The author had better tell RBT or booze buses that small concentrations (be it C2H6O or CO2) don't make any difference. I do agree those who are still advocating CCS in 2020 are bull artists stalling for time. The Gorgon project was to have separated CO2 from unburnt natgas via pressure swing absorption then injected it into saline water below Barrow Island WA. Under the 'safeguards mechanism' part of the Emissions Reduction Fund they were set a benchmark level. Chevron told the feds they couldn't meet it so it was dropped. That is a small clue to just how truthful CCS stakeholders will be.

Same goes for other CO2 disposal methods such as tree planting in the age of mega bushfires. Just not reliable. What works is replacing coal with nuclear but the antis won't allow it

Alson Jane. I did submit said article and laid out chapter and verse why our future has no choice but to be nuclear powered. But it was declined.

As for CO2? Absolutely marvellous in greenhouses, where the bugs are all asphyxiated and the plant growth promoted! And for that reason and increased moisture aspiration, referred to as, the greenhouse effect!

CO2 is the heaviest of the gases and concentrates as so-called marsh gas,(ground-hugging, early morning fog) which has asphyxiated the unwary who walked into it.

It also reflects some of the infra red that would normally escape back to space. And along with other greenhouse gases, methane, nitrous oxide to mention a couple, trap more heat don't allow it to escape. And as such along with the increased moisture retention in the atmosphere, pushes ambient temperatures up.

And during a waning phase of the sun when it should be cooling and the ice advancing. Not what we've had/are having!

I draw your attention to our sister planet Venus, also like us, in the habitable zone and inhabitable as the hottest planet in our solar system!

And would be otherwise but for the CO2 CONTENT OF AN OXYGEN FREE, SULPHUR LADEN ATMOSPHERE, WHERE ALL THE OCEANS HAVE EVAPORATED TO BECOME PART OF A FAR HEAVIER ATMOSPHERE THAN OURS! AND IT'S ONLY THE CO2 AND EVAPORATE THAT COMBINE TO MAKE IT THE HOTTEST!

I get that you are ideologically opposed to the evidence-based climate change science. but not to evidence-based economic rationale for a Carbon-free, nuclear future and with it a drought proofed Australia.
Take care, Alan B.

Taswegian, you are right of course, but the idiots are never going to give in. We could be using nuclear power to produce all the electricity, hydrogen, ammonia etc,. that we will ever need to run the world, but the lilly livered government haven't got the guts to do it. CCS is never going to be a long term solution.
David

Alison Jane,
Though extra CO2 does have some enhancement effect on plant growth rates, my point was that it's not actually needed. Indeed the preindustrial levels were at the upper end of the range they evolved with. And in some conditions, higher CO2 levels have a detrimental effect, inhibiting trees' uptake of iron.

That CO2 absorbs and reemits infrared is not a contentious issue. It's based not on climate modelling but on observations and quantum theory. I'm not going to waste time tracking down old scientific papers that explain the basics; I do not concern myself with trifles!
Do you understand what scientific theory is? It isn't merely a hypothesis; it's something that fits the facts and explains them.

The simple fact is the atmosphere is warming far more than other factors combined can explain. Yet you seem to want to bet our future on CO2 not being the cause of the problem. Why?

As for the Vostok ice cores, I suggest you read http://skepticalscience.com/co2-lags-temperature-intermediate.htm

Part 1
Superb Aiden, …I wrote this last night, but had to await my OLO 4 comment 24hour limit expiration

Your own CCCulist ideology (driven by “ 97 consensus” fake belief) is a classic.. Your chosen Ref to Skeptical Science. This 40+ network of dedicated CC cultists claims to provide balance. Yet its main man is a prolific "climate communicator" with book publications like "Climate Change Denial: Heads in the Sand". This is an infamous site that was established to attack anyone who dared question the AGW “97%-consensus-settled” science. It is notorious and voluminously aggressive in defending your cult and attacking anyone who questions their lucrative gravy boat!!.

Having said that, I suggest everyone follow Aiden’s link and if you have time search through it and if you dare engage with it (only for brave sadomasochists). This article is a cracker example for two fundamental reasons.

Firstly, it mixes and matches records to suit their beliefs, Ice cores for the pre “human era” and then less reliable proxies (tree rings etc) for the “human era where they claim Co2 is the killer most influential gas on the planet (while downplaying the most influential, water vapour). The “re analysis work (post Vostok) mirrors all the corrupt practices of Mike ‘the hockey stick’ Mann and Phil Jones et al exposed in 2009 Climate gate email scam. When the Vostok cores were published originally (a decade before the Margaret thatcher launched the CC scam), Greenhouse Gas bandwagon had no wheels and the Ice ages coming. It is worth reading and watching the “definitive” denialist video stuff… Goebbels would be proud of them!! It is also fascinating to see them acknowledge the pre and post influence of the Milankovitch cycles, something (like solar weather) climate change cultists and modellers treat as trifles, just like you Aiden!

See Part 2

Part 2 Sorry an Alan B multi-part-post

Secondly and most significant with this paper, there are over 600 pro and against (many of which are I am sure Dorothy Dixers) comments. So, one must step back and realise that the so called “97% consensus/settled” science spruiked by mega starts like Core, Obama, Flannery and Thunberg is totally FAKE. For those who don’t recall, check out the genesis of that figure from a Media lecture in Queensland (Cook 2013).

Aiden, do tell me your ‘climate science’ credentials. As you are too lazy (or unable) to trifle with Plass’s 1956 15-page theory on the Greenhouse Effect, you must be a youngster who prefers the “Janet and John” version i.e. “ How Dare You” Greta kiddies version. No serious scientist I know would call this work a “trifle”, but then given you opinion of it, you would probably categorize the works of Einstein, Newton, Mohamed or the Bible as mere historical ‘trifle/trivial’ documents.

As someone who has studied (post PhD), uni lectured, published internationally in A-grade journals , run 2000+ monitoring networks and actual solved real world environmental problems in Air, Land, Water and oceans. (ie the water cycle) I don’t need amateurs like you (or Alan B) to offer up your Janet and John simplistic lessons in hour Solar radiation interacts with our planet or the carbon cycle

Re Alan B’s comment on me, please read the preceding post it states I DO THINK NUCLEAR is GOOD. And have so since I first studied it (and renewables) as a student back in 1979. Your obsession with your MSR seems to blind you from reading what others actual write. I am also sorry that OLO did not see you article suitable for publication. I would like to see it. Perhaps you could post it in 2-4 350 word chunks and post them on the next article you comment on.

I would sincerely like to see your piece . Aidan ,that’s what real scientists compulsively do.. we love seeing and discuss alternative/different opinions and views.

Happy Bog Roll hunting to all!