is more than just “matter”. CO2 has other ways to exist as well as being observed as a gas. It is a set of resonant electro-magnetic facts. Has anybody calculated the weight of CO2, for example, needed to form just the bamboo that grows, every day, in a rain forrest? Where, at 0.03% (?) of the air, can such a large quantity of CO2 come from. Forrest winds don’t blow like hurricanes only in the evenings, continuously, to supply just one gas that is needed for plants to have substance. The weight of the still air, in a forest, does not support the amount of CO2 needed for the increase in plant life over the same time. Taking a minuscule percentage of gas, out of air, and replacing it with Oxygen, does not involve enough steam-physics and Newtonian inertia, of the air, to make the events have any credibility but, by some set of miracles yet to be explained properly, plants grow and carbon becomes part of many minerals.

///////////////////////////////////////////////

… And by way of explination David added this paragraph …

A crystal set radio uses no batteries nor external power, instead gets its power, that it turns into audible sound, out of the sky, from the radio transmitter. The aerial of a crystal-set, to produce pleasant very quiet music in a small room (more power than needed for headphones) may be cross-section about 2mm; 30mm long. Take the cubic capacity of the wire, and divide that into the cubic capacity of the cubic area of the radio station’s influence, multiply that by the actual sound energy available for the room, and the wire has gathered how many times more power than its cubic capacity alone should collect? The aerial system is tuned to resonate with the radio station, similarly to the way a string on a piano is tuned to match other strings on the piano. Any energy, put into one member of a resonant group, gets distributed and shared by other members of the group. The stress in space, caused by the radio station, is relieved by resonant systems that soak up the transmitted energy, taking the stress away from nearby areas and rendering the stress into relatively harmless heat energy. Without resonance, radio-TV transmitting stations would have to output trillions (whatever) of Watts of power to equal what a few kiloWatts can do.

So let me repeat my propostion in more (and I hope better) words

There are huge yearly CO2 input swings (like random fires) and the known seasonal swings in CO2. Why does this NOT SHOW up as variations in the “background” CO2 figures. The simple reason is that the figures have been ‘adusted’ so these are taken out – which, in my mind, throws the total validity of the measurement system to the winds.

But people on this blog have assured me that the adjustments are not that great and are not destroying the validity of the data. I can accept that.

So why no variations in background CO2??

That’s where my new hypothosis comes in.

1. I consider that currently biological life on this planet is so hungry for CO2 it grabs whatever it can get hold of really, really quickly.

2. So for the base line “background” CO2 figure to make sense. It must indicate the last tiny amount CO2 that is locked into the air and is too hard for biological life to access … to ‘recover’ from the air.

3. Again I assume the figures for “background” CO2 are accurate.

4. So why has the ‘background’ CO2 level been on the slow rise?

5. Because the retention ability of the air to hold CO2 has increased…. WHY, why?

6. Of course I don’t know. But there are many suggestions for checking and testing – from … elctricity generation and power line transmission (it increase the ionic state of the air – so letting it drag in and hold more CO2) …. to … the action of new types of air borne bacteria … to … cosmic stuff linked to the activites of distant galaxies.

7. my earlier suggestion is the world wide increase in electronic smog – radio, TV, phone and radar impulses excting the air and so allowing the retention of more CO2

8. this hypothesis of CO2 retention is testable. (Mention my name when you apply for research funding … it won’t help, but it will make me feel good!)

9. Alas this idea would destroy the game of ‘inputs out outputs’ and the even stranger game that what we humans burn makes a huge and real difference … And the even deadlier game of ‘carbon credits’. So my – or should I say “the” – retention CO2 model is not going to be quickly accepted.

10. BUT I do think the CO2 retention idea fits the observed facts better than the current input and output model with it’s many unworkable unknows. The inputs and outputs game correlates just one activity – and one human activity at that – the burning of stuff. So many other inputs human and otherwise also correlate to CO2 ‘background’ obseravtions – but correlation IS NOT causation.

