Through the conservation law and other scientific principles Professor Murray Salby absolutely destroys all the smoking guns of the IPCC and other alarmist groups that claim man's emissions of CO2 are solely responsible for the temperature and CO2 increase in modern times.

A brilliant scientist indeed is Prof. Murry Salby.......... 8-)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sGZqWMEpyUM

Does he have an explanation for the warming?

Jovial Monk wrote on Apr 1^st, 2017 at 5:09pm:

Does he have an explanation for the warming?

The warming is natural and has nothing to do with mans emissions of CO2 which are so small they don't even register on the overall carbon budget of the atmopshere.

At the start the 1970s after 30 years of global cooling these same IDIOTS where heralding a little ice age.

You cant bottle climate and hope to keep it in that state, for some reason or another you think it should be at.

Just like you cannot control temperature or the amount of natural CO2 that is released into the atmosphere from natural sources.

Even if all the fossil fuel emissions stopped today CO2 cannot remain or be reduced to 280ppm.

1882 – 1910    Cooling
1910 – 1944    Warming
1944 – 1975    Cooling
1975 – 2001    Warming

http://i64.tinypic.com/28vyt6r.jpg

http://joannenova.com.au/2009/04/global-warming-a-classic-case-of-alarmism/

Joanne Nova, paid denier PR flak for fossil fuel interests, you just lost whatever credibility you had.

This is the philosophy of the alarmists, one that makes you feel comfortable.......... :D

http://i64.tinypic.com/2eozigx.jpg

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-sHg3ZztDAw&t=798s

Jovial Monk wrote on Apr 2^nd, 2017 at 10:13am:

Joanne Nova, paid denier PR flak for fossil fuel interests, you just lost whatever credibility you had.

Are you on the gravy train...............!!??

What poses you to come on this forum and push this pseudoscience called AGW.......?

Do you deny that the medieval warm period exists or that we had a little ice age.

http://i66.tinypic.com/fzaudt.jpg

Medieval warm period warmer than today.

Dahl_Jensen et al 1998
Wagner & Melles 2001
Kaplan et al 2002
Jiang et al 2002
Moore et al 2001
Grudd et al 2002
Seppa & Birks 2002
Dansgaard et al 1975
Korhola et al 2000
Naurzbaev et al 2002
Vaganov et el 1996
Briffa et al 1998
Scweingruber & Briffa 1996
Knudsen et al 2004
Grinsted et al 2006
Besonen et al 2008
Wagner et al 2008
Vare et al 2009
Norgaard-Pedersen & Mikkelsen 2009
Andresen et al 2004
Vinther et al 2010
Kobashi et al 2010
Kobashi et al 2008
Stuiver et al 1995
Dansgaard et al 1975
Jenings & Weiner 1996
Johnsen et al 2001
Vinther et al 2010
Larsen et al 2011
Hill et al 2001
Joynt & Wolfe 2001
Hantemirov & Shiyatov 2002
Andersson et al 2003
Helama et al 2005
Mazepa 2005
Weckstrom et al 2006
Jiang et al 2007
Zabenski & Gajewski 2007
Grudd 2008
Justwan et al 2008
Scire et al 2008
Axford et al 2009
Bjune et al 2009
Cook et al 2009
Fortin & Gajewski 2010
Buntgen et al 2011
Divine et al 2011
Ran et al 2011
Velle et al 2011
D’Andrea et al 2012
Esper et al 2012

There was a MWP and a little ice age.

Temperatures now are higher than in the MWP. More CO2 and CH4.

Jovial Monk wrote on Apr 2^nd, 2017 at 10:23am:

There was a MWP and a little ice age. Temperatures now are higher than in the MWP. More CO2 and CH4.

There are many papers above that show the MWP was warmer than today.

More papers than your consensus that proves AGW is real.... :D

History shows us that the Earth continually warms and cools independently of CO2.

http://i67.tinypic.com/wbx7xh.jpg

Ajax wrote on Apr 2^nd, 2017 at 10:08am:

Jovial Monk wrote on Apr 1st, 2017 at 5:09pm: Does he have an explanation for the warming? The warming is natural

Caused by what? The Earth doesn't just get warmer for no reason.

And it is not from the sun, that has been quiescent for decades meaning we would have seen cooling not warming.

The_Barnacle wrote on Apr 2^nd, 2017 at 10:49am:

Ajax wrote on Apr 2nd, 2017 at 10:08am: Jovial Monk wrote on Apr 1st, 2017 at 5:09pm: Does he have an explanation for the warming? The warming is natural Caused by what? The Earth doesn't just get warmer for no reason.

What do you mean caused by what...............???

