Hey JV and DRAH,

Stop worrying, even the IPCC acknowledges that the more CO2 that's in the air the more its power to trap infra red heat diminishes.


http://i64.tinypic.com/2nkj2n8.jpg
http://i64.tinypic.com/fut7w5.jpg


Read all the article here,

https://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/05/08/the-effectiveness-of-co2-as-a-greenhouse-gas-becomes-ever-more-marginal-with-greater-concentration/

Ajax wrote on Apr 24^th, 2017 at 1:16pm:

Hey JV and DRAH, Stop worrying, even the IPCC acknowledges that the more CO2 that's in the air the more its power to trap infra red heat diminishes.

That's partially true but extremely misleading (but why shouldn't I be surprised with it coming from whatsupwiththat  ;D ;D ;D ;D)

Each additional 100ppm of CO2 will produce slightly less additional warming however the problem is that our emissions have been logarithmicly increasing and CO2 concentrations have also been logarithmicly increasing which will more than cancel out any diminished sensitivity.
http://i65.tinypic.com/1zmf9sj.gif

http://i67.tinypic.com/2a6a7if.png

So your denier blogs have got it hopelessly wrong again. But of course you will still believe the propaganda that they feed you  ;D ;D ;D ;D

Compared to natural CO2 emissions mans emissions of CO2 are just too small to register.

Notice the sharp rise in fossil fuel CO2 emissions after 2000.

After 2000 fossil fuel emissions were 3 times the amount of fossil fuel emissions in the prior decade to 2000, that is 3 times as much fossil fuel emission went into our atmosphere after 2000 than the decade before 2000.

But the average yearly increase after 2000 just like the decade prior to 2000, average increase in CO2 remains more or less steady at 2.1ppm per year.

Fossil fuel CO2 emissions at 2.3% of the total CO2 natural emissions are insignificant and get lost in the noise.

That's why the average yearly increase of CO2 has remained steady at 2.1ppm per year even though fossil fuel emissions have shot through the roof.

Again your argument is shot down.

Yes fossil fuels emissions contribute but the contribution is small at 2.3% of the total amount of natural CO2 that is emitted.

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

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

However I must congratulate you and whatsupwiththat for finally accepting that CO2 is a green house gas and causes warming.

We are making progress

The_Barnacle wrote on Apr 25^th, 2017 at 11:04am:

However I must congratulate you and whatsupwiththat for finally accepting that CO2 is a green house gas and causes warming. We are making progress

Blogs like WUWT present facts from BOTH sides, they donot try to mislead the reader or sway him in anyway.

The same cant be said for that anything BUT skeptical science blog run by the cartoonist John Cook..... ;D

Ajax wrote on Apr 25^th, 2017 at 11:03am:

Compared to natural CO2 emissions mans emissions of CO2 are just too small to register.

Ajax I have already explained the carbon cycle to you but you still fail to understand.

Natural emissions of CO2 are in general balanced by natural absorption of CO2. Its called the carbon cycle.
Then along comes fossil fuel burning and we are suddenly emitting additional CO2, and this additional CO2 accumulates in the atmosphere.

The_Barnacle wrote on Apr 25^th, 2017 at 11:08am:

Ajax wrote on Apr 25th, 2017 at 11:03am: Compared to natural CO2 emissions mans emissions of CO2 are just too small to register. Ajax I have already explained the carbon cycle to you but you still fail to understand. Natural emissions of CO2 are in general balanced by natural absorption of CO2. Its called the carbon cycle. Then along comes fossil fuel burning and we are suddenly emitting additional CO2, and this additional CO2 accumulates in the atmosphere.

Yes this is true I agree with you.

But mans emissions are so small compared to the natural CO2 emissions they don't even register, that's why the average increase in CO2 has been steady, instead of sky rocketing as you think it should.

Ajax wrote on Apr 25^th, 2017 at 11:07am:

Blogs like WUWT present facts from BOTH sides, they donot try to mislead the reader or sway him in anyway.

;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D
Funniest line I have heard all week.

The_Barnacle wrote on Apr 25^th, 2017 at 11:12am:

Ajax wrote on Apr 25th, 2017 at 11:07am: Blogs like WUWT present facts from BOTH sides, they donot try to mislead the reader or sway him in anyway. ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D Funniest line I have heard all week.

Oh show me an article that tries to brainwash its reader like the sceptical science stooges do.

BTW have you ever read some of the responses those sceptical science stooges get...............LOL

Ajax wrote on Apr 25^th, 2017 at 11:12am:

But mans emissions are so small compared to the natural CO2 emissions they don't even register

That is irrelevant
Natural emissions are balanced out by natural absorption

Let me try and explain it this way.

