Quote:

CO2 Contributed Only 0.12°C to Global Temps Since 1850, CO2 Is A Very Weak Greenhouse Gas “Our results permit to conclude that CO2 is a very weal greenhouse gas and cannot be accepted as the main driver of climate change” “The assumption of a constant temperature and black body radiation definitely violates reality and even the principles of thermodynamics.” “[W]e conclude that the temperature increases predicted by the IPCC ar5 lack robust scientific justification.” “A doubling [to 800ppm] of the present level of CO2 [400ppm] results in [temperature change] <0.24 K.” “[T]he scientific community must look for causes of climate change that can be solely based on physics and chemistry.” --Dr. F. K. Reinhart (2017), Swiss Federal Institute of Technology https://iowaclimate.org/2017/07/17/page/2/

Quote:

Below are some of the key user-friendly (non-technical) points from Dr. Reinhart’s paper entitled Infrared absorption of atmospheric carbon dioxide. A summarizing conclusion from the calculations may be that if we doubled today’s concentration (400 ppm) to 800 ppm, the consequent temperature response would be less than 1/4th of a degree Celsius.  Even with a ten-fold increase in today’s CO2 concentration (400 ppm) to 4,000 ppm, the resulting temperature change would amount to just 0.8°C https://iowaclimate.org/2017/07/17/page/2/

60 Papers Find Extremely Low CO2 Climate Sensitivity

Florides and Christodoulides, 2009 (2X CO2 = ~0.02°C
Newell and Dopplick, 1979 (2X CO2 = ~.0.25°C )
Idso, 1998 (2X CO2 = ~0.4°C)
Chylek et al., 2007 (2X CO2 = 0.39°C)
Gates et al., 1981 (2X CO2 = 0.3°C)
Gray, 2009 (2X CO2 = ~0.4°C)
Harde, 2014 (2X CO2 = 0.6°C)
Ollila, 2012 (2X CO2 = 0.51 °C)
Zdunkowski et al., 1975., 1975 (2X CO2 = 0.5°C)
Idso, 1980 (2X CO2 = ≤ 0.26°C )
Schuurmans, 1983 (2XCO2 = ~0.3°C )
Weare and Snell, 1974 (2X CO2 = 0.7°C )
Lindzen and Choi, 2011 (2X CO2 = 0.7°C)
Kimoto, 2015  [full] (2X CO2= ~0.16°C)
Ollila, 2014 (2X CO2 = ~ 0.27°C)
Harde, 2016 (2X CO2 = 0.7°C)
Bates, 2016  (2X CO2 = ~1°C)
Evans, 2016 (2X CO2 = <0.5°C)
Gervais, 2016 [full]  (2X CO2  = <0.6°C)
Soon, Connolly, and Connolly, 2015 [full] (2X [400 ppm] CO2 = 0.44°C)
Reinhart, 2017 (2X [400 ppm] CO2 = 0.24°C)
Balling Jr, 1994  (2XCO2 = <1.0°C)
Bellamy, 2007  (2XCO2= <1.0°C)
Chillingar, 2009
Miskolczi, 2010
Möller, 1963
Singer, 2006
Willett, 1974
Sagan and Mullen, 1972
Oliver, 1976
Clark, 2010  (full paper)
Ramanathan et al., 1989
Khilyuk and Chilingar, 2006  (full)
Newell and Dopplick, 1970
Manabe and Möller, 1961
Libby, 1970
Gervais, 2014
Rasool and Schneider, 1971
Chilingar et al., 2014
Ludwig et al., 1973
Singer, 1976
Kauppinen et al., 2014
Lightfoot and Mamer, 2014
Arrak, 2011
Kahl et al., 1993
Robock, 1979
Fang et al., 2011
Hertzberg et al., 2017
Sawyer, 1972
Gerlich and Tscheuschner, 2009
Miskolczi, 2014
Ollila, 2013
Dyson, 1977
Hertzberg and Schreuder, 2016
Avakyan, 2013
Zhao, 2011
Choudhury and Kukla, 1979
Idso, 1984
Ellsaesser, 1984  (full)
Bryson and Dittberner, 1976
Schmithüsen et al., 2015

http://notrickszone.com/50-papers-low-sensitivity/#sthash.gQZR0TyB.dpbs

Notrickszone is just a denialist site, Ajax, and the climate sensitivity to CO2 is higher, not to mention the methane and nitrous oxide, much stronger greenhouses gases than CO2.