What caused all the previous warming and cooling........???

You make it sound as though warming or cooling have NEVER taken place before....!!!

I can tell you what didn't and that's CO2...........!!!

If we didn't have climate change the Earth would still be a molten rock.

Jovial Monk wrote on Apr 2^nd, 2017 at 10:57am:

And it is not from the sun, that has been quiescent for decades meaning we would have seen cooling not warming.

No sun, no climate change on Earth...............!

Ajax, if the climate changes then it has to be caused by something.
Past changes in climate were caused by changes in the sun, changes in ocean currents, changes in the atmosphere, changes in continental distribution and changes in the orbit.

To just say "natural" or "natural variation" is just a cop out. The climate doesn't just change for no reason.

oh and by the way, the medival warm spell was mostly just European


Quote:

A new study questions the popular notion that 10th-century Norse people were able to colonize Greenland because of a period of unusually warm weather. Researchers say the climate was already cold when the Norse arrived -- and that climate thus probably played little role in their mysterious demise some 400 years later. On a larger scale, the study adds to building evidence that the so-called Medieval Warm Period, when Europe enjoyed clement weather, did not necessarily extend to other parts of the world. https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2015/12/151204145919.htm

Could be maybe due to a strengthening of the Gulf Stream? Or a shift in its path to closer to Europe?

Ajax wrote on Apr 2^nd, 2017 at 10:59am:

Jovial Monk wrote on Apr 2nd, 2017 at 10:57am: And it is not from the sun, that has been quiescent for decades meaning we would have seen cooling not warming. No sun, no climate change on Earth...............!

We have a sun and it has been quiescent since the 1980s yet the globe warmed. Something has to explain the warming and CO2 and CH4 explain it pretty well and has been demonstrated doing so by spectroscopy.

The_Barnacle wrote on Apr 2^nd, 2017 at 11:05am:

Ajax, if the climate changes then it has to be caused by something. Past changes in climate were caused by changes in the sun, changes in ocean currents, changes in the atmosphere, changes in continental distribution and changes in the orbit.

Yes I agree, so have all the above and more stopped.

Have they stopped now and only CO2 is driving climate...??


Quote:

To just say "natural" or "natural variation" is just a cop out. The climate doesn't just change for no reason.

Its the natural cycle of the Earth and that also continually changes.


Quote:

oh and by the way, the medival warm spell was mostly just European

Are you sure about that....??!!

So the northern hemisphere and southern hemisphere cannot affect each other, are they isolated somehow...??

Now that's pretty funny barnacle are you trying to be a comedian..... :D or are you just having some fun.

If the warmest place on the Earth is the equator how can the north and south hemisphere not affect each other...!!

That is not what Barnacle said, Ajax.

Do heatwaves in Australia warm Europe?

Jovial Monk wrote on Apr 2^nd, 2017 at 11:12am:

Ajax wrote on Apr 2nd, 2017 at 10:59am: Jovial Monk wrote on Apr 2nd, 2017 at 10:57am: And it is not from the sun, that has been quiescent for decades meaning we would have seen cooling not warming. No sun, no climate change on Earth...............! We have a sun and it has been quiescent since the 1980s yet the globe warmed. Something has to explain the warming and CO2 and CH4 explain it pretty well and has been demonstrated doing so by spectroscopy.

Since the 1980's which papers confirm this.

Most scientists that study the sun have said that the sun started its snoozing around 2009 and it will last until about 2030.

The_Barnacle wrote on Apr 2^nd, 2017 at 11:05am:

oh and by the way, the medival warm spell was mostly just European

So those peer-reviewed papers finding evidence in Tasmania, New Zealand, Chile are just figments of multiple someones' fantasies.  ;)

Jovial Monk wrote on Apr 2^nd, 2017 at 11:12am:

We have a sun and it has been quiescent since the 1980s yet the globe warmed.

Are a believer in that only IR can warm the world. ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D

Jovial Monk wrote on Apr 2^nd, 2017 at 11:23am:

That is not what Barnacle said, Ajax. Do heatwaves in Australia warm Europe?

No it is obvious, cold snaps in Europe cause heatwaves in Australia. You forgot about temperatures being inverted. /sarc

Jovial Monk wrote on Apr 2^nd, 2017 at 11:23am:

That is not what Barnacle said, Ajax. Do heatwaves in Australia warm Europe?

Of course not directly....!

But I'm sure what happens in the north and vice versa affects the other.

http://i64.tinypic.com/2uf7tkh.jpg

Can you explain how the sun can be quiescent for over 30 years yet the globe warms, Lees?

And I do not say it is only the Greenhouse effect.

And Lees replies with his usual BS answer: natural variation.