If $101 goes into your account and then $100 gets withdrawn then your bank balance will increase by $1.
If $1,000,001 goes into your account and $1,000,000 gets withdrawn then your bank balance will still increase by only $1.

The size of the transactions are irrelevant, it is only the net gain which is relevant.

It is the same with the additional CO2 emitted from human sources

The_Barnacle wrote on Apr 25^th, 2017 at 11:20am:

Ajax wrote on Apr 25th, 2017 at 11:12am: But mans emissions are so small compared to the natural CO2 emissions they don't even register That is irrelevant Natural emissions are balanced out by natural absorption Let me try and explain it this way. If $101 goes into your account and then $100 gets withdrawn then your bank balance will increase by $1. If $1,000,001 goes into your account and $1,000,000 gets withdrawn then your bank balance will still increase by only $1. The size of the transactions are irrelevant, it is only the net gain which is relevant. It is the same with the additional CO2 emitted from human sources

You seem to have conveniently forgotten that today we have some of the lowest atmospheric CO2 levels in our history, in 550 million years it has only been this low once before.

Our carbon sinks are much greater than what you have been told, otherwise they wouldn't be able to handle mans emissions and CO2 would exponentially grow like you say.

BUT UNFORTUNATELY FOR YOU THIS ISN"T HAPPENING.

It's not as though we're shipping CO2 in from Mars, we are using fossil fuels from the Earth which when burnt create CO2 gas that is of the Earth.

Who told you that 280ppm was the ideal level of CO2 in our atmosphere when history shows that our CO2 levels in the atmosphere have ALWAYS been much higher.

Can you bottle climate change, I think not my friend.

Climate change has been with us since day dot and will continue to change until the Earth is no more.

Man cannot harness climate change, get that through your head.

http://i64.tinypic.com/2eb7uir.jpg

Ajax wrote on Apr 25^th, 2017 at 11:33am:

You seem to have conveniently forgotten that today we have some of the lowest atmospheric CO2 levels in our history, in 550 million years it has only been this low once before.

Your 550 million year time scale is completely irrelevant considering human civilization has only been around for about 30,000 years


Ajax wrote on Apr 25^th, 2017 at 11:33am:

Our carbon sinks are much greater than what you have been told, otherwise they wouldn't be able to handle mans emissions and CO2 would exponentially grow like you say. BUT UNFORTUNATELY FOR YOU THIS ISN"T HAPPENING.

CO2 concentrations are growing rapidly. Measuring stations at Cape Grim and Mauna Loa are irrefutable evidence of this.



Ajax wrote on Apr 25^th, 2017 at 11:33am:

It's not as though we're shipping CO2 in from Mars, we are using fossil fuels from the Earth which when burnt create CO2 gas that is of the Earth.

We are taking CO2 that is buried underground and releasing it into the atmosphere. Of course that is going to have an effect on our atmosphere.


Ajax wrote on Apr 25^th, 2017 at 11:33am:

Who told you that 280ppm was the ideal level of CO2 in our atmosphere when history shows that our CO2 levels in the atmosphere have ALWAYS been much higher.

280ppm is ideal for human civilisation because that is what we have been used to. The level it was at prior to human civilisation is irrelevant because we were not around then.


Ajax wrote on Apr 25^th, 2017 at 11:33am:

Can you bottle climate change, I think not my friend. Climate change has been with us since day dot and will continue to change until the Earth is no more. Man cannot harness climate change, get that through your head.

The fact that the climate has changed naturally in the past is in fact evidence that the climate can also be changed by human activities. 7 billion people pumping CO2 into the atmosphere is going to cause some changes.

You can bury your head in the sand Ajax but your cut and paste posts show that you have a very poor grasp of scientific principles

The_Barnacle wrote on Apr 25^th, 2017 at 11:20am:

Ajax wrote on Apr 25th, 2017 at 11:12am: But mans emissions are so small compared to the natural CO2 emissions they don't even register That is irrelevant Natural emissions are balanced out by natural absorption Let me try and explain it this way. If $101 goes into your account and then $100 gets withdrawn then your bank balance will increase by $1. If $1,000,001 goes into your account and $1,000,000 gets withdrawn then your bank balance will still increase by only $1. The size of the transactions are irrelevant, it is only the net gain which is relevant. It is the same with the additional CO2 emitted from human sources

Which UN boondoggle does Nature account to?  I mean to have a perfectly balance debit and credit system in Co2 is amazing. Or perhaps it is bullshyte.

