Scandinavia and the World

Comments #9592564:

Bye bye ambassador 8 2, 5:32am

[In Science, dissenting voices is usually right, especially when the mainstream position is supported by money, and power.
AGW however is pure pseudo-science, its only purpose is to serve as a justification for ever increased political intrusion in our lives.]

OK, now I am starting to get worried (about you).
Did you know that almost any time series data are analysed by the AlGorithms of the same person who originally discovered the greenhouse effect of CO2? His name was Fourier. The same AlGorithms are also used on stock price analyses. But the thing is that the CO2 greenhouse effect is proven physics, not interpolation with infinite number of sinusoids or polynomials.

[CO2 is good for the world, it means more life. More CO2 means more life, and CO2 does not cause global warming.]

You are mistaken.
Excess amounts of CO2 hampers decision making capabilities of humans and fish (thus likely all vertebrates).
More CO2 means global warming. Holocene climate was exactly in the middle of Snowball Earth and Runaway Warming Earth. Any change to either direction brings about more instability which the human civilisation has never experienced before. The holocene climate varied within 1C. Our agriculture is optimised to that variation. The whole ecosystem of our civilisation has been acculturalised to that variation of climate.
More CO2 means the largest mass extinction event ever and it is approaching at least 10x as fast as any of the prior ones. The speed of change is so fast that no mammals nor reptiles nor fish have experienced it during the last 300 million years.

"The Arctic icedrilling proves it. CO2 is a lagging indicator."
You are mistaken again.
CO2 is a feedback, thus it both drives and feeds from it.

"Another fun fact is that the effect of CO2 and other greenhouse gases decreases the more of it is in the atmosphere."

Yes, but I fail to see the fun of it, unless you like planet Venus.
And did you notice that your claims on "CO2 not causing global warming" and on "the effect of CO2 and other greenhouse gases decreases the more of it is in the atmosphere" are mutually exclusive? OR are you now claiming that CO2 increase would cause global cooling? That would be a novel and courageous claim, for sure.

"The atmosphere gets saturated, these models that they make pretends that it is the other way around, that the effect instead accelerates exponentially."

You are misled or you are misleading.
The climate models model CO2 effects correctly.
The runaway is not due to saturation of CO2, it is due to crossing the threshold of pumping water vapor into stratosphere which causes additional greenhouse effect.

"They also ignores the homeostatic nature of Earth."
The what? Planetary self-regulation is possible only within the Goldilocks zone and the climate sensitivity is lowest in the middle of the Holocene climate. Veer to any side and climate sensitivity will rise, and once past the threshold (once the hydrogen from the oceans have precipitated into space by pumping water vapor into stratosphere) the next stop is Venus.

"Also don't forget, the greatest effect on the Earth climate is the sun, and it is a lot bigger then us humans."

Climate scientists never forget the sun. Solar variation has been taken into account.