Jovial Monk wrote on Apr 2^nd, 2017 at 11:31am:

Can you explain how the sun can be quiescent for over 30 years yet the globe warms, Lees? And I do not say it is only the Greenhouse effect.

The sun will be inactive from the period 2009 to 2030.

Where are you getting this information.

http://joannenova.com.au/2009/04/global-warming-a-classic-case-of-alarmism/

Jovial Monk wrote on Apr 2^nd, 2017 at 11:31am:

And Lees replies with his usual BS answer: natural variation.

Really? Where did I say that?

Ajax wrote on Apr 2^nd, 2017 at 11:33am:

Jovial Monk wrote on Apr 2nd, 2017 at 11:31am: Can you explain how the sun can be quiescent for over 30 years yet the globe warms, Lees? And I do not say it is only the Greenhouse effect. The sun will be inactive from the period 2009 to 2030. Where are you getting this information.

It is thought that the sun may go into a solar minimum. According to the oil seed salesman that will cause a LIA. Funny that the last LIA was going when the last Maunder Minimum arrived and was still going when the Maunder Minimum ended. It may even be that the world will warm up during a MM because the sun will emit less UV but more infrared.

Jovial Monk wrote on Apr 2^nd, 2017 at 11:31am:

Can you explain how the sun can be quiescent for over 30 years yet the globe warms, Lees?

You do know visible light warms? Visible light warms deeper that the top 20uM of ocean?

I thought you knew science?

Has the Sun gone out? Did it tell anyone before it left? ;)

Jovial Monk wrote on Apr 2^nd, 2017 at 11:37am:

It is thought that the sun may go into a solar minimum. According to the oil seed salesman that will cause a LIA. Funny that the last LIA was going when the last Maunder Minimum arrived and was still going when the Maunder Minimum ended. It may even be that the world will warm up during a MM because the sun will emit less UV but more infrared.

Please leave the oil seed salesman to their causes, we are only interested in facts here.

So do you expect the Earth to behave like your air conditioner.

Change phase at the flick of a switch...........??

Something turns of and immediately you should feel the effects....!!??.................. ::)

Ajax wrote on Apr 2^nd, 2017 at 11:25am:

Jovial Monk wrote on Apr 2nd, 2017 at 11:12am: Ajax wrote on Apr 2nd, 2017 at 10:59am: Jovial Monk wrote on Apr 2nd, 2017 at 10:57am: And it is not from the sun, that has been quiescent for decades meaning we would have seen cooling not warming. No sun, no climate change on Earth...............! We have a sun and it has been quiescent since the 1980s yet the globe warmed. Something has to explain the warming and CO2 and CH4 explain it pretty well and has been demonstrated doing so by spectroscopy. Since the 1980's which papers confirm this. Most scientists that study the sun have said that the sun started its snoozing around 2009 and it will last until about 2030.

That will have been deniers like Sir Louse’s god, Dubyne.

Ajax wrote on Apr 2^nd, 2017 at 11:41am:

Jovial Monk wrote on Apr 2nd, 2017 at 11:37am: It is thought that the sun may go into a solar minimum. According to the oil seed salesman that will cause a LIA. Funny that the last LIA was going when the last Maunder Minimum arrived and was still going when the Maunder Minimum ended. It may even be that the world will warm up during a MM because the sun will emit less UV but more infrared. Please leave the oil seed salesman to their causes, we are only interested in facts here. So do you expect the Earth to behave like your air conditioner. Change phase at the flick of a switch...........?? Something turns of and immediately you should feel the effects....!!??.................. ::)

I have never said that, Ajax! Don’t put words in my mouth. A system the size of the world with HUGE heat storage like the oceans does not react instantaneously. Tremendous masses of air and ocean need to be heated for warming or be cooled to show cooling and there are short term effects (volcanoes, El Nino/La Nina) that might mask changes temporarily.

Global warming and cooling affects weather systems and that is how the effect of cooling and warming shows. Currently, AGW is causing the belt of cyclones and anticyclones that bring rain to the southern half of the continent are more and more over the ocean and less and less over land and that is why the southern half of Australia is drying out.

Warming is also melting both poles, Greenland and causing glaciers to retreat.

