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


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

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.




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

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

We are making progress

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


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.

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



Funniest line I have heard all week.

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


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If $101 goes into your account and then $100 gets withdrawn then your bank balance will increase by $1.
If $1,000,001 goes into your account and $1,000,000 gets withdrawn then your bank balance will still increase by only $1.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

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


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:


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:


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:


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:


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

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

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



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/

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


Which of course is immeasurably better than JM.

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



While you just tell whoppers.

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



You are so funny you make sch!tt up.

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



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

You're telling the story Rory.

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

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  because his denier sites tell him that. Loony toons!)

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



So tell us all about the howler.

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



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...


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"?

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


Sorry. I am not into playing 50 answers.

That makes you sound so superior and growed up.

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



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

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



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 .......

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


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

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


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.........

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


You're full of it JV.

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

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


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

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

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


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

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



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...

Or was it just selective reading?

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

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


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

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

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


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.

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



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

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



Even from SKS?

Incoming radiation - only visible light and ultraviolet light?

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



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:


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

If so; link please.

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


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.

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 12:32pm:

Why don't you provide some answers?

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



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

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


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.

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


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

You expect people to believe you with no evidence. 

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


You accept anything.