Jovial Monk wrote on Jul 30^th, 2017 at 12:48am:

Notrickszone is just a denialist site, Ajax, and the climate sensitivity to CO2 is higher, not to mention the methane and nitrous oxide, much stronger greenhouses gases than CO2.

Notrickszone didn't write 60 papers about how weak CO2 absorption of infra red radiation is, they were written by scientists.

All notable scientists with positions in universities.

Should we put a tax Nox and CH4 as well.......????

Nox derivatives and CH4 derivatives.

Another trillion dollar per annum market........... :-*

The logarithmic effect of CO2

http://i65.tinypic.com/2r47o5i.jpg

Quote:

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://i63.tinypic.com/24ez5zd.jpg

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

We have bumped CO2 from 280 to 410ppm Ajax.

JoNova just posts what the Heartland Institute pays her to.

2016 was the hottest recorded year, 2017 is nearly as hot. None of that crap you posted explains that.

CO2 works in conjunction with H2O. H2O, water vapor, leaves a narrow window in the IR band. CO2 and the other GHGs act to shut that window even further.

The heating thus caused means more water vapor in the atmosphere (tho it fluctuates, evaporation followed by precipitation) so more heating ensues. The heat is also melting sea ice so the earth absorbs more of the suns energy, reflects less. This is albedo change. It is why the Arctic is melting 3x as fast as the rest of the globe.

The extra heat also causes methane and nitrous oxide, and more carbon dioxide to enter the atmosphere. Methane has 30x the greenhouse force of CO2, nitrous oxide has like 200x the greenhouse force.

And this heating has happened with the sun in a quiescent state—what will happen when it enters a more active state?

We do have to change the way we do things.

Fortunately, to a large extent it is happening, renewable energy generation is growing. But vested interests resist change that will harm the money they make. Don’t fall for the false science they preach. They are just like the doctors who said smoking wasn’t harmful. Fossil fuel interests are using the exact same techniques tobacco companies used.

Jovial Monk wrote on Jul 30^th, 2017 at 1:36am:

We have bumped CO2 from 280 to 410ppm Ajax.

If that is the case JV as you say that human emissions of CO2 are solely responsible for the increase of atmospheric CO2 from 280ppm to 410ppm we should be able to measure it YES, you being a scientist and all.

But as the post above shows you atmospheric CO2 has increased at a steady rate due to the current warming from natural sinks rather that mans emissions.

Mans emissions due to fossil fuel consumption have tripled in the decade after 2000, yet the steady increase of 2.1ppm per annum in the decade after 2000 is the same rate of atmospheric CO2 increase as the decade prior to 2000.

Meaning that natural CO2 emissions dwarf man made emissions which hardly even register on the scale.

Now what does your scientific brain say about this phenomenon.....?

Do you still think mans emissions are solely responsible for the current increase in atmospheric CO2....??

If so what can you point to as evidence....!!!

Jovial Monk wrote on Jul 30^th, 2017 at 1:54am:

JoNova just posts what the Heartland Institute pays her to.

Where is your proof..?

The Jonova site might be sceptical but it presents an alternative theory to that of the IPCC and its associates which blames all the warming on man’s emissions of CO2.

A real scientist or anyone with half a brain would look into both sides of the equation, it’s just human nature to question the evidence being presented.

This theory isn’t made up by the hosts of the site, it presents papers from other scientists that dispute the theory of AGW by the IPCC and other alarmist institutions which are under the control of the oligarchy and their finances.
 
You say you’re a scientist then you should know that once a theory has been published and presented to the world as fact that scientists through science will always try to improve on this work which will always come under scrutiny and is always there for review and revision.

Today our kids are being brainwashed about many many things, Anthropogenic Global Warming (AGW) being one of them and it starts from primary school right through to university.

Does this not concern you that debate has been quashed on the subject of AGW amongst the younger generations coming through? That any debate is seen as heresy and that anyone who presents an alternative to the AGW theory will more than likely fail that particular project. I’ve heard university graduates parrot the alarmists word for word.

The younger generation has been stupefied with electronic gadgets which rule their lives.