Jovial Monk wrote on Apr 2^nd, 2017 at 11:51am:

Ajax wrote on Apr 2nd, 2017 at 11:41am: Jovial Monk wrote on Apr 2nd, 2017 at 11:37am: It is thought that the sun may go into a solar minimum. According to the oil seed salesman that will cause a LIA. Funny that the last LIA was going when the last Maunder Minimum arrived and was still going when the Maunder Minimum ended. It may even be that the world will warm up during a MM because the sun will emit less UV but more infrared. Please leave the oil seed salesman to their causes, we are only interested in facts here. So do you expect the Earth to behave like your air conditioner. Change phase at the flick of a switch...........?? Something turns of and immediately you should feel the effects....!!??.................. ::) I have never said that, Ajax! Don’t put words in my mouth. A system the size of the world with HUGE heat storage like the oceans does not react instantaneously. Tremendous masses of air and ocean need to be heated for warming or be cooled to show cooling and there are short term effects (volcanoes, El Nino/La Nina) that might mask changes temporarily.

That's what it sounded like when you were referring to the MWP and the sun.


Quote:

Global warming and cooling affects weather systems and that is how the effect of cooling and warming shows. Currently, AGW is causing the belt of cyclones and anticyclones that bring rain to the southern half of the continent are more and more over the ocean and less and less over land and that is why the southern half of Australia is drying out. Warming is also melting both poles, Greenland and causing glaciers to retreat.

That MAYBE so..................................!?

But it DEFINETLY isn't because of mans emissions of CO2.. :)

Jovial Monk wrote on Apr 2^nd, 2017 at 11:51am:

Warming is also melting both poles,

Where is the Antarctic warming?

http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/binaries/content/gallery/mohippo/images/research/research-news-images/arctic_ts.png


Jovial Monk wrote on Apr 2^nd, 2017 at 11:51am:

Global warming and cooling affects weather systems and that is how the effect of cooling and warming shows.

CO2, the magic gas, moves weather systems. ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D

Ajax wrote on Apr 2^nd, 2017 at 10:17am:

Jovial Monk wrote on Apr 2nd, 2017 at 10:13am: Joanne Nova, paid denier PR flak for fossil fuel interests, you just lost whatever credibility you had. Are you on the gravy train...............!!?? What poses you to come on this forum and push this pseudoscience called AGW.......?

Nobody is paying me. Pity, some pay would be nice  :)

I post science.

Ajax wrote on Apr 2^nd, 2017 at 11:59am:

Jovial Monk wrote on Apr 2nd, 2017 at 11:51am: Ajax wrote on Apr 2nd, 2017 at 11:41am: Jovial Monk wrote on Apr 2nd, 2017 at 11:37am: It is thought that the sun may go into a solar minimum. According to the oil seed salesman that will cause a LIA. Funny that the last LIA was going when the last Maunder Minimum arrived and was still going when the Maunder Minimum ended. It may even be that the world will warm up during a MM because the sun will emit less UV but more infrared. Please leave the oil seed salesman to their causes, we are only interested in facts here. So do you expect the Earth to behave like your air conditioner. Change phase at the flick of a switch...........?? Something turns of and immediately you should feel the effects....!!??.................. ::) I have never said that, Ajax! Don’t put words in my mouth. A system the size of the world with HUGE heat storage like the oceans does not react instantaneously. Tremendous masses of air and ocean need to be heated for warming or be cooled to show cooling and there are short term effects (volcanoes, El Nino/La Nina) that might mask changes temporarily. That's what it sounded like when you were referring to the MWP and the sun. Quote: Global warming and cooling affects weather systems and that is how the effect of cooling and warming shows. Currently, AGW is causing the belt of cyclones and anticyclones that bring rain to the southern half of the continent are more and more over the ocean and less and less over land and that is why the southern half of Australia is drying out. Warming is also melting both poles, Greenland and causing glaciers to retreat. That MAYBE so..................................!? But it DEFINETLY isn't because of mans emissions of CO2.. :)

Spectroscopy proves you wrong.

Ajax wrote on Apr 2^nd, 2017 at 10:08am:

The warming is natural and has nothing to do with mans emissions of CO2 which are so small they don't even register on the overall carbon budget of the atmopshere.

You do understand the carbon cycle don't you?
I suggest you actually do some research instead of cut and pasting JoNova
Then you might understand why the ADDITIONAL CO2 emissions by man are so important to the carbon budget of the atmosphere

The_Barnacle wrote on Apr 2^nd, 2017 at 12:38pm:

Ajax wrote on Apr 2nd, 2017 at 10:08am: The warming is natural and has nothing to do with mans emissions of CO2 which are so small they don't even register on the overall carbon budget of the atmopshere. You do understand the carbon cycle don't you? I suggest you actually do some research instead of cut and pasting JoNova Then you might understand why the ADDITIONAL CO2 emissions by man are so important to the carbon budget of the atmosphere

Ah, the dastardly 3-4%.