Ajax wrote on Apr 25^th, 2017 at 11:33am:

The_Barnacle wrote on Apr 25th, 2017 at 11:20am: Ajax wrote on Apr 25th, 2017 at 11:12am: But mans emissions are so small compared to the natural CO2 emissions they don't even register That is irrelevant Natural emissions are balanced out by natural absorption Let me try and explain it this way. If $101 goes into your account and then $100 gets withdrawn then your bank balance will increase by $1. If $1,000,001 goes into your account and $1,000,000 gets withdrawn then your bank balance will still increase by only $1. The size of the transactions are irrelevant, it is only the net gain which is relevant. It is the same with the additional CO2 emitted from human sources You seem to have conveniently forgotten that today we have some of the lowest atmospheric CO2 levels in our history, in 550 million years it has only been this low once before. Our carbon sinks are much greater than what you have been told, otherwise they wouldn't be able to handle mans emissions and CO2 would exponentially grow like you say. BUT UNFORTUNATELY FOR YOU THIS ISN"T HAPPENING. It's not as though we're shipping CO2 in from Mars, we are using fossil fuels from the Earth which when burnt create CO2 gas that is of the Earth. Who told you that 280ppm was the ideal level of CO2 in our atmosphere when history shows that our CO2 levels in the atmosphere have ALWAYS been much higher. Can you bottle climate change, I think not my friend. Climate change has been with us since day dot and will continue to change until the Earth is no more. Man cannot harness climate change, get that through your head. http://i64.tinypic.com/2eb7uir.jpg

"Rates of change!": another thousand page circle party, yayyyyyyyyyyyyyyyy!  ::)

The_Barnacle wrote on Apr 25^th, 2017 at 11:20am:

Natural emissions are balanced out by natural absorption

So when the earth had CO2 levels of 2200ppm it was in balance; and now 400ppm it can't balance? ;D ;D ;D

The_Barnacle wrote on Apr 25^th, 2017 at 11:58am:

considering human civilization has only been around for about 30,000 years

You mean scientists are wrong?

"While our ancestors have been around for about six million years, the modern form of humans only evolved about 200,000 years ago. "

https://www.universetoday.com/38125/how-long-have-humans-been-on-earth/

Poor Lees never reads the posts properly and understands but little.

Jovial Monk wrote on Apr 25^th, 2017 at 5:41pm:

Poor Lees never reads the posts properly and understands but little.

Which of course is immeasurably better than JM.

You made a whopping error because, basically, you know nothing.

Jovial Monk wrote on Apr 25^th, 2017 at 7:12pm:

You made a whopping error because, basically, you know nothing.

While you just tell whoppers.

You are so dumb you have no idea of the howler you just made.

That is very funny!  :D :D :D

Jovial Monk wrote on Apr 25^th, 2017 at 7:37pm:

You are so dumb you have no idea of the howler you just made. That is very funny!  :D :D :D

You are so funny you make sch!tt up.

Nope.

You made  HUGE stuffup and you have no idea what it is. Poor Lees the twit.

Jovial Monk wrote on Apr 25^th, 2017 at 8:47pm:

Nope. You made  HUGE stuffup and you have no idea what it is. Poor Lees the twit.

And being so erudite you can't help yourself being a prat. With no knowledge.

No idea, have you?

You're telling the story Rory. ;)

You REALLY can’t see the howler you made?

WOW!

Ajax wrote on Apr 25^th, 2017 at 11:12am:

The_Barnacle wrote on Apr 25th, 2017 at 11:08am: Ajax wrote on Apr 25th, 2017 at 11:03am: Compared to natural CO2 emissions mans emissions of CO2 are just too small to register. Ajax I have already explained the carbon cycle to you but you still fail to understand. Natural emissions of CO2 are in general balanced by natural absorption of CO2. Its called the carbon cycle. Then along comes fossil fuel burning and we are suddenly emitting additional CO2, and this additional CO2 accumulates in the atmosphere. Yes this is true I agree with you. But mans emissions are so small compared to the natural CO2 emissions they don't even register, that's why the average increase in CO2 has been steady, instead of sky rocketing as you think it should.

Mankind’s emissions are so small and so meaningless they have increased the CO2 content of the atmosphere from 280ppm to 410ppm, a 40% increase. (According to Lees that is a 4% increase  :D :D :D because his denier sites tell him that. Loony toons!)

Jovial Monk wrote on Apr 26^th, 2017 at 6:24am:

Mankind’s emissions are so small and so meaningless they have increased the CO2 content of the atmosphere from 280ppm to 410ppm, a 40% increase. (According to Lees that is a 4% increase

Got a reference for that? Or just talking Sch!tt again. ;D ;D ;D

[/quote]
Jovial Monk wrote on Apr 25^th, 2017 at 9:28pm:

You REALLY can’t see the howler you made? WOW!

