It took a couple of days (about 20 hours of work - on vacation time!), and the outcome could be summarized as: when you have ruled out everything impossible, all that is left must be the cause, however implausible it would seem. Even though green crackpots broke in to our local University, blaming astro-physicists of a general conspiracy since they didn't talk about global warming in their convention; it seems Greenies got it once right!
Yeah, it turns out Jaworowskis paper is actually misleading and intended to be so, and that is mildly said. Starting from the falsified Senate committee entry, this is quite strange from a person who has been a chairman of UN sub-organisation. Since Jaworowskis paper is misleading, you could easily forget everything what Segalstad says in his webpage due to that reason only. However, for those actually interested, the reason where his logic goes wrong is assuming a equilibrium state in calculations. Then the Nature articles are misleadingly referenced in Jaworowskis paper, the criticism has nothing to do with scientific process, but some other things. Again, it is strange that Jaworowski is falsifying also this. I admit I didn't check that since I didn't believe he could actually refer journal like Nature so incorrectly.
Then Becks paper (2007) is actually true, it is the arithmetic average of all the measured CO2 values from beginning of 1900s to current day. Unfortunately, those values reported by the articles by some other researchers, but it doesn't take account the proximity of traffic or factories. It seems to be quite easy to acquire far higher CO2 levels when measuring to the downwind side of a factory. So, the reported values are correct, but they have nothing to do with global CO2 level, and everything with local CO2 levels. Grays error is same kind of fault in logic, he mixes local phenomenom to global phenomenom.
Then, there are some other interesting pages, like:
http://www.norcalblogs.com/watts/weather_stations/This is a group of global warming sceptics that has reviewed the conditions of each weather station in US. The work was done to show that the urban heat islands do have an effect in the temperature measurements. And, yes, they found out a lot of measurement errors, several coming from putting the sensors next to the sewage treatment container!
They then went on and put up data of weather stations they consider trustworthy. Surprisingly, the end result from those stations was quite close to the NASAs "corrected" results, though it is seen that those "corrections" might have nothing to do with local conditions (one of those primary stations by NASA was actually surrounded by parking lots!). The net results are the same due to the averaging of thousand stations (mainly from NASAs side I mean). I recommend going and watching those how to not measure temperature lists, they are quite funny from experimental physicists point of view at least. However, the sceptics have been quite honest in their calculations as they confirmed IPCC's temperature record, McIntyre included. This was the best kind of work sceptics could have done, so props for them about that.
So, in conclusion not all criticism is unfounded, but it seems that CO2 is the most probable agent that causes the warming. And, to conclude even further, it is not actually the total amount of CO2 what is the problem, it is the release rate since nature could most likely be able to sink a lot more with minimal effects,
given enough time.
That being said, what can be done to avoid the predicted warming - i.e. to slow down output rate? I have at least one suggestion: remove all stand-by switches from electronics to real on/off switches. This is probably the most easiest to implement, causing a mild irritation in persons that are used to remote controls, but should be manageable. The second thing is to construct nuclear power plants, wind power plants and solar power plants where applicable. Though the best possible way is simply to shut down all electric equipment that doesn't need to be on.
In my opinion, no biofuel can help here, since they all release carbon anyhow (and you have a hard time to convince me that the rate of growth would exceed the rate of harvest, there by nullifying to CO2 output). And, luckily the price of oil is already going up, which is going to limit the driving. It will limit the food production also, though. In the end, it seems quite a lot of people are going to be needed in the countryside in the near future to upkeep the food production. The main traffic will probably be done using ships and trains, and air cargo will be much more expensive. The number of private cars is most likely going to drop drastically.
Should the organic fuel usage be curbed down, the simplest way is to add tax on any organic fuels. Then anyone who uses them have to pay taxes, not the rest of population. This will mean that the rich people will still drive carelessly with cars, while those people who would actually need it could not afford it. But differing from this will result in difficult discussion of a person's/nation's footprint in the world (inculding the warming/cooling costs, warming cost at least being necessary to sustain life...)
There is one wild card though, and that is the Golf current. Should it decide to reverse its course, then Europe turns actually quite a bit colder (this is actually reasonable, since the cold water from the melting North Pole has to go somewhere)...
Mika
EDIT: Replaced: organ -> organic. Reason: recalled that English doesn't work like Finnish.