Quote:

2016 was the hottest recorded year, 2017 is nearly as hot. None of that crap you posted explains that. CO2 works in conjunction with H2O. H2O, water vapor, leaves a narrow window in the IR band. CO2 and the other GHGs act to shut that window even further. The heating thus caused means more water vapor in the atmosphere (tho it fluctuates, evaporation followed by precipitation) so more heating ensues. The heat is also melting sea ice so the earth absorbs more of the suns energy, reflects less. This is albedo change. It is why the Arctic is melting 3x as fast as the rest of the globe. The extra heat also causes methane and nitrous oxide, and more carbon dioxide to enter the atmosphere. Methane has 30x the greenhouse force of CO2, nitrous oxide has like 200x the greenhouse force. And this heating has happened with the sun in a quiescent state—what will happen when it enters a more active state? We do have to change the way we do things. Fortunately, to a large extent it is happening, renewable energy generation is growing. But vested interests resist change that will harm the money they make. Don’t fall for the false science they preach. They are just like the doctors who said smoking wasn’t harmful. Fossil fuel interests are using the exact same techniques tobacco companies used.

Oh please stop with the scare tactics.

And we all know about that hot spot that exists in the computer models and not the real world.

I think you believe people who are lying to you.

We have talked about the carbon cycle so in fall it may look like nature releases a lot of CO2, but this gets absorbed in spring and summer. Man made emissions are on top of this.

You have been told all this before.

Jovial Monk wrote on Jul 30^th, 2017 at 9:54am:

I think you believe people who are lying to you. We have talked about the carbon cycle so in fall it may look like nature releases a lot of CO2, but this gets absorbed in spring and summer. Man made emissions are on top of this. You have been told all this before.

Unlike you JV, I'm my own man and I do think I have 2 bob upstairs which allows me to analyse what is being presented to me as evidence and then to come to some rational conclusion.

Only sheeple will follow their lords and masters the wolves over a precipice with blind dedication, we’ve seen it many times in our history where their messiah asks for mass suicide and the sheeple accommodate them, that’s why some humans have evolved into the sheep dogs, to try and open the eyes of the sheeple before it’s too late.

I may not be the sharpest tool in the shed but don't piss down my back and tell me its raining........... :-* 

Here you go, Ajax:

https://skepticalscience.com//pics/FeldmanGrowingRF.png

The graph shows the relationship between CO2 concentration and IR radiation that CO2 has sent back to the surface. As atmospheric CO2 increases more IR is being reflected back down to earth. JoNova is wrong in her propaganda.

You can see the carbon cycle in action.

When you look at the IR spectrum from space you see less IR emitted from earth over time as we continue to emit CO2 and other GHGs.

The theory is well supported by experimental evidence.

Jovial Monk wrote on Jul 30^th, 2017 at 10:16am:

Here you go, Ajax: https://skepticalscience.com//pics/FeldmanGrowingRF.png The graph shows the relationship between CO2 concentration and IR radiation that CO2 has sent back to the surface. As atmospheric CO2 increases more IR is being reflected back down to earth. JoNova is wrong in her propaganda. You can see the carbon cycle in action. When you look at the IR spectrum from space you see less IR emitted from earth over time as we continue to emit CO2 and other GHGs. The theory is well supported by experimental evidence.

Thanks we all know how CO2 works.

You forgot to mention that the first 20ppm does most of the damage.

The logarithmic effect of CO2

http://i65.tinypic.com/2r47o5i.jpg

I am sorry Ajax, but that JoNova graph is just wrong. The world has warmed 1.1°C since pre–industrial times.

I showed you the relationship between CO2 and IR reflected back down to earth.

Reposting that JoNova crap does nothing, Ajax. We live in a warming world and WE are causing the warming by burning fossil fuels! That is pretty much beyond doubt.

And consequences there are: the West Antarctic ice sheet is slowly sliding into the sea. Read up on the Thwaites glacier—I have posted plenty of info about it and West Antarctic ice sheet here.

Bushfires/wildfires have longer and longer seasons. The BumMet here has said so, in Portugal where wildfires killed over 60 people the wildfire season has extended from two to five months. Wildfires emit huge amounts of CO2—we are seeing positive feedbacks like this everywhere.

You forget one thing JV.

There are more scientists disputing AGW as presented by the IPCC than there are scientists who support this theory.

You cannot turn your back on that can you...?

http://i67.tinypic.com/if05mq.jpg

You forget one thing JV.

There are more scientists disputing AGW as presented by the IPCC than there are scientists who support this theory.

