Retired 40-Year Veteran German Climatologist: “CO2 A Scapegoat” …IPCC “A Marketing Organization”

The German-language RT recently conducted an interview with retired climatologist Prof. Werner Kirstein concerning President Donald Trump’s decision to pull out of the Paris Accord and the state of climate “science” itself.

Hat-tip EIKE.

Image cropped from RT.

Kirstein, a German climatologist of 40 years, has been one of Germany’s most high-profile critics of climate alarmism. He maintains that the warming over the past decades has been mostly due to natural causes associated with the climb out of the Little Ice Age, and therefore is not surprising.

“An invention”

In the RT interview, on the subject of Trump’s recently announced withdrawal, Kirstein says that it is no surprise because within the Republican party itself there have been a number of politicians who for 20 years long haven’t believed in man-made climate change, and that over the past ten years “hundreds of US scientists say it’s an invention“, and who even said so in a signed a letter to former President Obama.

On the claims made by the IPCC that man is behind the recent climate change (4:50 mark) Kirstein doesn’t buy it, reminding us that in the past CO2 has always varied, and that man’s contribution is puny in comparison to the natural ones.

In total Kirstein agrees that CO2 is “a harmless gas” and calls the IPCC’s conclusion that CO2 drives global temperature based on a coincidental correlation over 30 years, 1970 – 2000, a mistake.

When I go back and look at history, there’s absolutely no relationship between CO2 and temperature.”

CO2 used as a scapegoat

At the 9-minute mark the retired professor tells that the claim that CO2 is a greenhouse gas is highly controversial, and that the trace gas is in fact being used as a scapegoat by politicians, and says that the odds of cooling, based on history, are greater. “Eventually it is going to come.”

IPCC is about marketing, “fundamentally corrupt”

On the question as to why there has been so much climate-catastrophe panic spread by the media, Kirstein blames economic interests, and that governments of course can always find scientists who are willing to go along with the catastrophe scenarios – naming the PIK Potsdam Institute as an example.

He views the IPCC as a “marketing organization” run mostly by sociologists who have the task of marketing climate change. He quotes Vincent Gray (13:00): “The IPCC is fundamentally corrupt.” Kirstein tells the reporter: “That says it all, doesn’t it!” He adds: “Today you do not find scientists on the IPCC, instead you have political scientists.”

Kirstein reminds there is a big difference between climate-protection and environmental protection, and agrees the environment needs to be protected, but “one does not have anything to do with the other.”

Climate science is “a lie”

Kirstein finds it’s okay to be politically in favor of eliminating fossil fuels, but then “you shouldn’t lie to the public” about why it should be done.

When Kirstein is asked why he gives speeches criticizing climate science, he says (17:20):

Because I’m completely against it. Because I see that it just cannot be that the people are being dumbed down by having them believe that there is a climate catastrophe through CO2.”

Driven by funding

On the subject of consensus, Kirstein says he is not alone as a skeptic in Germany, and especially worldwide. Of those scientists who insist that man-made climate change is real, he points out that most of them have their sights on funding.

I know some colleagues here in house, for example, and other colleagues not in Leipzig, and others here in Leipzig, who profit from the funding. You simply just do it, and and you don’t speak about your opinion. In private discussions, I’ve heard: ‘Well, you know, how am I supposed to make a living?'”

He summarizes the driving factor behind climate research, using a famous saying: “Whose bread one eats, whose words one speaks.”

 

105 responses to “Retired 40-Year Veteran German Climatologist: “CO2 A Scapegoat” …IPCC “A Marketing Organization””

  1. tom0mason

    “He summarizes the driving factor behind climate research, using a famous saying: “Whose bread one eats, whose words one speaks.”

    Could also be translated as –
    “Whoever pays the piper calls the tune”

    More apt perhaps if we could ever get a pied piper of ‘climate science’ to clear the dross out of the public larder.

    1. John F. Hultquist

      This is a very simple concept, yet I encounter otherwise smart people that will not believe climate research has been high-jacked by Greens and the UN.

  2. SebastianH

    I guess you know that RT Deutsch is a Russian propaganda plattform 100% paid by the Russian state? Doesn’t really matter for the content of this post, but you know “Whose bread one eats, whose words one speaks.”

    Real scientists and non-math-illiterates know that the increase is 100% attributable to mankinds emissions.

    Kirstein doesn’t buy it, reminding us that in the past CO2 has always varied

    Indeed, CO2 concentration always varied, but not in any way similar to what it does today: http://imgur.com/a/yru36

    In short: Kirstein is part of the skeptic subgroup that ignore physics and explains away the opposite site with ridiculous accusations with no foundation in reality.

    P.S.: In private discussions with skeptics, I’ve heard “Well, you know, I do it just for fun and to troll people. What better thing can a pensioned old person do to spend his/her time?” …

    1. SebastianH

      I just finished watching the video. I am appalled by the amount of missinformation this professor is able to put into a 20 minute interview.

      Do you skeptics – that understand German – really share his opinion and agree to all his statements?

      1. Edim

        I do share his opinion, if anything maybe even more skeptical of AGW. I think most of the increase in atmospheric CO2 is not anthropogenic.
        Politically, I am liberal/left.

        1. SebastianH

          Ok then, Kirstein mentions the following in his interview:
          “Humans emit around 3% and nature the rest” and goes on that he thinks this tiny amount could not possibly be the cause. That is also your opinion, correct?

          So explain how it is possible that the yearly increase in atmospheric CO2 content (the amount of CO2 that’s not absorbed by nature) is less than the 3% in absolute amount of CO2? Shouldn’t the increase (~17 GtCO2) be way larger than those 3% (or ~35 GtCO2)?

          1. AndyG55

            You have LOST that argument many times, seb.

            Why do you continue to show absolutely ZERO learning ability ?

            It is obvious that you CHOOSE to remain totally ZERO-SCIENCE and totally IGNORANT.

            You are happy in your FANTASY world of ANTI-KNOWLEDGE.

          2. tom0mason

            SebastianH 27. June 2017 at 9:49 PM

            Easy seb,

            Rises in CO2 does no observed change to the climate.
            CO2 is NOT a problem!

            Where is your proof that CO2 is a problem?

            Where is it seb?

          3. Edim

            It is not my opinion that human emissions could not possibly be the cause. My opinion is that the increase in atmospheric CO2 since ~1960 is mostly natural (not anthropogenic).

            Nature has been a net sink because of anthropogenic emissions. Without the human emissions, nature would have been a net source, not net zero.

          4. SebastianH

            Edim,

            Nature has been a net sink because of anthropogenic emissions. Without the human emissions, nature would have been a net source, not net zero.

            Please explain how that works. Does nature “know” what CO2 molecule is of human origin and absorbs more of those when present?

            Nature being a source or sink depends on many things, one of which is the CO2 concentration. The higher the concentration the more it can absorb (partial pressure difference). That usually works as a regulating force letting CO2 concentration go up and down over time (see first part of this graph: http://imgur.com/a/yru36). When humans began to emit CO2 they overhelmed that ability and we were consistently outputting more CO2 than has been absorbed in every year since reliable measurements began.

            Nature’s variability (detrended first deviation of CO2 concentration) is rather small compared to the emissions of mankind.

            @tom0mason:
            Even if rising CO2 were not a problem, this is about who is responsible for the rise. If skeptics start their chain of arguments with something like this, everything else following is moot.

