cohenite

You misunderstand what I said.. the article is a departure from the climate orthodoxy.. I wasn't saying it was wrong, just that it has to explain more on a crucial point about why it says what it does.

The climate orthodoxy on the action of greenhouse gas emissions in the atmosphere has nothing whatever to back it - they simply assumed that the increase is due to greenhouse gases and worked all the theory out from that.. it hasn't been checked with anything or against anything. It is an entirely theoretical construct.

Curmudgeon: I agree.

Poirot; there is a post on the current heatwave at Jo’s:

http://joannenova.com.au/2013/01/australia-was-hot-and-is-hot-so-what-this-is-not-an-unusual-heat-wave/

Look at the map; those are official records; the point I take from them is this: even if you believe in AGW and that we are hotter today than ever, what was causing those extreme temps in the past which, despite ‘adjustments’ by the BOM, are still very close to today’s records?

I have read the conversation post by the BOM and there will be a rejoinder posted at Jo’s over the weekend.

Hansen is a loon about AGW and the fossils; he is quite reasonable about nuclear, aerosols and now temperature; but to say that temps are flat because of a reduction in AGW forcing when CO2 is continuing to rise.

cohenite,

Yes, yes, very impressive...little pockmarks of "temperatures" scattered over the centuries - what is that supposed to prove? If all Jo's temperatures happened simultaneously over a sustained period, I'd say you might be on something.

It's a bit like Craig Kelly over at WUWT...dealt with here:

http://tamino.wordpress.com/2013/01/14/impeach-craig-kelly/

Whoops! - Sydney broke another heat record just now - fancy that!

They are not "...little pockmarks of "temperatures" scattered over the centuries"; they often correlate with continent wide 'heatwaves'.

Yes, Sydney has officialy recorded its hottest ever, 45.8, 0.5C hotter tha the 1939 prior record, which proves my point.

As to Sydney heatwave records, consider this:

http://theclimatescepticsparty.blogspot.com.au/2013/01/heat-waves-of-5-days.html

The worst heatwave was in 1961.

As to why; this article shows that humans are NOT responsible for all or even most of the increase in CO2, so even if you believe in AGW, it must be due to natural process.

AGW is such a morbid process; sitting around waiting for the end of the world.

Posted by cohenite
As to why; this article shows that humans are NOT responsible for all or even most of the increase in CO2, so even if you believe in AGW, it must be due to natural process.
_____________________________________________________________________________
None of the above takes into account what we know about the carbon cycle and a good deal else besides.

There are three main ways in which we can arrive at an estimate of the amount of anthropogenic CO2 in the air.

The first is simply to add up the amount of fossil fuel we have burnt. This leads to an estimate of anthropogenic CO2 which is roughly twice that observed but that increase is in the same proportion as human emission's have risen and is accounted for by the fact that nature absorbs more than half of the CO2 that man emits.

The second method relies on the fact that carbon comes in three different types (isotopes) which have slightly different weights. They are referred to as Carbon 12, 13 and 14. Fossil fuels contain virtually no carbon 14 up until 1954 we were able to measure a steady reduction in atmospheric carbon 14 which was consistent with the excess CO2 coming from burning fossil fuels. After that date the nuclear testing altered the ratio of carbon 14 in the air and the method became unusable. Now plants also have a slight preference for carbon 12 over carbon 13, this fact allows us to determine the proportion of CO2 which originates from burning (fossil) plant material. The ratio of Carbon 13 to 12 has been slowly dropping in the atmosphere since the 1850s, despite plants preference for carbon 12.

The last estimate comes from measuring the decline in the level of oxygen in the atmosphere. This indicates first how much oxygen, burning fossil fuels has consumed, and is in line with increase of CO2 levels.

Your suggestion that the extra CO2 could be being released from the ocean is not possible as ocean CO2 levels are also rising.

warmair, you do not know what you are talking about. The AF case for showing that ACO2 is not the sole source of the increase in atmospheric CO2 is not contradicted by any of your 3 'proofs'.

In any event your 3 'proofs' are riddled with mistakes; for instance C14 is not a product of fossil fuel; and the isotope distinction between fossil fuels and natural sources is problematic.

The level of O2 in the air has NOT been measured to have declined within any meaningful level of uncertainty; and the excuse that the chemical process of burning fossil fuel uses O2 is reason to declare an O2 shortage is pure alarmist junk especially since natural processes such as deep ocean geochemistry's effect on O2 levels dwarfs the human impact.

warmair, do you even understand and accept the notion of the AF?