You do know the carbon dioxide budget isn't and likely never was in equilibrium?  You do know it is CO2 we are talking about not carbon black? You do know the unceratinties in the so called budget?

https://curryja.files.wordpress.com/2012/11/stephens2.gif


Figures from Stephens et al 2012
Imbalance 0.6w/m² +/- 17w/m²

The uncertainties outway the supposed imbalance, it is down in the noise.

Oh, is JoNova a paid Koch puppet too? Perhaps you should read some papers.

Jovial Monk wrote on Apr 2^nd, 2017 at 12:34pm:

Spectroscopy proves you wrong.

Really? Which scientific paper linked spectroscopy to AGW?

The papers you have previously quoted were a blog site that said it could see the increase in IR, an apparently peer-reviewed paper that said they could see change in spectroscopy from 1979 -?. But no direct link to AGW. And once again only for a relatively short period of time.

Lees keeps up the pointless obfuscation.

If Ajax wants to read about the carbon cycle from scientists then read this from the UK Met Office.


Quote:

The Global Carbon Project update presents the world's carbon budget for 2015. This year's report shows that average atmospheric carbon dioxide levels in 2015 increased to 399.4ppm. The atmospheric growth rate of 2.97 above the 2014 average was a record despite near zero growth in fossil fuel emissions. The land and ocean typically absorb approximately half of anthropogenic emissions. However, the strength of the sinks shows year-to-year inconstancy associated with climate variability, with more CO2 accumulating in the atmosphere in warm years and less in cool years. The long term trend in CO2 rise is driven by anthropogenic emissions but natural sinks moderate this: any change in the efficiency of these sinks will have significant consequences for accumulation of anthropogenic CO2 in the atmosphere. Atmospheric CO2 increases above pre-industrial levels first began through releases of carbon to the atmosphere from deforestation and other land use activities. Starting in the 1920s, combustion of fossil fuels became the dominant source of anthropogenic emissions. Anthropogenic emissions occur on top of the natural carbon cycle that circulates carbon between the atmosphere, ocean and terrestrial biosphere.

Quote:

Anthropogenic emissions occur on top of the natural carbon cycle that circulates carbon between the atmosphere, ocean and terrestrial biosphere.

That is the key line Ajax
And that additional CO2 that gets emitted keeps on accumulating each year

The_Barnacle wrote on Apr 2^nd, 2017 at 1:37pm:

Quote: Anthropogenic emissions occur on top of the natural carbon cycle that circulates carbon between the atmosphere, ocean and terrestrial biosphere. That is the key line Ajax And that additional CO2 that gets emitted keeps on accumulating each year

How much of the increase is from increased plant life?

How much of the increase is from oceans outgassing CO2?

Jovial Monk wrote on Apr 2^nd, 2017 at 12:34pm:

Ajax wrote on Apr 2nd, 2017 at 10:17am: Jovial Monk wrote on Apr 2nd, 2017 at 10:13am: Joanne Nova, paid denier PR flak for fossil fuel interests, you just lost whatever credibility you had. Are you on the gravy train...............!!?? What poses you to come on this forum and push this pseudoscience called AGW.......? Nobody is paying me. Pity, some pay would be nice  :) I post science.

I'ld like to see that.

All I've seen from you is you expressing your opinions.. ;)

See the post where I quoted from the Met Office or did you quickly skip over that? Here is some more from that link:


Quote:

Carbon Budget for 2015 For the year 2015, fossil fuel emissions were 9.9 ±0.5 Gigatonnes of carbon (GtC), a small increase over 2014 (a gigatonne is 1 billion tones; 1GtC (Carbon) is equivalent to 3.664GtCO2 (Carbon Dioxide)). An additional emission of 1.3 ±0.5 GtC is estimated from land-use change. Atmospheric CO2 increased by 6.3±0.2 GtC (or 2.97 ppm), a 50% increase compared to 2014 (4.2 ±0.1 GtC), due to a halving of the land sink to 1.9 ±0.9 GtC (2014: 3.9 ±0.9 GtC) resulting from the start of prevailing El Nino conditions. The rest was absorbed by the oceans - 3 ±0.5GtC (2014: 2.9 ±0.5GtC). Cumulative emissions from pre-industrial (1750-2015) have reached 600 ±70 GtC, (555 ±55 GtC 1870-2015). This is an update to the IPCC 1750-2011 estimate of 555 [470 - 640] GtC to include 2012-2015 emissions and a revision of early 20th century land use emissions. The IPCC estimates that with cumulative emissions of 790 GtC, there is a two-thirds chance of staying below 2°C warming relative to pre-industrial temperatures. Keeping warming below two degrees requires total CO2 emissions to remain below this target. The budget is further reduced for 1.5°C. At current levels we are over half way towards this figure. If other non-CO2 gases are excluded, the emissions budget is substantially increased to approximately 1000 GtC.