            @AndyG55:

            You have LOST that argument many times, seb.

            As of yet, commenters on this blog claiming that the CO2 increase is natural have all made the same mistake: comparing amounts with different units to each other in a desperate trial to show that human contribution is tiny. It isn’t.

      2. tom0mason

        seb,
        I can not imagine that this video could possibly come out with more appalling misinformation that you can.
        Your level of understand of science and what science is about is truly deplorable! Please go off and get educated!

      3. AndyG55

        “I am appalled by the amount of misinformation”

        And all of us are appalled at the amount of ANTI-information in your brain-washed religious miasma.

        You have ZERO PROOF that CO2 causes any sort of warming

        What you think of as your “science” is basically just FANTASY. !!

      4. Juergen Uhlemann

        SebastianH, I understand German. It was just an interview and I don’t have to agree to EVERY word he says, as even the believer only agree in the general argument and not in the details.

        It is clear that the ice core data (about 450 k years) show a CO2 delta of about 150 ppm and a temperature delta of about 12 degrees Celsius.
        What Prof. Werner Kirstein said is that in a colder period the water takes on the CO2 and in a warmer period CO2 is released and earth is covered by a lot of water. That man is producing extra CO2 through the burning of fossil fuel is clear. We could argue over the man made vs. natural CO2 increase since the end of the last little ice age, but both exist

        The AGW theory(?) is that our roughly 120 ppm have increased the temperature by about 1.5 degree Celsius.
        If the 150 ppm increase (ice core data) could change the temperature by 12 degrees Celsius, why do the 120 ppm increase not showing something similar?
        I guess you would say, like others, that the CO2 changed in a very short time and the temperature increase is slow and will catch up.
        Why would we see then more than one hiatus and even more than one temperature drop since the last little ice age?
        Considering the 120 ppm CO2 increase of today would by a slow process increase of the temperature by roughly 10 degrees Celsius in the future through the AGW forcing by the CO2, then we will have no possibility to stop this process. Even if we stop the burning of CO2 today, the 120 ppm CO2 are in the atmosphere and as it is said by the AGW side that the CO2 we release stays for many 100 years in the atmosphere. This means we (by AGW argument) are doomed. The so-called 2 degrees Celsius barrier will be broken and we have no possibility to stop it.

        The AGW side has created an environment through scare tactics with all kinds of arguments, but they have gone even against their own arguments.
        The added 120 ppm stay for 100 of years in the atmosphere and could produce something like a 10 degrees Celsius increase in the future no matter what we do today. We have already lost the fight and no prediction is considering this.

        One thing strikes me often in the discussion, which is the fact that the CO2 and the temperature just stopped at the more or less same amount in the ice core data. Is there a limit? The fact that the temperature increase is releasing CO2 from the water should in reverse increase the temperature causing more CO2 release and so on. Maybe the slope would be lower over time, but it should increase for a very long time or the argument that CO2 drives the temperature is wrong. On the other hand, if there is a limit, why do we need to worry?

        Please feel free to take something out of my argument and come up with something that is by your argumentation wrong. This is how I learn about other arguments that help me to investigate it further. Only new arguments will change the thinking process, old arguments do nothing else than looping around in a circle.
        Please be creative, as I love to hear NEW arguments.

        1. SebastianH

          What Prof. Werner Kirstein said is that in a colder period the water takes on the CO2 and in a warmer period CO2 is released and earth is covered by a lot of water

          And that is indeed true and is what would happen if he had some kind of near equilibrium state regarding the CO2 concentration. The result of temperature variations would be CO2 content variations (up and down) around that equilibrium point. But human emissions exist and so these little variations are overlayed by a big source of additional CO2 and the effect of temperature variations is that more or less CO2 gets absorbed depending on that temperature (which can be easily seen in graphs like this one: http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/esrl-co2/isolate:24/mean:12/scale:0.5/plot/gistemp-dts/from:1958/isolate:24/mean:12).

          However, the warming of temperatures doesn’t cause a net increase of CO2 emissions from the oceans. There may be a point when the oceans become a net source, but that’s not the case today.

          The AGW theory(?) is that our roughly 120 ppm have increased the temperature by about 1.5 degree Celsius. If the 150 ppm increase (ice core data) could change the temperature by 12 degrees Celsius, why do the 120 ppm increase not showing something similar?

          When looking at reconstructions of the past it looks like CO2 always followed temperature. So the temperature changed and what Kirstein mentioned happend … more ocean outgasing, less absorption = CO2 concentration increases. CO2 then has a small amplifying effect of further warming, but there always seems to be a point where cooling gets stronger.

          In modern times we are the ones increasing the CO2 concentration before any warming happened. And we are doing that in a relatively short period of time. The same effect that 12°C increase in the past is not at play today. So we get only the smaller effect of the CO2 forcing. How high of an increase in temperatures this will result in is still up to debate. A doubling of CO2 is said to cause a forcing of 3.7 W/m² which results in at least 1°C warming. Feedbacks will amplify or damp that somewhat. Current consensus says amplification is more likely.

          There is no indication that the current ppm increase, if we could stabilize at 400 ppm would result in a 10°C increase like you wrote. I think 1.5°C is the total increase for that, but would have to look that up if you want a more definitive answer (or google it yourself).

          The added 120 ppm stay for 100 of years in the atmosphere and could produce something like a 10 degrees Celsius increase in the future no matter what we do today.

          See above, that is not what is happening or will happen according to climate scientists.

          The so-called 2 degrees Celsius barrier will be broken and we have no possibility to stop it.

          But not because of your 120 ppm causes 10°C of warming idea. We will probably not stop it, because that would take enormous efforts to reduce emissions, e.g. if we started those effort now and reached peak in 2030 reducing CO2 emissions 5% each year until we reach 2 GtCO2/year, the concentration would peak in the 2040s at ~450 ppm and decrease from then on. I made a spreadsheet containing the formulas used by a paper that was posted here to model CO2 concentration and ocean outgasing/absorption. The spreadsheet ignores nature’s effect (more trees) since the seemed to be small in that paper and too much trouble to implement.

          https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1SbamVjz4Popxn32C1R0Ji2EgbzRIEKzZ3FLBRgzHAw0/edit?usp=sharing

          Is there a limit? […] On the other hand, if there is a limit, why do we need to worry?

          There probably is a limit. Otherwise climate on this planet would be a very fragile thing at we would be very lucky that there still is an atmosphere after what happened in those millions/billions of years. Why do we need to worry? Because that limit might be high. A 12°C temperature increase would be world changing and adaptation might not be possible for all of mankind. Sure, if we can find out how to life in the hostile environments of Mars or the Moon, the rich people on this planet can protect themselves against all sorts of changes. But that can’t be the goal, can it? And maybe such a changed world could not support 10+ billion people anymore. What then?