You cannot turn your back on that can you...?

http://i67.tinypic.com/if05mq.jpg


If your theory doesn't match your observations in the real world then your theory is wrong.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5v8habYTfHU

The real data shows that CO2 is acting as a greenhouse gas. So far that has heated the world by 1.1°C as I said earlier.

It is the deniers who are being left behind by the results of the AGW they deny.

The last 20 years the warming has taken place with the sun in a quiet state. When that gives way, as it will, to an active state what do you think that is going to do to temperatures here, Ajax?

Whenever CO2 is examined it is found to be a greenhouse gas trapping IR on the surface, warming it. That is a fact no denier can deny.

Jovial Monk wrote on Jul 30^th, 2017 at 10:50am:

The real data shows that CO2 is acting as a greenhouse gas. So far that has heated the world by 1.1°C as I said earlier. It is the deniers who are being left behind by the results of the AGW they deny. The last 20 years the warming ha, as it wills taken place with the sun in a quiet state. When that gives way, as it will, what do you think that is going to do to temperatures here, Ajax? Whenever CO2 is examined it is found to be a greenhouse gas trapping IR on the surface, warming it. That is a fact no denier can deny.

And the other 60 odd scientific papers in the OP all say the same thing.


Quote:

Swiss Physicist Concludes IPCC Assumptions ‘Violate Reality’…CO2 A ‘Very Weak Greenhouse Gas’ CO2 Contributed Only 0.12°C to Global Temps Since 1850, CO2 Is A Very Weak Greenhouse Gas “Our results permit to conclude that CO2 is a very weak greenhouse gas and cannot be accepted as the main driver of climate change” “The assumption of a constant temperature and black body radiation definitely violates reality and even the principles of thermodynamics.” “[W]e conclude that the temperature increases predicted by the IPCC AR5 lack robust scientific justification.” “A doubling [to 800ppm] of the present level of CO2 [400ppm] results in [temperature change] <0.24 K.” “[T]he scientific community must look for causes of climate change that can be solely based on physics and chemistry.” --Dr. F. K. Reinhart (2017), Swiss Federal Institute of Technology https://iowaclimate.org/2017/07/17/page/2/

Quote:

Below are some of the key user-friendly (non-technical) points from Dr. Reinhart’s paper entitled Infrared absorption of atmospheric carbon dioxide. A summarizing conclusion from the calculations may be that if we doubled today’s concentration (400 ppm) to 800 ppm, the consequent temperature response would be less than 1/4th of a degree Celsius.  Even with a ten-fold increase in today’s CO2 concentration (400 ppm) to 4,000 ppm, the resulting temperature change would amount to just 0.8°C

Jovial Monk wrote on Jul 30^th, 2017 at 12:48am:

Notrickszone is just a denialist site, Ajax, and the climate sensitivity to CO2 is higher, not to mention the methane and nitrous oxide, much stronger greenhouses gases than CO2.

All your posts are DENIALIST ZONES Monk.
Think about it.

Ajax wrote on Jul 30^th, 2017 at 1:20am:

The logarithmic effect of CO2

What Ajax fails to realise (as does his denialist websites) is that man made CO2 have ALSO been increasing exponentially since the industrial revolution.

Also note how Ajax's graphs have cherry picked a start date of 1997. The reason they chose 1997 is that it was one of the biggest El-Ninos ever recorded. Cherry picking data is a common tactic of Ajax and his denier websites.

---

LOL
Denialist forget that there has been more and less CO2 in the atmosphere.
That most of it is naturally occurring and that it is needed for life on the planet to exist.
They forget the Earth has been warmer and cooler.

They forget that Correlation does not equate to Causation, which is the premise of their theory and they ignore the "pause" because it debunks their theory.
They ignore the fudged records, the lies and fraud... the list of their denial goes on and on and on....

The_Barnacle wrote on Jul 30^th, 2017 at 1:15pm:

Ajax wrote on Jul 30th, 2017 at 1:20am: The logarithmic effect of CO2 What Ajax fails to realise (as does his denialist websites) is that man made CO2 have ALSO been increasing exponentially since the industrial revolution.

Well thank you for helping to prove my point, yes manmade CO2 has been exponentially increasing did you ever see me say otherwise....??

BUT as my post above shows in the period 1990 to 2015 the average yearly increase of atmospheric CO2 at 2.1ppm doesn't follow human emissions but rather the much larger natural emissions from the sinks as the earth warms... ;)


Quote:

Also note how Ajax's graphs have cherry picked a start date of 1997. The reason they chose 1997 is that it was one of the biggest El-Ninos ever recorded. Cherry picking data is a common tactic of Ajax and his denier websites.