So tell us all about the howler. ;D ;D

Work it out yourself while I keep laughing at you.  ;)

Jovial Monk wrote on Apr 26^th, 2017 at 1:29pm:

Work it out yourself while I keep laughing at you.

Perhaps it was to do with a view of "civilisation"? If so -

"The meaning of the term civilization has changed several times during its history, and even today it is used in several ways. It is commonly used to describe human societies "with a high level of cultural and technological development", as opposed to what many consider to be less "advanced" societies. This definition, however, is unclear, subjective, and it carries with it assumptions no longer accepted by modern scholarship on how human societies have changed during their long past."

"Today, this approach is no longer valid since it is linked to an attitude of cultural superiority, by which human communities which are not yet "civilized" are seen as somehow inferior."

http://www.ancient.eu/civilization/

perhaps you can give your definition of "Civilisation"?

"An assistant philosophy professor at Rochester Institute of Technology wants to send people who disagree with him about global warming to jail.

The professor is Lawrence Torcello. Last week, he published a 900-word-plus essay at an academic website called The Conversation."

http://dailycaller.com/2014/03/17/u-s-college-professor-demands-imprisonment-for-climate-change-deniers/#ixzz4fKHmDIkb


Also Bill Nye fake science guy.

So imprisonment for not agreeing with the climate change meme. For having thoughts that disagree with a certain elite.

Is this the start of a return to tribalism? The start of the devolution of "civilisation"?

ahahaha try try try again.

Jovial Monk wrote on Apr 26^th, 2017 at 4:13pm:

ahahaha try try try again.

Sorry. I am not into playing 50 answers.

Poor Lees



:D :D :D

That makes you sound so superior and growed up. ;)

You are so totally clueless.

Jovial Monk wrote on Apr 26^th, 2017 at 5:10pm:

You are so totally clueless.

That's so right JM. Why do you keep lying? Has anybody worked it out yet? Your shrink?

Rider wrote on Apr 25^th, 2017 at 2:38pm:

Which UN boondoggle does Nature account to?  I mean to have a perfectly balance debit and credit system in Co2 is amazing. Or perhaps it is bullshyte.

Rider I suggest you do some reading on the carbon cycle.

For most of the last 1000 years Co2 levels have been pretty stable between 270ppm and 290ppm. This is clear evidence that natural CO2 emissions were balanced by natural CO2 absorption.


http://i67.tinypic.com/2625efl.jpg


CO2 levels only started to rise at the start of the 19th century when the industrial revolution began.
That is due to the additional CO2 that humans have been emitting

The_Barnacle wrote on Apr 25^th, 2017 at 11:58am:

Ajax wrote on Apr 25th, 2017 at 11:33am: You seem to have conveniently forgotten that today we have some of the lowest atmospheric CO2 levels in our history, in 550 million years it has only been this low once before. Your 550 million year time scale is completely irrelevant considering human civilization has only been around for about 30,000 years Ajax wrote on Apr 25th, 2017 at 11:33am: Our carbon sinks are much greater than what you have been told, otherwise they wouldn't be able to handle mans emissions and CO2 would exponentially grow like you say. BUT UNFORTUNATELY FOR YOU THIS ISN"T HAPPENING. CO2 concentrations are growing rapidly. Measuring stations at Cape Grim and Mauna Loa are irrefutable evidence of this. Ajax wrote on Apr 25th, 2017 at 11:33am: It's not as though we're shipping CO2 in from Mars, we are using fossil fuels from the Earth which when burnt create CO2 gas that is of the Earth. We are taking CO2 that is buried underground and releasing it into the atmosphere. Of course that is going to have an effect on our atmosphere. Ajax wrote on Apr 25th, 2017 at 11:33am: Who told you that 280ppm was the ideal level of CO2 in our atmosphere when history shows that our CO2 levels in the atmosphere have ALWAYS been much higher. 280ppm is ideal for human civilisation because that is what we have been used to. The level it was at prior to human civilisation is irrelevant because we were not around then. Ajax wrote on Apr 25th, 2017 at 11:33am: Can you bottle climate change, I think not my friend. Climate change has been with us since day dot and will continue to change until the Earth is no more. Man cannot harness climate change, get that through your head. The fact that the climate has changed naturally in the past is in fact evidence that the climate can also be changed by human activities. 7 billion people pumping CO2 into the atmosphere is going to cause some changes. You can bury your head in the sand Ajax but your cut and paste posts show that you have a very poor grasp of scientific principles

Your stance is a very ridiculous one....!!!