          1. Juergen Uhlemann

            Thanks for your reply.
            True, human’s emission exists and they can be called huge, if you consider the preindustrial amount of 280 ppm.
            The 400 ppm today exist and you don’t see an indication that the 120 ppm increase could lead to an 10°C temperature increase over time is not clear, but the IPCC says “The total amount of carbon in the ocean is about 50 times greater than the amount in the atmosphere, and is exchanged with the atmosphere on a time-scale of several hundred years.”. That the CO2 varies quite quick in relation to the seasons can be seen at Mauna Loa and that the CO2 lagged quite slow the temperature can be seen in the ice core data. These indicates two different kind of sources and I think the oceans are responsible for the slow change.
            You said “There may be a point when the oceans become a net source, but that’s not the case today”.
            The IPCC report from 2007 says “In addition, it is virtually certain that the removal of CO2 by Carbon Dioxide Removal (CDR) will be partially offset by outgassing of CO2 from the ocean and land ecosystems” and this was the discussion about the CDR through some unconventional ways. 10 years ago, the ocean and land ecosystems was considered as a net source.
            My take from this is that we can’t ignore the vast amount of water and the impact on the climate. Time will tell.

            Your spreadsheet is quite interesting, but I wouldn’t even go there to predict such a time frame. I’m not sure about your data source, but a spot check showed that the CO2 increase in 2015 and 2016 is about 1 ppm lower than the data from Mauna Loa. I guess, based on that difference, that this might be just a calculation/prediction à la IPCC.

            On the other hand, you mentioned that this is based on a paper to “model CO2 concentration and ocean outgassing/absorption”. This means that the ocean outgassing/absorption has to be considered.
            Do we really know what the future will bring? No. Even the IPCC Working Group I (The Scientific Basis) says that. “The climate system is particularly challenging since it is known that components in the system are inherently chaotic; there are feedbacks that could potentially switch sign, and there are central processes that affect the system in a complicated, non-linear manner. These complex, chaotic, non-linear dynamics are an inherent aspect of the climate system.”

            The whole argument is full of facts, prediction, assumptions and unfortunately a cloud of misinformation. It’s quite difficult to get a good enough picture. I’m watching this space for a very long time and have seen a lot since the 70s/80s and I’m just amazed.

            Based on the fact that we impact a chaotic system though our existents and think that we are the butterfly effect one way or another is arrogant. Just watch George Carlin – Saving the Planet https://youtu.be/7W33HRc1A6c

            What if – or should I say when –the next big ice age comes or the little once. It is said that a little ice ages has started. In the words of Russian solar physicist by Habibullo Abdussamatov, in the last 7500 years there were 18 little ice ages and number 19 is happening now.

            The next 10 years, give or take, will be quite interesting in many ways.

          2. SebastianH

            That the CO2 varies quite quick in relation to the seasons can be seen at Mauna Loa and that the CO2 lagged quite slow the temperature can be seen in the ice core data. These indicates two different kind of sources and I think the oceans are responsible for the slow change.

            At the end it is just simple math. If you want to know the percentage of the CO2 concentration that an emission source causes, then you just have to subtract the source from the increase. If nothing is left, then it’s 100%. Meaning, if the source weren’t there, it would not increase at all. This also means that oceans and nature currently are net sinks.

            I’m not sure about your data source, but a spot check showed that the CO2 increase in 2015 and 2016 is about 1 ppm lower than the data from Mauna Loa.

            It’s just an algorithm to show how emissions and CO2 concentration are connected. It doesn’t necessarily calculate the exact concentration levels of all the years after 1938 (mostly because the increase in our output wasn’t 2% in every single year since then).

            Do we really know what the future will bring? No.

            The basic principles are well understood. Their interactions are where the uncertainty lies.

            Based on the fact that we impact a chaotic system though our existents and think that we are the butterfly effect one way or another is arrogant.

            At this time it should be painfully obvious that we are causing the CO2 increase and that this increase has consequences. There is no indication that in this “chaotic system” a force exists that compensates every attempt of influencing the system. Thinking something like this borders on those religious beliefs that there is some kind of God watching over us and will help us succeed. Trusting in something like that is naive.

            What if – or should I say when –the next big ice age comes or the little once.

            It will come sooner or later based on past “experience”. Having said that, even a cooling in the next decades would still be influence (e.g. slowed) by AGW. The later one wouldn’t just stop when temperatures decrease.

            But it doesn’t look like any cooling is imminent … we’ll see in 10, 20 or 30 years.

          3. Kenneth Richard

            “At the end it is just simple math. If you want to know the percentage of the CO2 concentration that an emission source causes, then you just have to subtract the source from the increase.”

            No. The problem with that is, of course, that we don’t know what the natural emissions values are. They’re just guesses. As are the guesses about natural sinks always neatly adjusting to natural changes in emission. We don’t know that they do that. It’s just an assumption, and not even an educated one. In 1994, the IPCC claimed that the oceans outgas 90 GtC/year. By 2013, the IPCC guess was that the oceans emit 78 GtC per year. They just…changed their minds. They really don’t know. Nor do you. So it could very well be that natural emissions are clearly out-shooting changes in natural sinks. But because you don’t want to consider that, you just dismiss that possibility and insist that humans cause 100% of the increase.

            “If nothing is left, then it’s 100%. Meaning, if the source weren’t there, it would not increase at all.”

            But the natural source is there. And it dwarfs the anthropogenic source by two orders of magnitude (100X). So therefore even a small change in natural sources vs. sinks (and we don’t know what those values are with anything more than assumption) has the potential to overshadow the tiny year-to-year changes in anthropogenic CO2 emissions (0.2 GtC/year).

            “This also means that oceans and nature currently are net sinks.”

            That’s your guess. When oceans warm, they release more CO2 than they retain. And the oceans have 50 times more CO2 than the atmosphere does (~20,000 ppm). This processing (ocean releasing more CO2 as they warm) doesn’t suddenly stop happening because the atmosphere’s CO2 molecules are spaced together 1/10,000ths more closely (0.1%) than they were 100 years ago. That’s what you must believe to assume that the oceans absorb more CO2 than they release…as they warm.

            “The basic principles are well understood.”

            If the basic principles are well understood with regard to the climate’s sensitivity to CO2, why is it that even the most recent IPCC report featured papers on Equilibrium Climate Sensitivity that had temperature ranges that varied from 0.7 C to 6.0 C for a doubling (to 560 ppm) of CO2 – a factor-of-8 difference? Why is it that even the IPCC agrees that the climate’s sensitivity to CO2 doubling alone is just 1.2 C, and they actually state that they only “believe” that feedbacks with water vapor and clouds will ramp that up to 3.0 C and up? Why is climate sensitivity only a belief even for the IPCC…if the basics are so “well understood”?

          4. SebastianH

            With all due respect Kenneth, I congratulated you on your new blog post that you didn’t make the mistake of comparing amounts with different units (the comment got deleted), and here you are doing it again. It’s not allowed to compare the increase in atmospheric CO2 content (GtC/year) with the change of human emissions (GtC/year²). That’s comparing distance with speed or speed with acceleration.

            We don’t need to know what nature emits and absorbs. We know the difference between those two and it’s negative, meaning nature absorbs more than it emits.

            That’s your guess. When oceans warm, they release more CO2 than they retain.

            That’s no guess, that’s math. And yes, the warmer ocean means less CO2 absorbed. What you are ignoring is the partial pressure difference, I’ll illustrate that on your blog post. However, the lower absorption of the oceans in warm years still is small compared to human emissions. Even the higher absorption in cold years doesn’t manage to bring the CO2 increase to a halt in those years.

            This processing (ocean releasing more CO2 as they warm) doesn’t suddenly stop happening

            Of course it doesn’t. It’s responsible for the variations in the atmospheric CO2 content increases. CO2 lagging behind temperature, remember? The near linear increase of the atmospheric CO2 content is however caused by human emissions. The first few papers in your post that try to correlate CO2 content with either human emissions or temperature don’t seem to think of the possibility that it’s not neither/nor, but one and the other.

