Brian asks:

"How am I going?"

No good. The S-Q limit is a theoretical limit which has theoretical exceptions; there are also theoretical constraints on those theoretical exceptions; which just about sums up renewables.

Google Thermophotovoltaic and tell us how heat differentials from backradiation can be converted into energy.

Agro, a mixed bag from you; there were Thorium reactors running from the 1970's; it is a proven energy source. And this:

"So warming did not precede CO2 increases as you claimed; they mostly occurred together."

One of the last lies from AGW, featured in recent hideous 'papers' by Marcott and Shakun, is that temperature does not precede CO2 increase but that the 2 are intrinsically connected with little or no time delay:

In fact CO2 and temperature appear to have no correlation at all:

21stC:

http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/esrl-co2/from:2000/offset:-347/scale:0.008/trend/plot/rss-land/from:2000/trend

20thC:

http://notrickszone.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/08/Bastardi-CO2Temp.gif

Geologic:

http://icecap.us/images/uploads/CO2,Temperaturesandiceages-f.pd

Well if the sun doesn't start growing spots some time damn soon, we are going to get the proof that Brains scientists are either con men, or bloody idiots.

I do believe most of these misguided people started the AGW thing in belief that it was true. It would appear that many of them don't have enough math to see the error of their theory.

It is also quite obvious that many have their lives invested in the theory, & will fight & scream to keep their livelihood going as long as possible.

It really is a pity that people like Brian can't get past believing "scientists" are all good people. How they could have read the "hide the decline" email, & still believe, I just can't imagine.

imajulianutter, I was pointing out that if the best evidence you have for a position is “there is a hint” that doesn’t make compelling evidence. Perhaps you should have looked for some evidence where this was clearer? In fact most of the article argued against the position you were advancing.

It is indeed reasonably well accepted that increasing temperatures can release CO2 into the atmosphere. Although the proxies used to get temperature from ice cores are really measuring ocean temperature rather than atmospheric temperature, but that is a discussion for another time. It is also well accepted that the increasing CO2 acts as an amplifying mechanism, increasing temperature, which increases CO2 and so on. That is postulated to be the main reason why the warmings from glacials are so abrupt.

What is interesting about the current climate situation is that warming did not precede the current increase in CO2 in the atmosphere. CO2 started increasing with the industrial revolution and warming was some century or so later (or indeed not at all if you accept the statements of some writers on this site). So any argument that “warming precedes CO2 increases” is entirely spurious for the current situation. Such an argument would mean that CO2 concentrations would still be not much more than 275 ppm, which clearly is not the case.

This little piece raised its head today,

http://www.rsc.org/chemistryworld/2014/05/solar-jet-fuel-made-out-thin-air

The article notes the following;

"Solar energy engineer Jane Davidson at the University of Minnesota in the US says the production of syngas using concentrated sunlight is still in the early stages of development. ‘Many groups around the world are working on the same process using different reactors, but [have] the same goal of reaching commercially viable solar-to-fuel efficiency,’ she adds. ‘It’s an exciting approach to synthetic fuels that also stores solar energy in chemical form.’"

In many countries this is being supported by government funding.

The one place I can pretty well guarantee it won't be happening is Australia. Too busy digging holes in the ground.

imajulianutter

Hopefully you genuinely want to understand how CO2 affects the climate and why we can be reasonable sure that it has plays a major rule in moving the climate out of ice ages. You are correct when you state that temperature laged CO2 and methane levels during past ice ages.

The earth's orbit varies in 3 ways
1 From circular to elliptical
2 The angle of tilt varies by 2.4 degrees.
3 Precession changes the point in the orbit where the seasons change

For simplicity let I shall ignore the second case.
The earth's orbit is currently elliptical and the earth is closest to the sun during the the southern hemisphere summer. The closer to the sun the earth is the faster it moves and conversely the further away it is the slower it it moves. Currently southern winters are slightly longer and colder than northern winters which are slightly shorter and warmer.

At some time in the distant past the situation was reversed.
The northern hemisphere has larger land masses at the high latitudes than the southern hemisphere, but land loses heat more rapidly than water, thus large ice sheets develop in the northern hemisphere. This in turn reduces the incoming radiation due to increased refection further enhancing the cooling.

The observation is the cooling process is slow and takes a long time on the other hand the earth comes out of ice ages relatively quickly. This is not what one would expect because it requires increasingly more heat to raise the temperature by the same amount.

The interesting question is why ?
The answer is due to feedbacks, in chronological order.
1 Retreating ice reduces the amount of heat reflected back to space.
2 Increasing temperatures cause more water vapour in the atmosphere enhancing global warming.
3 Increasing temperatures cause rising levels of CO2 and methane further enhancing global warming.

The process does not stop when it gets to point 3 it then repeats the cycle. This is why CO2 and methane lag temperature.

argo

I didn't write the article. Warmist terrorists presented it on a terrorist site. It was cited by 'ant' to prove co2 caused warming.
Research was completed by andtdata presented by warmist terrorist scientists.

What did you think they'd say?
They'd minimise and ignore the significance of warming preceding co2 rises. Saying the data isn't strong enough is as silly as it is for scientists to argue against or to ignore the evidence they recorded. That's not the scientific method. The evidence is there why not accept it. Investigate it further. You cannot simply dismiss it because it doesn't suit you position. That's crook. lol

'...the current climate situation is that warming did not precede the current increase in CO2 in the atmosphere.'
Please supply peer reviewed data supporting this assertion. There is none.

'So any argument that “warming precedes CO2 increases” is entirely spurious for the current situation.'

Really then since co2 emissions are still increasing why aren't temps still rising. And why are the IPCC downgrading their predictions re future rises?

'It is believed that the warmings out of glacial periods are paced by changes in Earth’s orbit around the Sun,'

Please explain why this was said in the article and proof that something similar has not preceded the current, now paused, warming?

'spurious'
Do you understand the meaning of this word?

Warmair

'we can be reasonable sure'

No, not good enough. I want evidence supported by data before I join your religious crusade.

'You are correct when you state that temperature lagged CO2 and methane levels during past ice ages.'

No I did not state that. Warmist scientists stated that after their evidence supported by data said that.

'The earth's orbit varies in 3 ways
1 From circular to elliptical
2 The angle of tilt varies by 2.4 degrees.
3 Precession changes the point in the orbit where the seasons change'

Good, now if you believe in warming simply prove, with data, none of these caused the current, now paused, warming.

Steele

Do you need reminding?