On one side we have the Earth a humungous dynamic and very vibrant organism that’s been around for billions of years with an ever changing climate.

On the other side are some infinitesimal fleeting life forms like yourself and JV that have lived on the Earth for a very short period of time who would somehow like to bottle her (the Earths) natural climate change because they feel that the present conditions are the best for their existence and current life styles.

Seems very unnatural to me that you would have such an exploitative attitude for an environmentalist, not unlike a parasite trying to prolong its survival by somehow changing its host.

Get with it nature boy, the Earth goes round for no one especially some small spec on her surface ....... :D

The_Barnacle wrote on Apr 28^th, 2017 at 12:59pm:

For most of the last 1000 years Co2 levels have been pretty stable between 270ppm and 290ppm. This is clear evidence that natural CO2 emissions were balanced by natural CO2 absorption.

We don't know that. Is that from Ice core, plant stomata or some other proxy?

Ajax wrote on Apr 28^th, 2017 at 4:37pm:

On one side we have the Earth a humungous dynamic and very vibrant organism that’s been around for billions of years with an ever changing climate. On the other side are some infinitesimal fleeting life forms like yourself and JV that have lived on the Earth for a very short period of time who would somehow like to bottle her (the Earths) natural climate change because they feel that the present conditions are the best for their existence and current life styles. Seems very unnatural to me that you would have such an exploitative attitude for an environmentalist, not unlike a parasite trying to prolong its survival by somehow changing its host. Get with it nature boy, the Earth goes round for no one especially some small spec on her surface ....... :D

Using emotive language doesn't support your argument. You have not provided any evidence about what size a life form has to be to affect the climate.

In fact you may not realise that before life evolved there was barely any oxygen in the atmosphere. Then about 2.5 billion years ago algae started to use photosynthesis to produce oxygen. It resulted in an an atmosphere that is now 20% oxygen. All from tiny algae https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/origin-of-oxygen-in-atmosphere/

You will also have noticed from the CO2 readings at Mauna Lao that CO2 concentrations have an annual "pulse" which is caused by trees hibernating in the northern hemisphere winter (which has vastly more trees than in the southern hemisphere).

So as you can see living organisms can have quite an effect on the atmosphere. And any change in the atmosphere is going to have an effect on the climate

With a reducing atmosphere in early geological time there was very little weathering of rock. The Carboniferous era changed that.

Another way you can see the power of living organisms to change the world is tree roots going down a crack in the rock and widening that crack as the root grows. The tree, not the rock, wins.

The_Barnacle wrote on Apr 29^th, 2017 at 11:02am:

Ajax wrote on Apr 28th, 2017 at 4:37pm: On one side we have the Earth a humungous dynamic and very vibrant organism that’s been around for billions of years with an ever changing climate. On the other side are some infinitesimal fleeting life forms like yourself and JV that have lived on the Earth for a very short period of time who would somehow like to bottle her (the Earths) natural climate change because they feel that the present conditions are the best for their existence and current life styles. Seems very unnatural to me that you would have such an exploitative attitude for an environmentalist, not unlike a parasite trying to prolong its survival by somehow changing its host. Get with it nature boy, the Earth goes round for no one especially some small spec on her surface ....... :D Using emotive language doesn't support your argument. You have not provided any evidence about what size a life form has to be to affect the climate. In fact you may not realise that before life evolved there was barely any oxygen in the atmosphere. Then about 2.5 billion years ago algae started to use photosynthesis to produce oxygen. It resulted in an an atmosphere that is now 20% oxygen. All from tiny algae https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/origin-of-oxygen-in-atmosphere/ You will also have noticed from the CO2 readings at Mauna Lao that CO2 concentrations have an annual "pulse" which is caused by trees hibernating in the northern hemisphere winter (which has vastly more trees than in the southern hemisphere). So as you can see living organisms can have quite an effect on the atmosphere. And any change in the atmosphere is going to have an effect on the climate

What you have said only reinforces it.

You acknowledge that the Earths climate is ever changing yet you somehow want to bottle the present climate so you can live in all your creature comforts.

Very unnatural indeed.  IYAM......... :P

The increase in CO2 (and its isotopic composition) and the rate of increase of heating shows it is not a natural change that is happening.

If there were no AGW the last 50 years would have been cooler than they were as the sun is in a 50 year long quiescent state.

So something OTHER than the sun has caused the observed heating.