Not cheery picked at all references are there for anyone to see, the point he's making is after the 1970 - 1995 the temperatures were petering out and yet mans emissions as you so eloquently point out have never been higher.

Where's your correlation.............!!!

The IPCC computer models were wrong, the sooner people start realising this the better of the whole world will be.

Might take some time thought with the oligarchy in control of the media......... ;)

http://www.nsstc.uah.edu/data/msu/v6.0/tlt/uahncdc_lt_6.0.txt


Quote:

According to the data used in the graph above, namely the NASA satellite data processed by the people who invented measuring temperatures from space at the University of Huntsville in Alabama, the warmest four years since 1979 when satellite monitoring began were, in order: 2016, at 0.504 °C 1998, at 0.483 °C 2010, at 0.333 °C 2015, at 0.259 °C (all temperatures with respect to the same arbitrary baseline) http://joannenova.com.au/2017/01/what-they-dont-say-about-the-hottest-ever-year-20-year-warming-trend-is-one-third-of-what-models-predicted/

JoNova is a paid propagandist posting denialist crap on behalf of fossil fuel interests.

CO2 is a greenhouse gas. Anthropogenic CO2 has raised global temperatures 1.1°C.

I have posted not words but actual measurements of the IR trapping ability of CO2.

Jovial Monk wrote on Jul 30^th, 2017 at 4:34pm:

JoNova is a paid propagandist posting denialist crap on behalf of fossil fuel interests.

Oh dear. Assertions without proof once again. I thought you were a scientist? ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D

Grendel wrote on Jul 30^th, 2017 at 1:29pm:

LOL Denialist forget that there has been more and less CO2 in the atmosphere. That most of it is naturally occurring and that it is needed for life on the planet to exist. They forget the Earth has been warmer and cooler. They forget that Correlation does not equate to Causation, which is the premise of their theory and they ignore the "pause" because it debunks their theory. They ignore the fudged records, the lies and fraud... the list of their denial goes on and on and on....

rates-of-change,

Grendel wants to do the billion page circle j e rk again  :o :o :o

TheFunPolice wrote on Jul 30^th, 2017 at 6:45pm:

rates-of-change,

Forgotten already?

"emperature data for the period 1860-1880 are more uncertain, because of sparser coverage, than for later periods in the 20th Century. The 1860-1880 period is also only 21 years in length. As for the two periods 1910-40 and 1975-1998 the warming rates are not statistically significantly different (see numbers below).

I have also included the trend over the period 1975 to 2009, which has a very similar trend to the period 1975-1998.

So, in answer to the question, the warming rates for all 4 periods are similar and not statistically significantly different from each other. "

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/8511670.stm

;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D

Grendel wrote on Jul 30^th, 2017 at 1:29pm:

Denialist forget that there has been more and less CO2 in the atmosphere.

The amount of CO2 in the atmosphere has varied over the history of the earth. No one is denying that. The levels of CO2 also correspond quite well with changes in temperature.


Grendel wrote on Jul 30^th, 2017 at 1:29pm:

That most of it is naturally occurring and that it is needed for life on the planet to exist.

Clearly you don't understand the carbon cycle. If there was no CO2 in the atmosphere the Earth would be too cold to sustain life. If you add ADDITIONAL CO2 to the atmosphere from burning fossil fuels you will cause ADDITIONAL warming


Grendel wrote on Jul 30^th, 2017 at 1:29pm:

They forget the Earth has been warmer and cooler.

Of course the earth's climate has changed in the past. This is a typically ignorant strawman argument from the deniers. The problem is that we now have modern coastal and agricultural infrastructure which will not be able to handle a warming climate, and the current warming climate is the result of human activities

http://polar.ncep.noaa.gov/seaice/analysis/nh.xml

The_Barnacle wrote on Jul 31^st, 2017 at 11:05am:

The problem is that we now have modern coastal and agricultural infrastructure which will not be able to handle a warming climate, and the current warming climate is the result of human activities

You mean like aboriginals burning the trees and grasses?

TheFunPolice wrote on Jul 31^st, 2017 at 1:30pm:

http://polar.ncep.noaa.gov/seaice/analysis/nh.xml

Look at all that "No Data" in the prettiest of pinks.