11. NOT that increases in CO2 matter, but’s that is another story for another time…

7. the one I suggested

4. So what has been gradually increasing the CO2 retention capacity in the air?

… electonic smog

1. Let’s assume that earth’s biological life is so hungry for CO2 that the minium of CO2 in the air (mixture) is quickly reached.

2. This means that the inputs and outs of CO2 in the system are not important accept in given locations and in the short term.

3. Let’s accept that the ‘background’ CO2 level has been rising.

3. So may I suggest that the CO2 CARRYING CAPACITY of air is the critcal factor.

4. So what has been gradually reducing the CO2 carrying capacity of air?

?????? My guess is that it is electronic somg???

Has anyone checked CO2 levels near power lines, transformer farms, TV, Radio or radar masts? Or near nuclear facilites?????

But I do think I’m onto something with my suggestion that other variables beyond biololgical activity are involved in the CO2 cycle.

Been in a limestone cave? The water that desolved the limestone was slightly acid – carbonic acid. Soda water? Full of CO2. Now, water is very reactive, and strange stuff. Forget ice, lets consider water, charged water molecules (as in thunderstorms when nitrogen is absorbed as well), water vapour (humididty) and I think there is a charged vapour state as well.

Lots of water vapour in volcanoes, charged I bet. And those El Ninos, I have thought about them and ocean currents as well – see the last part of my climate change article.

I suspect that much of the antartic weather that effects us – like the snow on the hills behhind canberra today – is driven by the huge karabatic winds that sweep out of antartica (and are ignored becuse our models are northern hemisphere based) Surely the water particles assocaited with these winds are charged.

And I bet charged water – in whatever form – absorbs CO2 like crazy.

Pressure does it too – soda water for sure…

any takers??

////////////////////////////////////////////

Link to article on climate

http://www.kheper.net/ecognosis/essays/Climate_Change.doc

As for your “other measuring stations”, none of them show ANY impact of rising [CO2] on temperature.

Luke, please name any single station anywhere on this planet where rising [CO2] correlates with rising temperature. I just did 3 in Arnold’s California where the correlation is NEGATIVE. Geddit?

Luke’s only contribution to knowledge (do please forward to Wiki) is “hahahahahahahahaha”.

Why debate when you can bullshit?

I fully accept that of course Tans’ CO2 data are not (much?) affected by local temperature variation – but the converse is what is claimed by the IPCC, and as I have said, if ML is pristine for CO2 then it should also qualify as an ideal temperature measuring station for the purest possible measurement of the Radiative Forcing effect on temperature (in Watts/sq. metre) from increases in [CO2]. For the NH data ML should be included, but is not – one can only assume it is deliberately excluded by NASA-GISS.

Thus with respect I cannot agree when you say “IF there is a correlation, then one must compare the NH temperatures as a whole with the CO2 levels at MLO. Not the local temperature.” The problem with the “NH temperatures” is that they are literally a concoction by James Hansen of GISS and Phil Jones of HadleyCRUT, artfully doctored to show what they want to see, as Steve McIntyre and Anthony Watts have documented in great detail. I myself have noted here and in 2 seminars I gave at ANU last year (see my website) that the “global” data excluded most of the tropics until 1960 or so, with less than 80% coverage of the globe before then, creating global “coolth” before 1960.

In any case while you say “there is a good correlation between the derivative of the accumulation (the yearly increase) and the yearly variation in (global/NH/ocean temperature)”, I cannot see it, as R2 less than 0.5 indicates in general a false hypothesis (or one incorrectly specified). As my post just prior to yours notes, the R2 for a correlation between changes in [CO2] and changes in electricity consumption by location shows a marginally better fit than that for CO2 alone, albeit with a NEGATIVE coefficient on changes in [CO2] for LA Civic! If I can get data on transport fuel consumption in LA I suspect similar outcomes, better R2, and probably still negative for CO2!!

Anyhow this is work in progress, and I will keep you posted, but just to repeat, a univariate correlation is unlikely to be applicable to the relationship between NH climate and changes in [CO2].

BTW, I even have a formal qualification in Afrikaans, it used to be my second language, but did not take me far in Brussels on my annual visits there from 1976 to 1987!