Jovial Monk wrote on Apr 2^nd, 2017 at 12:34pm:

Spectroscopy proves you wrong.

No it actually proves you wrong.

Is CO2 a well mixed gas...?

http://i64.tinypic.com/149cfma.jpg

https://airs.jpl.nasa.gov/news

Mans emissions are solely responsible for the current increase in CO2.

Actually it agrees with the OP of this thread that most CO2 comes from natural sources.

http://i64.tinypic.com/k2i9o5.jpg

https://www.jpl.nasa.gov/missions/atmospheric-infrared-sounder-airs/

Now about temperature nowhere does it say the current warming is due to the increase in CO2...... :-*

The_Barnacle wrote on Apr 2^nd, 2017 at 12:38pm:

Ajax wrote on Apr 2nd, 2017 at 10:08am: The warming is natural and has nothing to do with mans emissions of CO2 which are so small they don't even register on the overall carbon budget of the atmopshere. You do understand the carbon cycle don't you? I suggest you actually do some research instead of cut and pasting JoNova Then you might understand why the ADDITIONAL CO2 emissions by man are so important to the carbon budget of the atmosphere

I suggest you listen to your own advise and stop listening to dooms dayers......... :-*

The_Barnacle wrote on Apr 2^nd, 2017 at 1:37pm:

Quote: Anthropogenic emissions occur on top of the natural carbon cycle that circulates carbon between the atmosphere, ocean and terrestrial biosphere. That is the key line Ajax And that additional CO2 that gets emitted keeps on accumulating each year

If you had bothered to listen to the OP of this thread you would realise that what you are saying is total RUBBISH...!!

Jovial Monk wrote on Apr 2^nd, 2017 at 2:05pm:

See the post where I quoted from the Met Office or did you quickly skip over that? Here is some more from that link: Quote: Carbon Budget for 2015 For the year 2015, fossil fuel emissions were 9.9 ±0.5 Gigatonnes of carbon (GtC), a small increase over 2014 (a gigatonne is 1 billion tones; 1GtC (Carbon) is equivalent to 3.664GtCO2 (Carbon Dioxide)). An additional emission of 1.3 ±0.5 GtC is estimated from land-use change. Atmospheric CO2 increased by 6.3±0.2 GtC (or 2.97 ppm), a 50% increase compared to 2014 (4.2 ±0.1 GtC), due to a halving of the land sink to 1.9 ±0.9 GtC (2014: 3.9 ±0.9 GtC) resulting from the start of prevailing El Nino conditions. The rest was absorbed by the oceans - 3 ±0.5GtC (2014: 2.9 ±0.5GtC). Cumulative emissions from pre-industrial (1750-2015) have reached 600 ±70 GtC, (555 ±55 GtC 1870-2015). This is an update to the IPCC 1750-2011 estimate of 555 [470 - 640] GtC to include 2012-2015 emissions and a revision of early 20th century land use emissions. The IPCC estimates that with cumulative emissions of 790 GtC, there is a two-thirds chance of staying below 2°C warming relative to pre-industrial temperatures. Keeping warming below two degrees requires total CO2 emissions to remain below this target. The budget is further reduced for 1.5°C. At current levels we are over half way towards this figure. If other non-CO2 gases are excluded, the emissions budget is substantially increased to approximately 1000 GtC.

Payed monkeys parading as scientists.

Champions of the IPCC.............. :P

Meteorologists and climatologists. They observe and measure the weather. Whatever they publish has to be peer reviewed first.

Jovial Monk wrote on Apr 2^nd, 2017 at 2:21pm:

Climatologists.

NO.....!

Payed monkeys that wouldn't know the first thing about science, otherwise they wouldn't print such rubbish handed to them by the IPCC.

They cant even get the weather right you expect me to believe their 100 year forecasts.....LOL....... ;D ;D ;D

Jovial Monk wrote on Apr 2^nd, 2017 at 2:21pm:

Climatologists.

ClimaStrologists.

Ajax wrote on Apr 2^nd, 2017 at 2:24pm:

Jovial Monk wrote on Apr 2nd, 2017 at 2:21pm: Climatologists. NO.....! Payed monkeys that wouldn't know the first thing about science, otherwise they wouldn't print such rubbish handed to them by the IPCC. They cant even get the weather right you expect me to believe their 100 year forecasts.....LOL....... ;D ;D ;D

oh well, stick to your denialist crap then.