            0.7 C to 6.0 C for a doubling (to 560 ppm) of CO2 – a factor-of-8 difference

            Technically that’s only a factor of 1.02 … the base for temperatures is still -273.15°C isn’t it? The range is this big, because uncertainty exists. The IPCC gives a “most likely” value too.

            they actually state that they only “believe” that feedbacks with water vapor and clouds will ramp that up to 3.0 C and up

            Because it looks like that is the case. Feedbacks seem to be positive. The language used is: “It is certain that the total anthropogenic ERF [effective radiative forcing] is positive.” (chapter 8 AR5, just read the first 3 pages)

          5. Kenneth Richard

            “It’s not allowed to compare the increase in atmospheric CO2 content (GtC/year) with the change of human emissions (GtC/year²).”

            Sorry, SebastianH, but I have not thought it necessary to seek your approval as to what is “allowed”. I don’t really value your opinions on the matter. The human emissions rate has increased by only about 0.1 to 0.2 GtC/year on average for the last two decades. It increased by only 0.06 GtC between 2013 and 2014, and it actually declined slightly in ’15 and ’16 relative to 2014. I am allowed to say that human emissions rates have been flat for the last 4 straight years (2013-’16), though I understand that you don’t like that.

            “We don’t need to know what nature emits and absorbs. We know the difference between those two and it’s negative, meaning nature absorbs more than it emits.”

            No matter how many times you insist that we “know” the difference between what’s emitted and absorbed by nature, it doesn’t make it so. We do not know the difference, we don’t know that it’s negative, and we don’t know that nature absorbs more than it emits. It’s guesswork and assumption.

            The idea that oceans absorb more CO2 than they emit is contrary to the physically observed process that has oceans releasing more CO2 when anomalously warm and retaining more CO2 when anomalously cool. That you actually believe that CO2 molecules spaced together 1/20,000ths more closely than they were in 1990 caused ocean outgassing processes to change their course is bewildering. The IPCC just makes up oceanic emit/sink values. That’s why they changed from 90 GtC/year in 1994 to 78 GtC/year in 2013. Sorry, SebastianH, but I’m not buying what you’re peddling.

            “the lower absorption of the oceans in warm years still is small compared to human emissions.”

            Just another concoction. You have no idea how much the oceans absorb, so your conclusion is invalid.

            “The range is this big, because uncertainty exists.”

            Correct. And the uncertainty range is larger than the assumed overall temperature change from doubling preindustrial CO2 (1.2°C) precisely because, as the IPCC acknowledges, we are uncertain as to the role of feedbacks. That’s why they call it a belief that feedbacks will lead to temperature changes greater than 1.2°C…they don’t know enough about whether clouds are a net positive or net negative feedback.

            IPCC TAR:

            “If the amount of carbon dioxide were doubled instantaneously, with everything else remaining the same, the outgoing infrared radiation would be reduced by about 4 Wm-2. In other words, the radiative forcing corresponding to a doubling of the CO2 concentration would be 4 Wm-2. To counteract this imbalance, the temperature of the surface-troposphere system would have to increase by 1.2°C (with an accuracy of ±10%), in the absence of other changes. In reality, due to feedbacks, the response of the climate system is much more complex. It is believed that the overall effect of the feedbacks amplifies the temperature increase to 1.5 to 4.5°C. A significant part of this uncertainty range arises from our limited knowledge of clouds and their interactions with radiation.

            “Feedbacks seem to be positive.”

            Seem? Considering that the IPCC contends that doubling CO2 to 560 ppm only leads to a temperature change of 1.2°C, and the only means by which we can reach 3°C, 4°C, 5°C and beyond is to get runaway positive feedbacks with clouds and water vapor…wouldn’t it be rather important to figure out whether or not the feedbacks “seem” to be positive or negative? And if it’s only “seem”, from where comes your certainty that dangerous impacts on climate lurk? The feedbacks (water vapor, cloud) are, after all, claimed/believed to be more influential in planetary warming than CO2 doubling is. And since that’s the claim/belief, how much of the 0.8°C of warming since 1850 has been caused by water vapor and cloud feedbacks already? Do you have a quantification, or is this uncertain? And if you don’t think that water vapor and cloud feedbacks have caused any of the 0.8°C of warming since 1850, at what point do you believe their influence might actually “kick in”?

          6. AndyG55

            ““Feedbacks seem to be positive.””

            Ah….. the NON-SCIENCE of seb !

            so funny !!

          7. SebastianH

            You really don’t understand the problem, do you, Kenneth? Of course you are allowed to say: “I am allowed to say that human emissions rates have been flat for the last 4 straight years (2013-’16), though I understand that you don’t like that.”

            That’s not the same as saying that these zero change in human emissions should result in CO2 concentration not increasing. In stating this you demonstrate that you don’t care about the units involved in a comparison (again: distance with speed or speed with acceleration, would you compare those with each other?). It’s not about what I don’t allow you to do, it is what math doesn’t allow you to do. You can’t divide by zero either.

            No matter how many times you insist that we “know” the difference between what’s emitted and absorbed by nature, it doesn’t make it so. We do not know the difference, we don’t know that it’s negative, and we don’t know that nature absorbs more than it emits. It’s guesswork and assumption.

            No it’s not. Of course we know the difference between all emissions and all absorption. It’s the increase in atmospheric CO2 content we see every year. You subtract what humans emit and you get the difference between natures emissions and absorption. It’s that simple!

            The idea that oceans absorb more CO2 than they emit is contrary to the physically observed process that has oceans releasing more CO2 when anomalously warm and retaining more CO2 when anomalously cool.

            That’s not an idea, that’s a fact. The temperature isn’t the only thing determining how much CO2 the ocean emits and absorbs over the year. The other factor is partial pressure difference. As you’ve said, the ocean contains far more CO2 than the atmosphere. The ratio may currently be 50:1 (I read it’s 40:1, but doesn’t matter). If CO2 concentration in the atmosphere doubles the ratio will be just 25:1 and that causes less CO2 being emitted from the oceans. That’s the same as with air humidity. If the air is more humid, evaporation is reduced.

            Just another concoction. You have no idea how much the oceans absorb, so your conclusion is invalid.

            Of course we do. Plant life, etc has a role too, but the reason we see those yearly variations in CO2 concentration increase is the ocean uptake variation that happens due to SST changes. Those CO2 concentration variations are exactly the differences in ocean uptake and they are small compared to the overall increase of CO2 concentration.

            Regarding the “belief” of the IPCC, please read the executive summary of chapter 7 of the AR5 report. The overview in chapter 1 – that you are quoting – is just that … and overview.

          8. Kenneth Richard

            “That’s not the same as saying that these zero change in human emissions should result in CO2 concentration not increasing. In stating this”

            I didn’t state that. If I had, that would imply that I think human emissions are the leading driver of CO2 concentration changes. That’s what you believe. The evidence shows that temperature drives CO2 emission.

            http://notrickszone.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/06/CO2-Concentrations-1800-to-1960-Kauffman-2007.jpg
            Over 135 measurements from the NH even showed that CO2 rose dramatically during the 1920s to 1940s as a consequence of the temperature increase…before falling after that as the temperature cooled. Of course, since this doesn’t match with the “agreed-upon” values that are compatible with AGW, these CO2 fluctuations were discarded. It looks as though the CO2 record has been altered just as the temperature record has.