Go on, explain that without reference to AGW. I could use a good laugh  ;)

Jovial Monk wrote on Apr 29^th, 2017 at 11:30am:

The increase in CO2 (and its isotopic composition) and the rate of increase of heating shows it is not a natural change that is happening. If there were no AGW the last 50 years would have been cooler than they were as the sun is in a 50 year long quiescent state. So something OTHER than the sun has caused the observed heating. Go on, explain that without reference to AGW. I could use a good laugh  ;)

You're full of it JV.

How about proven your wild assumptions....!!!

I have posted links to all of that in these threads!

Sorry, Ajax, but the sun has been quiescent for the last 50 years—you can find evidence of that easy enough—but the globe has heated nevertheless and only AGW provides a demonstrable mechanism for the heating.


Had a quick look as I have to go out but I found this:

http://notrickszone.com/2012/03/10/is-the-strong-temperature-rise-since-1980-due-to-the-sun/#sthash.KDCLhLya.dpbs

How can the globe keep heating when the sun is quiescent without reference to AGW?

Jovial Monk wrote on Apr 29^th, 2017 at 11:38am:

I have posted links to all of that in these threads! Sorry, Ajax, but the sun has been quiescent for the last 50 years—you can find evidence of that easy enough—but the globe has heated nevertheless and only AGW provides a demonstrable mechanism for the heating.

You know what they say about computers and computer models don't ya.... :D

Sh!t in..........Sh!t out.............LOL

Jovial Monk wrote on Apr 29^th, 2017 at 11:38am:

I have posted links to all of that in these threads! Sorry, Ajax, but the sun has been quiescent for the last 50 years—you can find evidence of that easy enough—but the globe has heated nevertheless and only AGW provides a demonstrable mechanism for the heating. Had a quick look as I have to go out but I found this: http://notrickszone.com/2012/03/10/is-the-strong-temperature-rise-since-1980-due-to-the-sun/#sthash.KDCLhLya.dpbs How can the globe keep heating when the sun is quiescent without reference to AGW?

Read here,

https://tallbloke.wordpress.com/2013/07/18/nicola-scafetta-solar-and-planetary-oscillation-control-on-climate-change/

JV if you missed the link try here,

https://arxiv.org/pdf/1307.3706v1.pdf

Ajax wrote on Apr 29^th, 2017 at 11:20am:

You acknowledge that the Earths climate is ever changing yet you somehow want to bottle the present climate so you can live in all your creature comforts.

I never said that
What I am saying is human activity is changing the current climate

The_Barnacle wrote on Apr 29^th, 2017 at 12:21pm:

Ajax wrote on Apr 29th, 2017 at 11:20am: You acknowledge that the Earths climate is ever changing yet you somehow want to bottle the present climate so you can live in all your creature comforts. I never said that What I am saying is human activity is changing the current climate

Is it? By how much?

Jovial Monk wrote on Apr 29^th, 2017 at 11:38am:

I have posted links to all of that in these threads! Sorry, Ajax, but the sun has been quiescent for the last 50 years—you can find evidence of that easy enough—but the globe has heated nevertheless and only AGW provides a demonstrable mechanism for the heating. Had a quick look as I have to go out but I found this: http://notrickszone.com/2012/03/10/is-the-strong-temperature-rise-since-1980-due-to-the-sun/#sthash.KDCLhLya.dpbs How can the globe keep heating when the sun is quiescent without reference to AGW?

Did you read to the end?

"Yet during the period 1980-2010, the solar activity was slowly  declining but both the Pacific and Atlantic oceans were both  positive correlating with a warm mode (AMO and PDO both positiv)], resulting in the global surface temperatures going up while the sunactivity was declining. It is no coincidence that during this last decade when the lagged
effects of the decline of last solar cycle# 23 and the decline of the ocean cycles as reflected by AMO and PDO indices, both of which are now in sync, that global temperatures should  also  decline. This makes sense to me and it disproves claims that solar effects were not responsible for the 1980 to 2010 global warming".

http://notrickszone.com/2012/03/10/is-the-strong-temperature-rise-since-1980-due-to-the-sun/#sthash.KDCLhLya.dUg5Bkx0.dpuf

Or was it just selective reading?

lee wrote on Apr 29^th, 2017 at 12:32pm:

Jovial Monk wrote on Apr 29th, 2017 at 11:38am: I have posted links to all of that in these threads! Sorry, Ajax, but the sun has been quiescent for the last 50 years—you can find evidence of that easy enough—but the globe has heated nevertheless and only AGW provides a demonstrable mechanism for the heating. Had a quick look as I have to go out but I found this: http://notrickszone.com/2012/03/10/is-the-strong-temperature-rise-since-1980-due-to-the-sun/#sthash.KDCLhLya.dpbs How can the globe keep heating when the sun is quiescent without reference to AGW? Did you read to the end? "Yet during the period 1980-2010, the solar activity was slowly  declining but both the Pacific and Atlantic oceans were both  positive correlating with a warm mode (AMO and PDO both positiv)], resulting in the global surface temperatures going up while the sunactivity was declining. It is no coincidence that during this last decade when the lagged effects of the decline of last solar cycle# 23 and the decline of the ocean cycles as reflected by AMO and PDO indices, both of which are now in sync, that global temperatures should  also  decline. This makes sense to me and it disproves claims that solar effects were not responsible for the 1980 to 2010 global warming". http://notrickszone.com/2012/03/10/is-the-strong-temperature-rise-since-1980-due-to-the-sun/#sthash.KDCLhLya.dUg5Bkx0.dpuf Or was it just selective reading?

Good pick up Lee.

Just goes to show that JV out of desperation will post without reading.....LOL

Solar irradiance variation has been a main driver of climate change over geologic time, but its role in the recent warming has been found to be insignificant

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_activity_and_climate


http://i63.tinypic.com/14tu2p2.gif

The_Barnacle wrote on Apr 29^th, 2017 at 1:56pm:

Solar irradiance variation has been a main driver of climate change over geologic time, but its role in the recent warming has been found to be insignificant https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_activity_and_climate http://i63.tinypic.com/14tu2p2.gif

Make no mistake, our sun drives climate change on earth even when its sleeping.

No sun, no climate change on Earth..... 8-)

https://arxiv.org/pdf/1307.3706v1.pdf

Ajax wrote on Apr 29^th, 2017 at 11:42am:

Jovial Monk wrote on Apr 29th, 2017 at 11:38am: I have posted links to all of that in these threads! Sorry, Ajax, but the sun has been quiescent for the last 50 years—you can find evidence of that easy enough—but the globe has heated nevertheless and only AGW provides a demonstrable mechanism for the heating. You know what they say about computers and computer models don't ya.... :D Sh!t in..........Sh!t out.............LOL

Demonstrating that CO2, CH4 etc absorb IR photons requires neither computer nor model.

That the sun is quiescent—just refer to any solar observatory.

Jovial Monk wrote on Apr 29^th, 2017 at 2:45pm:

Demonstrating that CO2, CH4 etc absorb IR photons requires neither computer nor model.

Next you have to link it to AGW.


Jovial Monk wrote on Apr 29^th, 2017 at 2:45pm:

That the sun is quiescent—just refer to any solar observatory.

But it is still shining. ;)

The_Barnacle wrote on Apr 29^th, 2017 at 1:56pm:

Solar irradiance variation has been a main driver of climate change over geologic time, but its role in the recent warming has been found to be insignificant https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_activity_and_climate http://i63.tinypic.com/14tu2p2.gif

So what did AR4 say, it is the reference for the quote?

"and the possibility that the response to solar forcing could be underestimated by climate models."  - oh models

"However, estimates of some radiative forcings remain uncertain, including aerosol forcing and inter-decadal variations in solar forcing. " - hmmm - uncertainties.

http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/ch9s9-es.html

Executive summary
------------------------------------------------
Some external influences, such as changes in solar radiation and volcanism, occur naturally and contribute to the total natural variability of the climate system."

http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/ch9s9-1.html#9-1-1

"The effects of forcing uncertainties, which can be considerable for some forcing agents such as solar and aerosol forcing (Section 9.2), also remain difficult to evaluate despite advances in research. "

" Uncertainties in external forcing were also reported, particularly in anthropogenic aerosol, solar and volcanic forcing, and in the magnitude of the corresponding climate responses. These uncertainties contributed to uncertainties in detection and attribution studies. Particularly, estimates of the contribution to the 20th-century warming by natural forcings and anthropogenic forcings other than greenhouse gases showed some discrepancies with climate simulations and were model dependent. "

http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/ch9s9-1-3.

They don't seem all that sure. ;)

When people express uncertainties they are being honest.

Look at the language Dubyne uses in his stupid videos—100% certainty. He also lies all the time.

Jovial Monk wrote on Apr 29^th, 2017 at 5:50pm:

When people express uncertainties they are being honest. Look at the language Dubyne uses in his stupid videos—100% certainty. He also lies all the time.

Sounds like your preaching about AGW. Not honest. 100% certainty. ;)

I post scientific info. Not crap.

Jovial Monk wrote on Apr 29^th, 2017 at 5:56pm:

I post scientific info. Not crap.

