Yet more proof.

[Scott777]

I wasn't clear.  The rate of rise is higher since the 1980's

Yeah, it was clear.  You said "roughly 1C since the 1880s".  You didn't say between the 1880s and the 1980s.  Now you are backtracking, and being dishonest.  That's the problem with you climate cultists.  None of you have an honest argument.

[BeElBeeBub]

For a start, the sunspot data is not theory, it is fact. Secondly I never said sunspots 800 years ago caused warming, temperature change is very quick, hence the reason it goes cold at night. Sunspots reduce clouds: FACT, reduced clouds increases warming: FACT. And as I said, when your looking at the amount of something on a graph you look at the area under the graph, and that shows a very large increase in Sunspots over the last 100 years.

Sorry I got 800 from

I'm not being rude but your understanding is incorrect.

"heat (as in atmospheric heat) doesn't produce CO2" : One of the fundamentals of the whole AGW topic is that CO2 is a product or heat, and if you don't get this then we might as well stop here. The Earth warms for a period, the sea responds over an 800 year period by releasing CO2, this is not open for debate. You saying heat doesn't produce more CO2 in the atmosphere is wrong.

I will respond to your other points when I have time.

(Underline bold emphasis mine)

But even so, where does the co2 come from in your theory?  According to you co2 is driven by temp therefore it must come from natural sources - but the evidence (Carbon isotope ratios) points to it being from fossil fuels.

[Nick]

So your rebuttal is "we can't measure the carbon ratios because the numbers are small".

Despite the low concentration of ¹⁴C it is readily detectable, hence we can carbon date organic objects out to around 50k years.

Ocean sunk co2 (the proposed source of co2 from your "800 year" theory) would not reduce the ¹⁴C or ¹³C ratios as it has the same ratio as the atmosphere (already purple paint)

Contemporary organic matter would only reduce the ¹³C levels as it contains the same ¹⁴C levels as atmosphere.

Only organic matter older than 50k years would reduce both isotopes.

This (and our ability to detect these changes) is proven by the fact we can (and do) take samples in polluted areas (eg near a forest fire or a fossil fuel source like a power plant) and see the anticipated drops in ratio.

This is why we can claim the majority of the rise to over 400ppm from "pre industrial" 300ppm (I've rounded numbers) is from fossil fuel (aka human) sources.

From what you have revealed about your theory (correct me if I have misunderstood) you propose some effect (sunspots?) around 800 years ago caused the current temperature rise which, in turn, drove the co2 rise by releasing stored carbon in the ocean.

How can theory account for the fact the extra carbon cannot be from the ocean?

For a start, the sunspot data is not theory, it is fact. Secondly I never said sunspots 800 years ago caused warming, temperature change is very quick, hence the reason it goes cold at night. Sunspots reduce clouds: FACT, reduced clouds increases warming: FACT. And as I said, when your looking at the amount of something on a graph you look at the area under the graph, and that shows a very large increase in Sunspots over the last 100 years.

[BeElBeeBub]

You're just playing games again.
98.9% of all Carbon on Earth is Carbon 12, Carbon 13 is 1.1% and Carbon 14 might not bother existing at 0.0001%.
The atmosphere is almost exactly 50/50 of 12C/13C. The atmosphere is .04% CO2 and it is recorded that humans have contributed 3%. There is a big hole in where your 12C has come from to the tune of a magnitude 17. So where is all this other 12C coming from? Again your signature doesn't work cause it's the same signature as rotting vegetation.

So your rebuttal is "we can't measure the carbon ratios because the numbers are small".

Despite the low concentration of ¹⁴C it is readily detectable, hence we can carbon date organic objects out to around 50k years.

Ocean sunk co2 (the proposed source of co2 from your "800 year" theory) would not reduce the ¹⁴C or ¹³C ratios as it has the same ratio as the atmosphere (already purple paint)

Contemporary organic matter would only reduce the ¹³C levels as it contains the same ¹⁴C levels as atmosphere.

Only organic matter older than 50k years would reduce both isotopes.

This (and our ability to detect these changes) is proven by the fact we can (and do) take samples in polluted areas (eg near a forest fire or a fossil fuel source like a power plant) and see the anticipated drops in ratio.

This is why we can claim the majority of the rise to over 400ppm from "pre industrial" 300ppm (I've rounded numbers) is from fossil fuel (aka human) sources.

From what you have revealed about your theory (correct me if I have misunderstood) you propose some effect (sunspots?) around 800 years ago caused the current temperature rise which, in turn, drove the co2 rise by releasing stored carbon in the ocean.

How can theory account for the fact the extra carbon cannot be from the ocean?

[Nick]

The papers will take various forms.

A paper looking at a model and quantifying how accurate it is when hindcasting is valuable work.

A paper looking at some data source and corroborating it with another is valuable work.

As you say, looking at satellite data and weather balloon data and comparing the two is valuable work.

Looking at that paper and examining any flaws in it's production is valuable work.

We don't need to look at non-scientific papers, the work has been done, satellite and weather books are perfectly aligned and they both show the models are wrong. 

[Nick]

The majority of carbon atoms in the atmosphere are in the form of co2. The next most numerous carbon containing molecule would be methane at less than 2ppm and then other ones in the parts per billion and trillion range.

As for telling where the carbon comes from - it's quite clever.

Imagine you have a bucket of purple paint (red and blue mixed). Somebody adds more paint from one of 2 tins. One tin is the same ratio of red and blue as your bucket. The other tin has more red than blue.

You can tell which tin they used by locking at the final shade of paint in your bucket

For various reasons different sources of CO2 have different ratios of carbon isotopes (¹⁴C, ¹³C, ¹²C).

