That appears to be correct Graham (that CO2 always has a positive contribution), so would you think that negative values invalidate the interpretation of that graph?

That is, following the Cox-linked article at c3headlines, they interpret the graph as showing that the current contribution stands at +0.00000000000021°C/tonne. So if you follow that logic then prior to 1914 the contribution was less than -0.0000000000021/tonne, a tenfold cooling effect of CO2 in the 19th and early 20th century, WOW.

Or are you and the Cox saying that actually it was only after about 1930 that the graph shows the real relationship between CO2 and temperature? Interpreting it that way, the graph seems to show that it was strong for about 40 years, but hasn't had anything to do with climate since the 70s?

Or are the interpretations wrong?

I smell BS. Or maybe the semillon's corked.

It's a ratio bugs with an accumulative denominator, which may be a point of contention given your superior trolling in the Knorr discussion which featured a constant, but a negative, or as you say a cooling result from the increase in CO2 in the early years simply points to the fact that the CO2 part of the ratio then wasn't sufficient to produce a warming effect on the graph. Obviously natural variation was dominant then, unlike now when the much greater amount of CO2 is producing a rapidly increasing GAT and swamping NV; oh wait, that's not happening.

Anyway, it's not my graph; it's purpose is to reflect the diminishing return of additional CO2; that is the issue. But as usual a major distraction is created out of nothing.

Do you dispute that extra CO2 does not have the same temperature effect as initial CO2 and that compared to H2O, CO2 is a lessor GHG?

Or are you, like the IPCC, going to make a last stand about climate sensitivity despite the refutation in Lewis and Crok's excellent article:

http://www.thegwpf.org/content/uploads/2014/02/Oversensitive-How-The-IPCC-hid-the-Good-News-on-Global-Warming.pdf

As for the BS I'm afraid you've been around this scare campaign for too long; anything as dead as AGW will rot and stink eventually.

I guess peer review in your world is considered 'trolling'.

Oh yes cohenite, I can certainly see how the ratio that it relies on can produce the result that it does. However, what you and Graham fail to acknowledge is that it produces a nonsense result. If an analysis in actual science produces a nonsense result then it is...

BZZZZT WRONG.

Which means that whatever you think the graph is telling you is not real. It's nonsense.

No lollipop for you, but I think we can probably find something else for you to suck on.

I wasn't talking about the graph Bugsy, but it doesn't appear that you're reading it correctly anyway. He's graphed temperature movements against carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. The IPCC agrees that pre the 1940s there was no significant effect from CO2, which is what the graph shows. Temperature was going down while CO2 was going up. If you're going to get into these arguments and suggest other people have no idea what they're talking about you should be sure you do.

"No lollipop for you, but I think we can probably find something else for you to suck on."

I've already indicated my preference and I'm starting to get concerned by your obsession with lollipops.

Trolling covers a wide spectrum of spoiling in this case deflection and distraction by focusing on alleged mistakes as though they detract from the salient point which is the decrease in CO2 effect with additional CO2.

Jeremy has already confirmed his faith in the AGW scientists who he believes will have factored the log decline of CO2 into climate sensitivity calculations. His faith is based on his quaint confidence in the really, really high intelligence of AGW scientists.

In AR4 the log effect is discussed:

http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/ch2s2-3.html#2-3-1

They say:

"Note that for CO2, RF increases logarithmically with mixing ratio."

That's right the IPCC calculates an INCREASE in the CO2 effect with CO2 addition NOT a decrease.

Bye bye Beers Law!

Obviously bugs, you too accept this claptrap?

Anyway back to the graph and the "nonsense result" The nonsense here is the RF assumption of CO2 by the IPCC and that CO2 increase is correlated to temperature increase. And here is the point; the graph not only shows the log decline it also shows a lack of correlation between CO2 and temperature at these levels of CO2.

As I suggested earlier obviously NV has swamped the miniscule effect of further increases in CO2. The second half correlation showing the log effect is as much an artefact of the graphing as the first part 'cooling' is.

It really is a devastating graph.

I think I'm entitled to 2 bottles

I mentioned the lollipops because you're such a sucker Cox.

Actually, you're all suckers for graphs that purport to show what you want to believe, but are actually nonsense. It doesn't show the decrease in the CO2 effect with additional CO2 at all, it doesn't really show anything.

I would take a word of your own advice Graham. You have already noted that there are layers of complexity underlying that data which produces the ratios observed. What it doesn't show is the simple relationship between temperature and emitted CO2, which is how it's being interpreted by Cox and the all day suckers at c3headlines. It cannot be showing that relationship, as physical laws of how CO2 works on the atmosphere prevent that simple interpretation, which is highlighted by the fact that the graph shows negative values.

It really IS a devastating graph Cox, and is all artefact just as you say. You can't see the contradiction in your own words? It's valid but not valid? The correlation is artefact, but real?

[Deleted for abuse.]