Jovial Monk wrote on Apr 2^nd, 2017 at 2:05pm:

For the year 2015, fossil fuel emissions were 9.9 ±0.5 Gigatonnes of carbon (GtC), a small increase over 2014 (a gigatonne is 1 billion tones; 1GtC (Carbon) is equivalent to 3.664GtCO2 (Carbon Dioxide)). An additional emission of 1.3 ±0.5 GtC is estimated from land-use change. Atmospheric CO2 increased by 6.3±0.2 GtC (or 2.97 ppm), a 50% increase compared to 2014 (4.2 ±0.1 GtC), due to a halving of the land sink to 1.9 ±0.9 GtC (2014: 3.9 ±0.9 GtC) resulting from the start of prevailing El Nino conditions. The rest was absorbed by the oceans - 3 ±0.5GtC (2014: 2.9 ±0.5GtC).

You notice they didn't give any increase for the greening of the planet?

Why don't they want to admit that?

JM, You do understand the WMO says 30 years of weather equates to climate?

So when they can predict weather, accurately, out past about seven days, then they may be able to predict climate. ;)

Jovial Monk wrote on Apr 2^nd, 2017 at 2:26pm:

Ajax wrote on Apr 2nd, 2017 at 2:24pm: Jovial Monk wrote on Apr 2nd, 2017 at 2:21pm: Climatologists. NO.....! Payed monkeys that wouldn't know the first thing about science, otherwise they wouldn't print such rubbish handed to them by the IPCC. They cant even get the weather right you expect me to believe their 100 year forecasts.....LOL....... ;D ;D ;D oh well, stick to your denialist crap then.

The crap is what comes out of the monkeys on the gravy train.

Like for example the 97% consensus - where did that come from again.....??

http://i68.tinypic.com/34602n6.jpg

https://www.forbes.com/sites/larrybell/2012/07/17/that-scientific-global-warming-consensus-not/#6517facf3bb3

Then lets not forget John Cook et al who tried to verify this with his fraudulent paper that got laughed out of the science community, he's back working in the cartoon industry again over at skeptical science blog........ ;)

http://i65.tinypic.com/2i6e5xl.jpg

http://www.populartechnology.net/2012/09/skeptical-science-partnership-with-al.html

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SSrjAXK5pGwhttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kotqWXZkZS0https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=USZ6vRY_kWI

And all that crap has what to do with the BuMet and MetOffice?

Just stupid denialist crap, irrelevant and not science.

Brace yourself Ajax: there will be another ETS of some kind even if the Libs are in power.

Jovial Monk wrote on Apr 2^nd, 2017 at 3:00pm:

And all that crap has what to do with the BuMet and MetOffice? Just stupid denialist crap, irrelevant and not science. Brace yourself Ajax: there will be another ETS of some kind even if the Libs are in power.

Yes I know, the oligarchy always gets it way sad but true.

They will create a $7 trillion dollar carbon derivatives market per annum to play their games on.

The last thing on their minds after they create this market will be to reduce the amount of CO2 going into the atmosphere.

All they want is for us to pay for it going into the atmosphere.

And that's how critical your pseudo science called AGW is my friend.

The cost of having virtually no impact on the atmospheric CO2 budget for the whole world will be about $360 TRILLION dollars.

Now you know why bankers the elite the oligarchy have been pumping billions of dollars into this industry.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GnWAOUERVrI


GLOBAL FREEZING; 15-year ICE-AGE to hit by 2021


Published on Apr 1, 2017

GLOBAL FREEZING: seawapa.org/climate
15-year ICE-AGE to hit by 2021 (seawapa.org/timeline) as the sun prepares to 'HIBERNATE' (seawapa.org/solar). This is not fear-mongering, it's the presentation of the only plan (seawapa.org/plan), big enough as the alternative to all depopulation programs by wars (seawapa.org/index/wars.html), economic crisis, starvation, fears, geoengineering (seawapa.org/geo), pestilence, co2 demonization (seawapa.org/co2), expensive "space" & "science" programs, ... combined.

Without it, there will be food price hike leading to famine, economic collapses, financial collapses, bankruptcies, mass migration, leading to wars and many will perish.

What is your plan if it will really happen?
Do you think the government will save everyone? In fact, they all know about this, and they will cull the useless consumers to keep only necessary people in the field of elements exploration, to use in robotics, infrastructures, mass food and good productions, and in finance, science, system administration, ...

Politicians are preparing, while you are distracted
That's why there are so many distractions in the news; from the US-Chinese-Russian tensions, Brexit, refugee crisis, Ukraine conflict (Russian food basket), Middle-East, the Police State needs to control the masses via terrorist False-Flags, to the South China Sea dispute, ... to steer everybody heads away from Mini Ice-Age (seawapa.org/mia) and Ice-Age (seawapa.org/ia) events; seawapa.org/2017, seawapa.org/2016

And if you do just set all of these distractions aside and look back this way where they don't want you to look, there is a major tsunami of societal changes coming.