            “Of course we know the difference between all emissions and all absorption. It’s the increase in atmospheric CO2 content we see every year. You subtract what humans emit and you get the difference between natures emissions and absorption. It’s that simple!”

            This presupposes that only humans drive CO2 concentration changes, and nature doesn’t. If you don’t know what nature emits/absorbs, it is not accurate to claim that the difference can only be applied to humans and not to nature.
            ——————————————————————————————————————-
            Together, emission from ocean and land sources (∼150 GtC/yr) is two orders of magnitude greater than CO2 emission from combustion of fossil fuel. These natural sources are offset by natural sinks, of comparable strength. However, because they are so much stronger, even a minor imbalance between natural sources and sinks can overshadow the anthropogenic component of CO2 emission.” — Physics of the Atmosphere and Climate

          9. AndyG55

            Poor seb, still flapping around like a stunned mullet.

            Your problem seb, if you have the brains to acknowledge it…

            …is that over the period 2013-2017 while human emissions were flat, the atmospheric CO2 change actually accelerated.

            OOPS !!

          10. AndyG55

            “Those CO2 concentration variations are exactly the differences in ocean uptake and they are small compared to the overall increase of CO2 concentration.”

            ROFLMAO.!

            Fantasy man seb makes another fairy tale.

            Bros Grimm will not be jealous , though.

          11. AndyG55

            And FFS, stop being such a PRAT !!

            It doesn’t matter where the atmospheric CO2 comes from, JUST SO LONG AS IT KEEPS COMING.

            I hope you are right, for once in your life, and humans are actually responsible for a high proportion of the HIGHLY BENEFICIAL CO2 INCREASE

            … because that means that CO2 levels will continue to climb for a LONG, LONG time into the future.

          12. SebastianH

            …is that over the period 2013-2017 while human emissions were flat, the atmospheric CO2 change actually accelerated.

            According to http://www.woodfortrees.org/data/esrl-co2/compress:12/derivative
            2012 +2.33 ppm
            2013 +2.51 ppm
            2014 +2.2 ppm
            2015 +2.35 ppm
            2016 + 3.35 ppm

            That’s the acceleration you are talking about and surprise, they match the temperature increases. Warmer oceans absorb less CO2, therefor more human CO2 stays in the atmosphere.

            And before you answer that warmer oceans also emit more CO2, let me ask you why you are ignoring the partial pressure difference in this equation?

          13. AndyG55

            “therefor more human CO2 stays in the atmosphere.”

            ROFLMAO..

            Your comedic farce continues, seb.

            Caught out with FACTS, you just double down.

            So warm water is driving the CO2 increase..

            yes.. we knew that.

            Thanks for the confirmation, Bozo !!

          14. AndyG55

            You nearly got it right though.

            What you meant was that…

            … “Warmer oceans RELEASE more CO2”

          15. AndyG55

            Some lite reading if you can ever be bothered educating yourself, seb.

            http://scholar.google.ca/scholar_url?hl=en&q=http://xa.yimg.com/kq/groups/18208928/233408642/name/phase%2Brelation%2Bbetween%2Batmospheric%2Bcarbon%2Band%2Bglobal%2Btemperature.pdf&sa=X&scisig=AAGBfm2_FClsSVBbTLdzlwJJytToRLHpNw&oi=scholarr&ei=N-SVUvKOD9PtoATG6IHgCQ&sqi=2&ved=0CCsQgAMoADAA

            “From this, changes in atmospheric CO2 appear to be initiated near or a short distance south of the Equator, and from there spread towards the two poles within a year or so. En route, the signal presumable is modulated by local and regional effects, as is indicated by the much larger annual CO2 variation (not shown here) in the High Arctic, compared to that recorded at the South Pole. There is however no indications of the main signal originating at mid-latitudes in the Northern Hemisphere as would be expected from the release pattern shown in Fig. 12.”

            “Summing up, our analysis suggests that changes in atmospheric CO2 appear to occur largely independently of changes in anthropogene emissions. A similar conclusion was reached by Bacastow (1976), suggesting a coupling between atmospheric CO2 and the Southern Oscillation. However, by this we have not demonstrated that CO2 released by burning fossil fuels is without influence on the amount of atmospheric CO2, but merely that the effect is small compared to the effect of other processes. Our previous analyses suggest that such other more important effects are related to temperature, and with ocean surface temperature near or south of the Equator pointing itself out as being of special importance for changes in the global amount of atmospheric CO2.”

          16. AndyG55

            I’ll repeat that last bit, because I doubt you will either read or comprehend it

            Summing up, our analysis suggests that changes in atmospheric CO2 appear to occur largely independently of changes in anthropogene emissions . A similar conclusion was reached by Bacastow (1976), suggesting a coupling between atmospheric CO2 and the Southern Oscillation.

          17. Kenneth Richard

            Throwing SebastianH a bone…

            “However, by this we have not demonstrated that CO2 released by burning fossil fuels is without influence on the amount of atmospheric CO2, but merely that the effect is small compared to the effect of other processes.”

            Magnitudes, SebastianH.

          18. SebastianH

            I didn’t state that. If I had, that would imply that I think human emissions are the leading driver of CO2 concentration changes. That’s what you believe. The evidence shows that temperature drives CO2 emission.

            Yes you did. Whenever you say that human emissions increased by less than CO2 content increases (the different units problem). You frequently make that error.

            Where did dig up that CO2 concentration chart? http://notrickszone.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/06/CO2-Concentrations-1800-to-1960-Kauffman-2007.jpg

            Have you checked if it’s plausible that CO2 concentrations really were as high as this chart claims? I doubt it. We have reliable measurements since the late 1950s and there is not indication that CO2 concentration was 100+ ppm higher just decades before, especially since the chart following this one in your post says something completely different.

            This presupposes that only humans drive CO2 concentration changes, and nature doesn’t.

            No.

          19. Kenneth Richard

            “zero change in human emissions should result in CO2 concentration not increasing”

            I didn’t state that.

            “Yes you did.”

            No, I didn’t. I DO NOT think human emissions are the leading driver of CO2 concentration changes. Therefore, I do not think that zero change in human emissions should result in CO2 concentration not increasing.

            “Where did dig up that CO2 concentration chart?”

            Obviously you never even read the article — but went straight to the comments. Is this a habit of yours?

    2. AndyG55

      “CO2 concentration always varied, but not in any way similar to what it does today”

      True, it really is still WAY TOO LOW for proper functioning of the biosphere. Much more is needed.

      If you had even the slightest understanding of any science, you would know that to be a fact.

      But facts are an enema to you, aren’t they, seb.

    3. yonason (from my cell phone)

      “Real scientists and non-math-illiterates know that the increase is 100% attributable to mankinds emissions.” – SebH

      Chatbot-SebH apparently didn’t learn how to do percentages in grade school, and is lecturing us on advanced science topics. Poor delusional activist troll!
      http://www.drroyspencer.com/2014/08/how-much-of-atmospheric-co2-increase-is-natural/

      They really don’t know what SebH says they know. And they know that they don’t know it. So why is the chatbot pretending otherwise? Couldn’t be to deceive us, …could it?

