The only thing of any substance in your comment is the above. However, it is hard to respond since you don’t identify the period of ‘history’ in which temperatures have “gone up by 0.01%”. The global surfaccr air temperature record for the 20th C shows an increase of 0.6C, half of the waming occurring the past 25 years (Dessler and Parsons 2006). It just does square with your numbers.

I would like to know how Africa is prevented from using its coal power. Developing countries are exempt from Kyoto etc. They don’t use the their reserves (if they have any) because they don’t have the economy and infrastructure, not because they are prevented from doing so.

All the scientist(and you) need take a grade 8 refreasher course on the laws of Thermodynamics.

Paying especial attention to the second law that is only relevant in a closed system. The greenhouse effect is only observed in a closed system (a model) and if it worked the same in a open system (the earth, open to any elements as in the atmosphere or surrounding it) then the atmospheres temperature should be raising? Right?
Not much, it’s only gone up by .01% in the history of recording, doesn’t sound like much of a greenhouse effect to me?
Here’s a simple explanation in this link, how evaporation of the oceans and heating of the land is from the SUN and cause weather patterns and our seasons.

http://earthednet.org/Ocean_Materials/Mini_Studies/Atmos_Ocean_Interaction/Atmos_Ocean_Interaction.html

In a open system(earth), the sun(the heat) heats the surface of the globe . The ground and the oceans heat during the day light hours, the air next to it heat rises and the heat goes up into the atmosphere(the cold).
Some my accumulate lower as cloud cover and return as moisture(H2O) or frozen water somewhere else. The heat is gone in the night hours and the heat does not circulate and return. If it did? Then we would see a rapid increase in the atmospheres temperate which we don’t, it’s as low as a .01% rise.
And here lies the reason why science needs to be checked and rechecked for authenticity regularly. Checked for basic fundamental understanding, deductions/guesses and conclusions based on laws and presagers. It took century’s for theories or ideas to be excepted and most were dead before getting the credit disserved or giving someone else the idea and them taking it one step forward in it’s fruition as a of law in science or a hypotheses for another scientists to take the reins and prove or disprove a idea.

Not even knowing( I assume?) that the theory you are espousing is against the laws of ALL know science? Then you better have a MOUNTAIN of evidence to back up your bullsheet. And if you need to fight in court to get the actual modeling program to prove it right or wrong from a highly most trusted source prove the next apocalypse? Meh!

This kind of junk science is cancer and is corrupted by the anti human/eugenics idea of our sin of over crowding and self destruction/mutilation on the planet for greed. Mostly directed at the west, but we are all to controlled already to go out pollute or cause destruction to our planet without repercussion.
I live where all our power is clean hydroelectric, we are lucky and have large amounts of runoff. But we used coal back years ago and that’s what built us before the dams. So why shouldn’t Africa get to use coal power they have as a people? Don’t poor countries get to use the SAME power we used in older times? And if you think no? Then lets build 30 or so nuclear plants. It’s in almost every county as I type this and some countries are almost ALL nuclear. Lots in the USA, Canada, China, Europe, etc.
So why don’t we allow people who are struggling and need the technology to generator power from whatever source we used in the past to give then simple basis things we take for granted … like life and a future?

First of all the Greenland Ice sheet did not appear in the 1200’s. The Greenland Ice Core Project have used Greenland ice core samples to reconstruct a climate record – these samples go back 100,000s of years! The ice sheet has been there for all that time and in places is 3km deep!

I don’t know if you dreamt up the stuff about magma pools, but melting Greenland ice is not the only evidence of a warming climate. The instrument record, records of glacial length, sea temperature records, and records of the extent of sea ice all confirm that the climate has warming.

The glacial lag argument is a tired old and easily refuted argument. The 800 year lag between a glacial period ending and CO2 levels increasing is correct. However, glacial periods take at least 5000 years to end, so you can’t conclude therefore that greenhouse gases don’t contribute to the warming. All the glacial lag proves is that greenhouse gases don’t trigger the warming – but no-one ever claimed that CO2 did trigger the warming! The warming is triggered by cyclical variations in the Earth’s orbit (Milankovitch cycles). A small change in Earth’s orbit changes the quantity of greenhouse gases, which them significantly amplify the initial warming. CO2 does absorb radiant heat - its basic physics, proven over 150 years ago.