"It is NOT a fact that the net effect of emissions, including particulates, is significant at all. That is a non-sequitur."

What I take you to be arguing is that it is not a proven fact that emissions are significant to global warming. I don't agree with that conclusion. However, simply arguing about reason alone, because there is not proof for proposition P, it does not mean that you are allowed to conclude ~P. I am not arguing that we should believe unproved propositions, I am however pointing out that you seem to believe that, in this case, the negation of an unproved proposition is a fact: that emissions are not a cause of warming.

To put it precisely: You san not reject models that lead to accurate predictions because there are 'some things not known'. There are ALWAYS 'some things not known' in science.

Your claims about particulates not being factored into models is not correct. They have been factored in as long as there are models. Their projected effect on atmospheric conditions is unknown- not because no data exists, but because the data is ambiguous and sensitive to assumtpions. This is to say that their effect varies based on reflectiveness, their distribution, their size, their endurance in the air, and their chemical makeup- which is not uniform. (it is not the case that for all particulates, constant properties hold).

However, in ANY model from the BEGINNING of climate modeling, if you hold all factors steady and increase CO2, the system warms. In ANY model, if you reduce CO2 the system cools. Furthermore, as per RLs links, these models make ACCURATE predictions in ice-core data about the link between CO2 and Warming.

Your argument seems to be (P= human activity is inducing global warming) "That P is not true. It is not true because we have no data on what other (non carbon) emissions do to the atmosphere. It is possible that other emissions magically yield homeostasis".

There is no evidence for that argument. They may yield homeostasis, they may not. However, there IS a scientific theory that is NOT disproven that CO2 induces warming in a climate system. The effect of purple smurfs and Laphroig Scotch on global climate are not known, sure, but I would be insane to conclude that their existence nullifies a proven empirical fact.

If you insist that all byproducts of all human activites be factored into the model and yield verifiable predictions- if that is the bar for a successful scientific theory of climate change, then you will NEVER have such a model. Its provably mathematically impossible to compute the macro or micro effects of that many variables in this complex a system. At least not until quantum computing happens. HOWEVER, all is not lost- you can rely upon the correlations you CAN measure and CAN predict (the inescapble conclusion that CO2 is projected to cause warming together with the historical record that rising CO2 HAS correlated positively with every warming )

Phytoplankton are a carbon sink- an increase in phytoplankton in most models requires the sequestration of Carbon. Removing their predators from the food-chain would seem to argue that it would increase carbon sequestration. Again, you are appealing to the unknown/unknowable as evidence that the KNOWN correlation between atmospheric CO2 and warming is false.

the Zooplankton you point to, last I looked were also considered a carbon sink- in that they incorporate carbon into their bodies (shells), and sink when they perish. Limestone, some Oil deposits, etc are the sequestered carbonaceous remains. Again, removing their predators would seem to indicate more Carbon being sequestered, which is the opposite of the effect of deforrestation. Please provide some evidence that the result you claim is 'undisputable', as it contradicts the last set of research I did on the role of zooplankton.

I am also dubious of the claim that 'most fish humans eat... eat mainly zooplankton', and I would like you to support that.

Now, if you want to say "Atmospheric CO2 is rising, true, but it is not for sure that it is caused by humans", then you are on a fools errand. You are on a fools errand because at the end of the day, Humans produce BILLIONS of metric tonnes of CO2, and have destroyed or altered several PROFOUND carbon sinks (forrests, peat-bogs, etc) while at the same time atmospheric CO2 has shot up to a level not seen in, what, millions of years?. Where that rise is DIRECTLY and positively correlated to the first industrialization.

If you can not point to a credible current emission of CO2 that is not human caused, then you don't have a leg to stand on. Saying that there "might be a magic CO2 pump unobserved" is invoking Homonuculi and demons. Its not a scientific hypotheisis. You also have to reject the Null hypothesis. This is not noise in the system(*).

At the end of the day, we have a very good predictive model that human activites are resulting in increased CO2 and increased global temperature. Invoking Demons and Imps is not a refutation of that model. Invoking the effects of other human activites aside from industry to exmplain CO2 rise or climate change simply changes the context of the debate, it does not alter the content: that humans are/are not causing temperature/CO2 increase.

Lastly, you say: "The big factors are still outside of human control, most significantly, changes in solar output."

The argument is not that warming is only caused by human input. The argument is that human input is causing warming. If the sun warms us 2 degrees, and human input warms us 1 degree- then we can cut onr third of the temperature effect of global warming. Of course Climate is a sensitive ssystem with many inputs. Thats not being argued. If humans have any significant effect, then it is difficult to argue that live has evolved to 'deal' with that effect, while it has been 'dealing' with solar variability since the very beginning.

Davin L.

(*) Nor is it Mt. Pinatubo and everest.