Even from SKS? ;)

Incoming radiation - only visible light and ultraviolet light? ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D

lee wrote on Apr 29^th, 2017 at 6:01pm:

Jovial Monk wrote on Apr 29th, 2017 at 5:56pm: I post scientific info. Not crap. Even from SKS? ;) Incoming radiation - only visible light and ultraviolet light? ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D

What does incoming radiation have to do with GHGs blocking outgoing IR so warming the globe?

Have you found out yet about frequencies of the outgoing solar IR radiation? No denier site has that info? What about the NASA solar observatory?

Jovial Monk wrote on May 17^th, 2017 at 11:45am:

What does incoming radiation have to do with GHGs blocking outgoing IR so warming the globe?

Because logic tells us the CO2 will have a similar effect on incoming IR, not just OG IR. Has your spectrometry tested for this?


Jovial Monk wrote on May 17^th, 2017 at 11:45am:

Have you found out yet about frequencies of the outgoing solar IR radiation? No denier site has that info? What about the NASA solar observatory?

Has NASA shown that the incoming IR is at a different part of the IR spectrum?

If so; link please. ;)

So, no answers just waffle.

Jovial Monk wrote on May 17^th, 2017 at 12:23pm:

So, no answers just waffle.

You're the one telling us he's a scientist.

I ask questions. You just don't have the answers. That is not my fault. ;)

If you put up a hypothesis up to you to develop it and find evidence. Or admit it is crap.

Reposted. To save your mind.

It seems even NASA is having trouble with it,

"These kinds of experimental studies are very difficult to make using terrestrial infrared telescopes because Earth's own atmosphere is loaded with water and other molecules that strongly absorb incoming radiation, making the atmosphere opaque. In fact, there are only a frustratingly few wavelength regions where incoming infrared radiation can be studied without interference from atmospheric gases. For example, there are localized "windows' at 4.7-5.2, 7-13, and 20 μm, among others. This is why it is common to locate observatories high on mountain tops, where they are above at least some of the Earth's atmosphere. Better yet, of course, is to send infrared instruments into space where the atmospheric interferences are avoided altogether."

https://solarsystem.nasa.gov/docs/Here_Comes_Heat.pdf

lee wrote on May 17^th, 2017 at 12:55pm:

Reposted. To save your mind. It seems even NASA is having trouble with it, "These kinds of experimental studies are very difficult to make using terrestrial infrared telescopes because Earth's own atmosphere is loaded with water and other molecules that strongly absorb incoming radiation, making the atmosphere opaque. In fact, there are only a frustratingly few wavelength regions where incoming infrared radiation can be studied without interference from atmospheric gases. For example, there are localized "windows' at 4.7-5.2, 7-13, and 20 μm, among others. This is why it is common to locate observatories high on mountain tops, where they are above at least some of the Earth's atmosphere. Better yet, of course, is to send infrared instruments into space where the atmospheric interferences are avoided altogether." https://solarsystem.nasa.gov/docs/Here_Comes_Heat.pdf

Abandon all hope: LEES SAID SO!
:o

lee wrote on May 17^th, 2017 at 12:32pm:

Jovial Monk wrote on May 17th, 2017 at 12:23pm: So, no answers just waffle. You're the one telling us he's a scientist. I ask questions. You just don't have the answers. That is not my fault. ;)

Why don't you provide some answers?

So that is why satellite spectrometry is also used and shows “holes” at the frequencies corresponding to the GHGs. Quite a wide band of IR, isn’t there?  ;)

Jovial Monk wrote on May 17^th, 2017 at 1:32pm:

So that is why satellite spectrometry is also used and shows “holes” at the frequencies corresponding to the GHGs. Quite a wide band of IR, isn’t there?  ;)

Yes and is there any discernible difference between Incoming and Outgoing IR? ;)

Your theory, you develop it or admit you are bullshitting because you deny AGW and probably would like to deny all warming.

Jovial Monk wrote on May 17^th, 2017 at 3:12pm:

Your theory, you develop it or admit you are bullshitting because you deny AGW and probably would like to deny all warming.

Nope. I don't need to do anything. Show where incoming IR does not have an effect on CO2. Your theory is that it is only outgoing IR that is affected.

Show that CO2 has this magical property that can tell from whence the IR came. ;)

Nope, you come up with a theory, up to you to develop it and look for evidence.

I await with bated breath. . .expecting you to cut and run.

Jovial Monk wrote on May 17^th, 2017 at 3:36pm:

Nope, you come up with a theory, up to you to develop it and look for evidence. I await with bated breath. . .expecting you to cut and run.

You and your "baited" breath. Was it the anchovies? ;)

You expect people to believe you with no evidence.  ;)

I accept your white flag.

Jovial Monk wrote on May 17^th, 2017 at 3:39pm:

I accept your white flag.

You accept anything. ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D