Ajax wrote on Apr 2^nd, 2017 at 3:12pm:

They will create a $7 trillion dollar carbon derivatives market per annum to play their games on.

That's how Al Gore made his money. Then got out before the collapse.

lee wrote on Apr 2^nd, 2017 at 3:18pm:

Ajax wrote on Apr 2nd, 2017 at 3:12pm: They will create a $7 trillion dollar carbon derivatives market per annum to play their games on. That's how Al Gore made his money. Then got out before the collapse.

John Casey - the man featured in the last video - is a scientist.

Why do some people reject science?

lee wrote on Apr 2^nd, 2017 at 3:18pm:

Ajax wrote on Apr 2nd, 2017 at 3:12pm: They will create a $7 trillion dollar carbon derivatives market per annum to play their games on. That's how Al Gore made his money. Then got out before the collapse.

I didn't know he got out.

Smart cookie but what a lying sack of sh!t he is.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vFK-UTGH1Zw

Bobby. wrote on Apr 2^nd, 2017 at 3:33pm:

John Casey - the man featured in the last video - is a scientist. Why do some people reject science?

Because it doesn't jibe with their beliefs. They would rather believe a consensus exists. ;)

Bobby. wrote on Apr 2^nd, 2017 at 3:33pm:

lee wrote on Apr 2nd, 2017 at 3:18pm: Ajax wrote on Apr 2nd, 2017 at 3:12pm: They will create a $7 trillion dollar carbon derivatives market per annum to play their games on. That's how Al Gore made his money. Then got out before the collapse. John Casey - the man featured in the last video - is a scientist. Why do some people reject science?

Hey Bobby I wouldn't be surprised if 97% of scientists actually disagree with the pseudoscience that is AGW.

lee wrote on Apr 2^nd, 2017 at 3:50pm:

Bobby. wrote on Apr 2nd, 2017 at 3:33pm: John Casey - the man featured in the last video - is a scientist. Why do some people reject science? Because it doesn't jibe with their beliefs. They would rather believe a consensus exists. ;)

I think they are brainwashed by channel 9 news &
they can't think for themselves.
We've got some cold weather coming our way -
so has a great part of the world.

Ajax wrote on Apr 2^nd, 2017 at 3:50pm:

Bobby. wrote on Apr 2nd, 2017 at 3:33pm: lee wrote on Apr 2nd, 2017 at 3:18pm: Ajax wrote on Apr 2nd, 2017 at 3:12pm: They will create a $7 trillion dollar carbon derivatives market per annum to play their games on. That's how Al Gore made his money. Then got out before the collapse. John Casey - the man featured in the last video - is a scientist. Why do some people reject science? Hey Bobby I wouldn't be surprised if 97% of scientists actually disagree with the pseudoscience that is AGW.

The scientists are slowly changing their minds.
John Casey used to believe in AGW
but the evidence doesn't correlate with what is observed.

Ajax wrote on Apr 2^nd, 2017 at 2:24pm:

Jovial Monk wrote on Apr 2nd, 2017 at 2:21pm: Climatologists. NO.....! Payed monkeys that wouldn't know the first thing about science, otherwise they wouldn't print such rubbish handed to them by the IPCC. They cant even get the weather right you expect me to believe their 100 year forecasts.....LOL....... ;D ;D ;D

Ajax, you do know the difference between weather and climate don't you?

So clearly you prefer to believe bloggers, conspiracy theorists and pseudo science rather than actual scientists. You clearly know nothing about science or you wouldn't keep posting those doctored and discredited graphs that you spam us with. 

That very long paper I posted big parts of even explains one of his charts.

Yes, not easy reading and understanding, not as easy as reading that Salby or whatever the jerk’s name is SAYING but not SHOWING why CO2 (etc) does not cause AGW!

I have posted charts showing the infrared spectrum that shows big parts missing corresponding to the GHGs—AGW in action—and still you can’t make deniers see.

We have all been told about the IPCC. The IPCC uses peer-reviewed papers only they say.

The IPCC's confidence has grown to 95% that the globe is suffering greater than 50% warming since the mid-twentieth century.

John Cook has done that fabulous report on the peer-reviewed papers.

"(1) Explicitly endorses and quantifies AGW as 50+%"

https://skepticalscience.com/tcp.php?t=search&s=a&a=&c=&e=1&yf=1991&yt=2011


That is 65 papers out of 4011 or 1.6%, according to John Cook et al.

Just imagine how confident they would be if it got to 3% of the papers.