      1. AndyG55

        ““Real scientists and non-math-illiterates know that the increase is 100% attributable to mankinds emissions.” ”

        I doubt seb has EVER met a REAL scientist.

        Except in his FANTASY world, created in his own brain-washed little mind

        1. yonason (from my cell phone)

          SebH doesn’t need scientists. He has “experts” to tell him/her/it/whatever how to think, uh, I mean feel.
          http://www.c3headlines.com/2017/06/laughing-my-ossoff-the-experts-are-proven-wrong-again.html

    4. AndyG55

      ““Well, you know, I do it just for fun and to troll people.”

      The seb mantra.

      Its what you do seb.

      ITS WHO YOU ARE.

      A low-level, mindless, petulant TROLL.

    5. toorightmate

      Sebastian old buddy,
      If you want to know what is happening in Mosul, tune in to RT.
      If you want to know what is happening is
      Aleppo tune in to CNN or ABC.
      RT also manages to get breaking news about 1 hour before the other networks.
      I wonder if it has something to do with their propaganda network being overseered by an administration which has a leader (Vlad the lad).
      It’s a pity Europe is totally devoid of leaders at present.

    6. Bob

      > increase is 100% attributable to mankinds emissions.

      This is patently false statement.
      The mix was about 50/50 in the 90’s and is up to 60/40 anthropological/natural causes today.

  3. pesadia

    “Do you skeptics – that understand German – really share his opinion and agree to all his statements?”
    These are not opinions, they are facts that you are being given, Check out agenda 21 and you will then understand why your country is being destroyed by fanatics. They are diluting the German race and pricing you out of the energy market. Check how many Germans cannot afford basic energy.
    Aufwachen.

    1. SebastianH

      they are facts that you are being given

      Chose one fact that this professor is giving that is actually correct? His explanation why human CO2 emissions can’t be responsible for the increase? His statement that it will get colder eventually (he mentions 200000 years)? His mention that CO2 concentration and temperatures share no link? Even skeptics usually declare that CO2 concentration follows temperature, don’t they? His statement that oceans are emitting more CO2 now, because it’s warmer? Doesn’t he know that oceans are currently a net sink?

      Check out agenda 21 and you will then understand why your country is being destroyed by fanatics. They are diluting the German race […]

      All right, you are that kind of skeptic.

      and pricing you out of the energy market. Check how many Germans cannot afford basic energy.

      A lot less than in other countries: https://energytransition.org/2016/08/comparing-energy-poverty-in-germany-with-other-countries/

      1. AndyG55

        “Doesn’t he know that oceans are currently a net sink?”

        Oh.. oceans are COOLING now, are they, seb 😉

        What caused the El Nino of the last two years, then.

        You really are a confused little empty-minded troll, aren’t you, petal. ! 🙂

      2. clipe

        What a pathetic and uncaring response! But par for the course in the world in which Seb and his ilk reside.

        A lot less than in other countries

        https://www.ovoenergy.com/binaries/content/gallery/ovowebsitessuite/images/guides/elec_prices_relative_to-pp__large-copy-6.png

        1. SebastianH

          So it is ok to point that problem out when it fits your narrative, but for other countries energy poverty is no problem at all despite lower electricity prices and higher levels of energy poverty. I see … how uncaring of me to set your perception straight.

          Have you even read the website I linked to?

          1. SebastianH

            Well, I’ll try Pierre, but one comment gets usually multiple replies with different statements. Should I only answer to one of them even if none of the comments can be left unanswered? Or should I put a disclaimer in the one quality comment I make that leaving replies to my comments unanswered is not a sign that I declared defeat on that topic? I am currently only ignoring mostly what AndyG55 writes and am beginning to ignore tom0mason and yonason as well. No amount of evidence or education would make them see their mistakes 😉

            https://xkcd.com/386/

          2. AndyG55

            “ignoring mostly what AndyG55 writes ”

            As I said.. you wish to remain, as you always have been…

            … WILFULLY non-informed.

            You have produce ZERO evidence that CO2 causes warming.

            You are EMPTY of evidence.

          3. AndyG55

            You really are becoming very PETTY, seb,

            … pretending that you are doing anything more than deliberately TROLLING with junk AGW nonsense…

            … then trying to say we are unable to learn.

            You have AVOIDED learning one single bit of real science or fact in your whole wasted time here.

            You STILL cannot support even the most basic LIES of the AGW scam/agenda, yet STILL you peddle your nil-educated, empty and unproven beliefs as though they actually had some meaning or relevance.

            They are LIES.

            You have been BRAIN-WASHED and SUCKED-IN by the biggest scam in human history…

            .. and you are too darn stupid to realise it. !!!

      3. tom0mason

        ebastianH 27. June 2017

        “Even skeptics usually declare that CO2 concentration follows temperature, don’t they? ”
        NO!

        CO2 rises and falls are an effect of systematic changes to the planet, there is no observed evidence of a link of between temperature change and CO2 levels. There are correlations only!
        ANSWER THIS SEB
        Why has the temperature and the CO2 levels on this planet changed over the millions of years?
        Do you KNOW, do you have the FACTS? NO YOU HAVE NOT!
        You just have theories and BS!
        Yes the oceans may take up or liberate the gas as oceans change temperature BUT seb, OCEANS are NOT the only process at work.

        Only childish people stuffed to bursting with hubris would believe they know!

        Observation strongly suggest CO2 does not change the temperature of the atmosphere so levels of CO2 are immaterial to argument about climate. AGW Climate Theory and climate theoreticians try to say otherwise but have no proof!

        1. AndyG55

          ““Even skeptics usually declare that CO2 concentration follows temperature, don’t they? ”

          Like this you mean ???

          https://s19.postimg.org/86sf607w3/EPICA_v_GRIP.png

        2. SebastianH

          Observation strongly suggest CO2 does not change the temperature of the atmosphere so levels of CO2 are immaterial to argument about climate.

          Quite the opposite. Evidence strongy suggest that, but even if it weren’t the case, why do you want to base your argument on the false statement that current increase is mostly of natural origin? Doesn’t make sense if CO2 is “no problem”.

          AndyG55, I see what you did there. That’s the same atmospheric CO2 graph you used previously.
          1) the CO2 data goes until the year 1800. Continueing this into the present you get: http://imgur.com/a/yru36
          2) The GRIP temperature data is actually the GISP2 data and also goes only until the year 1855 and not 2000. Since then Greenland temperatures have increased by 1.44°C (actual GRIP data)
          3) The GISP site is 0.9°C warmer on average than the summit camp site (GISP2) and yet the temperature data of the later one is about 3°C colder. What you get when you combine them properly is: http://imgur.com/a/mN1eH (the two blue crosses illustrate the calibration error of the ice core data, the important thing to notice is the difference between the two horizontal lines)

          And of course, if Greenland temperatures are representative of global temperatures than one can see the usual CO2 concentration follows temperature changes in your graph as well. Higher temperatures cause faster increases than lower temperature.

          1. AndyG55

            “Evidence strongy suggest”

            RUBBISH.

            You haven’t produced one skerrick of evidence.. and you know it

            You are just LYING parrot fashion now, because its all you have left.

            Combine properly.. ROFLMAO.. as if.

            You really have a child’s mind with it come to data, don’t you. You showed it on the Arctic sea ice data that you DON’T HAVE A CLUE.

            And now here.

