Bobby. wrote on May 1^st, 2017 at 8:09pm:

And you have outsourced your thinking to an obviously lying charlatan. The carbon cycle emits and absorbs carbon on a yearly cycle. Anthropogenic carbon cannot all be stored and that is why atmospheric CO2 has increased from 280ppm in early 1800s to 410ppm now (a 4% increase according to Lees but there you go.)

As regards previously higher CO2 levels, I did publish long extracts from a paper that discussed all that. Not my fault you didn’t read it. Ajax didn’t read it either tho it would have explained things to him. Lees just tried to find fault and missed. Go back and read it, it will take a while to read and understand but it is worth it.

I DID tell you. Your problem is you don’t want to learn because then you might change your mind.

Nope. You did not want to know what was in the paper. If I were you I would go back, find it and read it.

Jovial Monk wrote on May 2^nd, 2017 at 1:05pm:


But of course you have no proof of me saying it. Which I deny I did BTW. Of course with your comprehension skills, or lack of them, it may have said something entirely different.

"The chemist Svante Arrhenius went further in 1896 by estimating the impact of CO2 on the climate; after painstaking hand calculations he concluded that doubling its concentration might cause almost 6 degrees Celsius of warming—an answer not much out of line with recent, far more rigorous computations."

Actually it is far less. Look for Arhennius 1906 paper where he halved his assessment. And studies since this paper was published in 2009, have shown any warming to be much less.  The IPCC has downgraded their estimates for doubling in AR5 to 2 - 4.5ºC. Back where it was in FAR.

Why do you rely on outdated papers?

"Claim 2: The alleged "hockey stick" graph of temperatures over the past 1,600 years has been disproved. It doesn't even acknowledge the existence of a "medieval warm period" around 1000 A.D. that was hotter than today is. Therefore, global warming is a myth."

"It is hard to know which is greater: contrarians' overstatement of the flaws in the historical temperature reconstruction from 1998 by Michael E. Mann and his colleagues, or the ultimate insignificance of their argument to the case for climate change.

First, there is not simply one hockey-stick reconstruction of historical temperatures using one set of proxy data. Similar evidence for sharply increasing temperatures over the past couple of centuries has turned up independently while looking at ice cores, tree rings and other proxies for direct measurements,"

Oh, No Michael E Mann and his infamous reconstruction, with its upside down, reversed Tiljander graph. Tree rings as proxies for temperature?

Ice cores that don't have the required certainty over centuries.

"other proxies for direct measurement" - Say what? Either it is a direct measurement or it is a proxy.

It is the SA you should ask, Doofus.

That CO2 absorbs IR has been known a long time, yet still stupid deniers scream “No no no it isn’t warming!” Ridiculous and pathetic.

Jovial Monk wrote on May 2^nd, 2017 at 2:18pm:



You're the doofus quoting a 2009 article.

Jovial Monk wrote on May 2^nd, 2017 at 2:32pm:


Yep. You still don't know what you are talking about.

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


Yes, you are getting rather good at them.