Stuff from plants (burning a forest) is lower in ¹³C than the atmosphere.

Stuff from Oceans is about the same as the atmosphere.

Stuff from fossil fuels is low in ¹³C and has no ¹⁴C


As CO2 levels have risen the ratio of ¹³C and ¹⁴C has fallen. So whatever carbon is entering the atmosphere is not from current organic sources or the ocean and must be from ancient sources (fossil fuels)

Try this link which explains it well
https://gml.noaa.gov/ccgg/isotopes/mixing.html

You're just playing games again. 
98.9% of all Carbon on Earth is Carbon 12, Carbon 13 is 1.1% and Carbon 14 might not bother existing at 0.0001%. 
The atmosphere is almost exactly 50/50 of 12C/13C. The atmosphere is .04% CO2 and it is recorded that humans have contributed 3%. There is a big hole in where your 12C has come from to the tune of a magnitude 17. So where is all this other 12C coming from? Again your signature doesn't work cause it's the same signature as rotting vegetation. 

[BeElBeeBub]

How have these AGW supports written papers to be peer reviewed? To have peer review you need to publish something, do an experiment and then show the results. Writing the findings of a model that is specifically designed to show AGW is not doing an experiment. Taking satellite data, comparing it to weather balloon data and then showing that the models have temperature increasing exponentially faster that actual is doing science.

The papers will take various forms.

A paper looking at a model and quantifying how accurate it is when hindcasting is valuable work.

A paper looking at some data source and corroborating it with another is valuable work.

As you say, looking at satellite data and weather balloon data and comparing the two is valuable work.

Looking at that paper and examining any flaws in it's production is valuable work.

[BeElBeeBub]

Unless there has been a period of cooling, which can't happen under their models.

The various models show cooling at various points a when the inputs for industrial aerosols etc are factored in.

[BeElBeeBub]

Now you really are taking the piss.  If it is "roughly 1C since the 1880s", then it cannot be higher since the 1980s. 

I wasn't clear.  The rate of rise is higher since the 1980's

[BeElBeeBub]

Nice try

Your article is very sneaky in the way it says 'signature of Carbon', it doesn't say the signature of CO2. This is how the game is being played, and that is why there is mass hysteria about CO2 because institutes skew the numbers and wording.
I don't know and I'm asking genuinely, what is the difference from one atom of oceanic CO2 and one atom of fossil fuel CO2? What is this signature?

The majority of carbon atoms in the atmosphere are in the form of co2. The next most numerous carbon containing molecule would be methane at less than 2ppm and then other ones in the parts per billion and trillion range.

As for telling where the carbon comes from - it's quite clever.

Imagine you have a bucket of purple paint (red and blue mixed). Somebody adds more paint from one of 2 tins. One tin is the same ratio of red and blue as your bucket. The other tin has more red than blue.

You can tell which tin they used by locking at the final shade of paint in your bucket

For various reasons different sources of CO2 have different ratios of carbon isotopes (¹⁴C, ¹³C, ¹²C).

Stuff from plants (burning a forest) is lower in ¹³C than the atmosphere.

Stuff from Oceans is about the same as the atmosphere.

Stuff from fossil fuels is low in ¹³C and has no ¹⁴C


As CO2 levels have risen the ratio of ¹³C and ¹⁴C has fallen. So whatever carbon is entering the atmosphere is not from current organic sources or the ocean and must be from ancient sources (fossil fuels) 

Try this link which explains it well
https://gml.noaa.gov/ccgg/isotopes/mixing.html

[Nick]

You haven't explained how you know only 1% of scientists deny AGW.  We don't need to see unpublished papers.  Most scientists don't write papers on climate change.  So when will you support your claim?

How have these AGW supports written papers to be peer reviewed? To have peer review you need to publish something, do an experiment and then show the results. Writing the findings of a model that is specifically designed to show AGW is not doing an experiment. Taking satellite data, comparing it to weather balloon data and then showing that the models have temperature increasing exponentially faster that actual is doing science. 

[Scott777]

Technically it's papers.  3,000 were reviewed and 31 were denying AGW (either explicitly or implicitly)

That 1% (close enough) of papers.

Even if the AGW scientists were super busy and posted 10 papers each whilst the deniers only published 1 each, you'd still have a 10:1 ratio of scientists.

As for the unpublished papers - are we back to citing evidence that we can't see? 

What do you base your estimation on? A systematic search? A randomised poll of verified scientists in the area with sufficient numbers to have statistical significance?

You haven't explained how you know only 1% of scientists deny AGW.  We don't need to see unpublished papers.  Most scientists don't write papers on climate change.  So when will you support your claim?

[Nick]

Now you really are taking the piss.  If it is "roughly 1C since the 1880s", then it cannot be higher since the 1980s. 

Unless there has been a period of cooling, which can't happen under their models. 

[Nick]

I didn't suggest they would.  You said "less than 1% of scientists are denying AGW".  Then you said your claim is based on papers they published.  So how do you know the other scientists deny AGW?

You didn't comment on John Christy as to whether you thought he was lying or just plain stupid? It has to be one of them.  

[Scott777]

No, you are misreading.

I have maintained it is roughly 1C since the 1880s and the rate is higher since the 1980's

0.5C is what you might get if you make extremely biased assumptions. Likewise 7C.  Neither are remotely supportable.

The margin of error is not 0.5C

Human-induced warming reached approximately 1°C (likely between 0.8°C and 1.2°C). In this context "likely" means greater than 66% probability the real figure is in this range.

If you extend the range down to 0.5C your confidence limits are 95% or to put it another way there is only a 1 in 20 chance the 0.5C figure is right.

Now you really are taking the piss.  If it is "roughly 1C since the 1880s", then it cannot be higher since the 1980s.