            So hilarious to watch you manically fabricating, matching discordant data willy-nilly without a thought… in a vain attempt to support something, anything !!

            And FAILING as always..

          2. AndyG55

            Yes, we know warmer oceans release some of their huge store of CO2.

            Basic physics dictates it..

            Again, you fall into the trap of mixing disparate data, through ignorance and scientific illiteracy.

          3. AndyG55

            I also see you are using fakery from some of the AGW scammers-in-chief to fabricate another fairy tale.

            These guys would pay to shine Don’s boots.

            You really are off your rocks if you actually believe temperatures now are any higher than the MWP. But we know that already.

          4. tom0mason

            “Quite the opposite. Evidence strongy suggest that, but even if it weren’t the case, why do you want to base your argument on the false statement that current increase is mostly of natural origin? Doesn’t make sense if CO2 is “no problem”.”

            What evidence!
            There is correlation only, unless you can find some real evidence you have NOTHING. Just nasty antiscience nonsense powered by hubris!

            “why do you want to base your argument on the false statement that current increase is mostly of natural origin?”

            That is your false statement NOT mine.
            Go stuff your straw man at someone else not me.

        3. tom0mason

          It is more than obvious that the relationship between temperature and CO2 is not simply linear, why would we should not expect it to be so, as the two are not controlled by precisely the same processes.
          It may be that CO2 level are affected by temperature (and thus the sun), however the converse is not observed to be so!(Ice core CO2 levels and temperature proxies tend to strongly indicate this.)

          The only rational method is to consider the behavior of the Earth as a Natural System, in which everything is connected to varying degrees (e.g see Lenton, 2016, Earth System Science – a Very Short Introduction. Oxford Uni. Press) for the expansion on this idea.

          Looking for a simple linear relationship between temperature and CO2 is a grade school error propounded by irrational anti-scientists and their army of unthinking ‘believers'(like seb and sod). It is even more logically banal to say human generated CO2 is making a significant impact on global levels, such a stance show a lack of perspective, and gross ignorance (so often willful) of the natural system(s) operating on this planet.

    2. tom0mason

      @pesadia 27. June 2017 at 8:12 PM

      “They are diluting the German race…”
      There is no ‘German race’!

      Currently there is only one human race within the hominid form. Humans come in many physical types, and skin and eye colors. Ranges include tall, short, fat and thin, hairy to virtually hairless, and a skin color range from very pale white, through shades of yellow and red to browns and dark brown Ranges in intelligence and talents are not aligned with skin color (regardless of what some bell-curve theorists would like to believe.)

      Yes, there are many religious/cultural/color differences within the human race but this type of cultural separation is little more than an unsophisticated forms of tribalism. As such this tribalism is usually used by the irrational to emphasize differences between one religious/culture/color and another instead of (more intelligently) noting their many commonalities. This is not to say that cultural (and therefore tribal) differences are not important, they surely are. They bind communities into useful forms that are beneficial to their communities and their cultures. Can we live beneficially well together in mixed cultures, obviously yes. It is done daily in many countries.
      Sometime however cultural tribes have to admit that they can not live together peaceably as perceived cultural/tribal differences and tensions are (at a given time) too great and they must be kept apart until some peaceful means of coexistence is found.

  4. Robert Folkerts

    SebH says

    “Whose bread one eats, whose words one speaks.”

    Seems very apt, relating to climate “science” spokespeople.

    1. yonason (from my cell phone)

      Just how Kirstein is eating RT’s bread is unexplained. Giving someone an interview does not make him financially dependent on them for his livelihood.

      Chatbot SebH is being VERY dishonest for implying so.

      1. AndyG55

        Seb is proving to be one of the MOST DISHONEST people I have ever come across.

        His LIES, MISINFORMATION and basic DECEIT don’t seem to have any bounds.

        1. yonason (from my cell phone)

          So it would seem. And what we can see is probably a lower bound, i.e., it couldn’t get better, but worse is possible.

          1. AndyG55

            There’s a hole in the bucket… !!!

      2. SebastianH

        Just how Kirstein is eating RT’s bread is unexplained.

        I didn’t imply that and specifically said it doesn’t matter for this post (the interview report). But you should be very skeptical of anything that RT Deutsch posts online and very careful when sharing their content.

  5. yonason (from my cell phone)

    Chatbot-SebH lies.

    1. That Kirstein is somehow beholden not RT, and that’s why he says what he does.
    …Kirstein is giving an interview. He’s not in the employ of RT. If he needs money, I don’t doubt the Warmunistas would pay him a LOT more than anyone else.

    2. Skeptics are ignorant anti-science types, and REAL scientists know that Warmism is 100% true.
    …I give the floor to Judith Curry and Murry Salby to debunk that turkey.
    https://judithcurry.com/2016/08/10/murry-salbys-latest-presentation/

    3. That we skeptics only post material to have fun undermining and obstructing the truth.
    …Classic case of psychological projection by a exactly the type he/she/it/whatever is accusing us of being.

    Enough. None of the chatbots’ comments are worth reading.

    Oh, yeah, I should mention Agenda21. It is a recipe for putting the world into socialist shackles. It is NOT a benign effort.
    http://www.americanalertnews.com/mauricestrongspeaks1992.htm

    It’s the chatbots who are the anti-science activists, as is clear from their perpetual dishonesty.

  6. yonason (from my cell phone)

    Chatbot-SebH lies.

    1. That Kirstein is somehowi beholden not RT, and that’s why he says what he does.
    …Kirstein is giving an interview. He’s not in the employ of RT. If he needs money, I don’t doubt the Warmunistas would pay him a LOT more than anyone else.

    2. Skeptics are ignorant anti-science types, and REAL scientists know that Warmism is 100% true.
    …I give the floor to Judith Curry and Murry Salby to debunk that turkey.
    https://judithcurry.com/2016/08/10/murry-salbys-latest-presentation/

    3. That we skeptics only post material to have fun undermining and obstructing the truth.
    …Classic case of psychological projection by a exactly the type he/she/it/whatever is accusing us of being.

    Enough. None of the chatbots’ comments are worth reading.

    Oh, yeah, I should mention Agenda21. It is a recipe for putting the world into socialist shackles. It is NOT a benign effort.
    http://www.americanalertnews.com/mauricestrongspeaks1992.htm

    It’s the chatbots who are the anti-science activists, as is clear from their perpetual dishonesty.

  7. yonason (from my cell phone)
    1. SebastianH

      Same mistake Kenneth makes when comparing CO2 in the atmosphere with human emissions. The units don’t match. The yearly change of the CO2 content has a unit of GtCO2/year while the “year to year change in carbon emissions” has a unit of GtCO2/year² (it’s the first deviation of the GtCO2/year output).

      The “oldie but goodie” post also contains this prediction (from 2013):

      As the sun gets quiet in the next few years, sea surface temperature will begin to fall, and the rise in CO2 will cease.

      Yeah right, how did that work out so far? 😉

      1. AndyG55

        “how did that work out so far?’

        FAR better than ANY proof you have ever offered, (still standing at a BIF FAT ZERO) that CO2 causes warming in a convective atmosphere or of oceans.

        You are firing blanks, seb, and you are so brain-washed that you don’t even know it. !!

        North Atlantic temperatures are dropping, the AMO is turning.

        The tide is turning against the AGW-scam.

        Get used to it. 🙂

      2. tom0mason

        The bottom like is no-one, even you seb, know why CO2 levels rise an fall. It is irrational to believe humans control atmospheric CO2 levels — we do not.
        And you seb, have NOT proof otherwise. You Seb, do not KNOW as YOU have no proof.

        What is known is that CO2 level as observed by proxies throughout history appear not to directly affect atmospheric temperatures

        Therefore to keep going on that CO2 is a problem strongly appears FALSE and is in direct opposition to what the UN-IPCC say.

        Unless you seb, have verified proof otherwise (not some vague correlation), CO2 affecting atmospheric temperature is FALSE, and you Seb have nothing to offer. Your whole mantra is based on lies, falsehoods, human error and straight mendacity (from people like Hansen). You have as shown so many time only straw man arguments, and no evidence.

        Admit if Seb, you came here armed with lies and innuendo, you have been found out as a charlatan offering little more than a snake-oil salesman when asked for proof.

        1. SebastianH

          You can’t be convinced of the truth, why would I waste any more time with trying to explain anything to you?

          Just one final thing: your statements that CO2 is not a problem and the it is irrational to believe humans control atmospheric CO2 levels are two separate issues.

          The first one might even be true. Maybe it isn’t a problem and every bit of CO2 forcing is somehow compensated by negative feedbacks and we are all good. It doesn’t look that way and is very unlikely, but I give you that.

          But you seem to also base part of your argumentation on the second issue and I don’t get why, because after all you believe that CO2 is not a problem. Every evidence point that way and there is no reason to believe that there is some special human only CO2 scrubber on this planet that ignores natural CO2 and grew together with our emissions. That’s irrational.

          1. yonason (from my cell phone)

            Chatbot-SebH writes: “why would I waste any more time with trying to explain anything to you?”

            Your “explanations” are incompatible with reality, and with those given by real scientists who actually understand some of what’s going on.
            https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=3q-M_uYkpT0

            As to predictions, how’s that Arctic will be ice free by 2013, uh 2014, uh …would you believe…, working out for YOU?!

            https://www.google.com/amp/amp.dailycaller.com/2016/05/03/an-inconvenient-review-after-10-years-al-gores-film-is-still-alarmingly-inaccurate/.
            Or any other warmest nonsense, for that matter.

            Feel free to leave any time.

          2. AndyG55

            “every bit of CO2 forcing ”

            The idiocy and FARCE continues! There is no CO2 forcing. There is ZERO EVIDENCE of CO2 forcing.

            CO2 is not a problem, it is highly beneficial.

            Every bit of real evidence points that way.

            You have produce ZERO evidence to the contrary.

            You are TOTALLY EMPTY in providing scientific proof of the very basis of your brain-washed baseless AGW religion.

            All you have is EMPTY YAPPING.

          3. AndyG55

            “why would I waste any more time with trying to explain anything to you ”

            ROFLMAO

            Your explanations are basically a farcical comedy act with ZERO real science behind them.

            You are certainly wasting your time, unless you are aim just for laughs.

            But those laughs are at your incessant IGNORANCE.

          4. AndyG55

            “because after all you believe that CO2 is not a problem. Every evidence point that way”

            You STILL haven’t provided one tiny speck of proof that a small rise in atmospheric CO2 from 0.03% to 0.04% is in ANY WAY a problem.

            You are STILL totally empty in your simple-minded, unsupportable, irrational belief of the CO2 warming farce.

          5. tom0mason

            You display nothing but a HUGE amount of hubris and deliberate misinterpretations of what I have written.

            I have shown you very often that your assumptions are missing many elements. Crass linear ideas that CO2 controls temperature because temperatures to some degree affect CO2 levels is a school boy logical error. An error that YOU pronounce as scientific, it is not, it is logical nonsense,.

            As life on this planet has survived much, much harsher climate extremes, and much higher CO2 levels, the idea that life (human or otherwise) is in imperil by such minuscule changes in CO2 levels or temperatures is more logical nonsense. CO2 levels rise as the sun warms the planet, since the end of the last LIA this has been happening and thus far, nothing indicates either temperatures or CO2 level are outside normal natural levels.
            Current levels of CO2 and temperatures are well within NATURAL levels, and nothing (NOTHING!) indicates they will fall out of the range that NATURE can not process.
            IF YOU HAVE PROOF THAT THIS IS NOT SO SHOW IT. (I know you have none)

            The basis for your unreal ideas is that humans are in control of the climate (UN-IPCC style) via CO2 levels is more logical nonsense. There is no science in this idea.
            Your continuing refusal in acknowledging that climate is not controlled humans shows how ridiculous your arguments are.
            Do you have real observational proof that any amount of manmade CO2 has had ANY effect on the climate, thus far you have shown none — all you have is unsubstantiated theory. All you have is innuendo(from poor computer models) and ridiculous theory. A theory which by all the observational evidence thus far indicate it is WRONG.

          6. SebastianH

            First, you are wrong with your statements in this reply, but that doesn’t really matter, since my comment wasn’t really about the influence an increased CO2 concentration has on the climate, but the fact, that humans caused the increase.

            I think we will continue this discussion on the new blog post. See you there 😉

        2. AndyG55

          Only person wrong here is you seb.

          You are nothing but a zero-science, demented AGW cultist troll.

  8. sod

    “They are diluting the German race”

    the “arguments” here are hitting rock bottom. This is not only utterly false garbage, but also disgusting.

    […I see your concern here, sob, but you’re shamelessly trying to exploit this as an opportunity to inflate one comment by one reader into a scandal and, using a broad brush, to unfairly suspect everyone else here in this forum to be at the level of a racist. We don’t appreciate that. Your frustration has gotten the best of you. The rest of us here have the right to dissent without having to worry about being slandered. You’re banned here for 24 hours – PG]

    1. AndyG55

      “the “arguments” here are hitting rock bottom”

      You were there AGES ago sob-sob.

      oh wait.. you have NO arguments, just YAPPING.

  9. Newminster

    I think it would be a little closer to the mark to say that CO2 is being used as a scapegoat by environmental activists rather than by politicians. Though politicians have never been slow to jump on a bandwagon that gives them more power or tax revenue.

    A look back to the 70s shows the extent to which people like Ehrlich and Strong and organisations like the Club of Rome were determined to turn back the clock and prevent further economic development. This could only happen if they could bring to an end cheap and readily available energy and that had to mean putting an end to fossil fuel use.

    I don’t know who came up with the CO2 idea but since it is the one guaranteed side-effect of burning coal and gas it became the obvious target, and very successful they have been at demonising it.

  10. dennisambler

    This piece from Australian journalist Tony Thomas, is very apposite to the question of scientific honesty, using Richard Feynman as the example.

    http://quadrant.org.au/opinion/qed/2017/06/surely-yourre-crying-mr-feynman/

    In terms of Temperature-CO2 linkages, this posting from geologist Euan Mearns is quite instructive:

    http://euanmearns.com/the-vostok-ice-core-and-the-14000-year-co2-time-lag/

  11. Retired 40-Year Veteran German Climatologist: ‘CO2 A Scapegoat’ …IPCC ‘A Marketing Organization’ | Principia Scientific International

    […] Read more at No Tricks Zone […]

  12. Energy And Environmental Newsletter – July 3rd 2017 | PA Pundits - International

    […] Climatologist: “CO2 A Scapegoat” …IPCC “A Marketing Organization” […]