FFS Geoffrey, I see English comprehension is even a difficulty for you.

650 million years ago (look at the time scale on your graph), the planet was very different to today.

650 million years ago, during the transition from a glacial to an interglacial, CO2 contributed about 30% to the warming.

650 million years ago, during the transition from a glacial to an interglacial, CH4 and N2O contributed about another 20% to the warming.

i.e. 50%

....

Today, 650 million later, you say:

“The elephant in the room is that you and the IPCC ignore water vapour entirely and only refer to Long Lived GHGs.”

Bullshite, Mr Geoffrey Kelley from Mount Eliza!

What I and the IPCC say is:

650 million years later, water vapor and clouds are the major contributors to Earth's greenhouse effect … say 50% & 25% respectively.

However, the planet's temperature today (650 million later, Mr Geoffrey Kelley from Mount Eliza) depends on the atmospheric level of CO2e ... currently contributing the remaining 25%, say.

Really Geoffrey, it is not that difficult – even Dr Berner knows this. You (and Ball & Co) misrepresent Robert Arbuckle Berner – obviously deliberately by Ball & Co, and by complete belligerent ignorance by yourself.

Now, can you answer Bugsy? http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=5595#154971

It’s ok to say you can’t.

Geoffrey,

Here you are attempting to argue the science with two scientists....and you hold up Monckton as some sort of scientific authority on climate.

Let's have a look at the "court case"....

"The court ruled that the film was substantially founded on scientific research and fact and could continue to be shown."

WOW!!

"...a degree of political bias [such that] teachers would be required to explain context."

WOW!!

"...nine...departures from the scientific mainstream....guidance notes [required]....."

WOW!!

Here is your unmitigated "SPIN" from a few posts back:

"The UK courts found Gore's film contained many lies, half-truths and controversial but not conclusive facts. Gore deliberately lied and the courts found that he did."

You are true 24 carat denialist. It's disgraceful that you misrepresent the UK court's decision as argument here.

Incredibly you run through the OLO town square shouting Liar! Liar! while yourself distorting the truth.

What is it with you guys?

You're doing a great job of mimicking Monckton - he who bends the truth habitually to promote himself and the denialist cause:

http://www.readfearn.com/2012/11/lord-moncktons-new-climate-role-for-the-ipcc-isnt-what-it-appears/

And Australian schools have their own work cut out countering rubbish from denailists:

http://blogs.crikey.com.au/rooted/2011/12/13/pilmers-new-book-aimed-squarely-at-sceptic-parents/

"

Dear Bugsy,

Bugsy, Sunday, 3 February 2013 4:49:10 PM

Geoffrey, while I would appreciate a reference (a PROPER reference, not a website, you do know how to reference peer reviewed publications don't you?) for "Scotese (2002)", I couldn't give a flying fig who constructed the graph.

(answer) You are right. I cannot find one peer reviewed paper for Scotese. He is working on the Paleomap Project and gives his Temp. Graph on the website. He gives references for the graph but they are not specific.

See: http://www.scotese.com/climate.htm

And Berner, R.A. and Z. Kothavala, 2001. GEOCARB III: A Revised Model of Atmospheric CO2 over Phanerozoic Time, American Journal of Science, v.301, pp.182-204, February 2001.
(end)

It does not matter who constructed it. It doesn't matter if it is peer reviewed or not.

The question was how do you reconcile the two pieces of work presented?
Your proposition was that CO2 is not at all correlated with temperature. There is plenty of evidence to the contrary.

(answer) There is plenty of evidence on my side of the argument as well. (end)

I'll put my question is more simple terms: how did you come to the conclusion that there is no correlation between temperature and CO2, and how did you dismiss the contrary data?

(Answer) By looking at his graph and reading other interpretations. (end)

By what criteria do you base your conclusions of thoroughly reading the literature?

Why did you choose to believe one set of data and not the other?

(Answer) You will not like this answer, but I do not trust the IPCC. Their track record is poor and they only accept science from their side of the argument. The well-publicised Polar Bear incident is a perfect example. (end)

If you want to play dumb and pretend that you are a dullard that cannot understand how scientific conclusions are reached, then I will be only too happy to treat you as such.
Posted by Bugsy, Sunday, 3 February 2013 4:49:10 PM

Geoffrey Kelley

Dear qanda,

I really give up! You win!

Before I go I would like to challenge you on the English language and comprehension, apart from your typos!

You said (qanda, Sunday, 3 February 2013 5:37:11 PM) “What I and the IPCC say is: 650 million years later, water vapor and clouds are the major contributors to Earth's greenhouse effect … say 50% & 25% respectively.” Qanda, when did you say this? LOL

Are you and the IPCC saying that water vapour contributes 50% and clouds 25% respectively? Are you admitting that the total water vapour/cloud contribution adds up to 75%? I am very confused by your responses.

NO, WHAT YOU ACTUALLY SAID was, ““Posted by qanda, Monday, 28 January 2013 4:59:24 PM” where (did) you got this statement from, “FWIW, the [CO2] contributes about 30% to the glacial-interglacial warmings and coolings, or about 50% if you include other GHG’s like CH3 and NO2.”

You did not mention water vapour.

So, I ask you once again, does CO2 contribute 50% of 5%?

Please do not answer this question. I am sick of arguing with you because you never answer the questions and you make things up as you go along.

We all know we will never agree, so let’s part on common ground; we agree to differ!

Regards,

Geoffrey Kelley, Mount Eliza.

You are correct Geoffrey, I do not like your answer.

The graph from Petit et al (reference already given) was used by the IPCC, but not produced by them. But this is beside the point of why I don't like your answer.

While I disagree that the IPCC is not to be trusted and that "they only accept science from their side of the argument", you seem to think that it is entirely legitimate to do exactly this, and with references that don't seem to exist except on websites to boot.

Well, at least your answer was honest. You do not use objective criteria in assessing sources of information. I can't say we didn't already know this, but your answer is a hell of a lot more honest than what we usually get from your intellectual kin on these pages.

You seem to have found some finer point of climate attribution figures to argue about, as if it proves some massive conspiracy.

Good luck with that.

For Geoffrey Kelley, Mount Eliza.

>> You said (qanda, Sunday, 3 February 2013 5:37:11 PM) “What I and the IPCC say is: 650 million years later, water vapor and clouds are the major contributors to Earth's greenhouse effect … say 50% & 25% respectively. ” Qanda, when did you say this? LOL <<

I said it on Sunday, 3 February 2013 5:37:11 PM.
I have also said it before - many times in many other forums, workshops and papers … so has the IPCC.

>> Are you and the IPCC saying that water vapour contributes 50% and clouds 25% respectively? <<

Yes, today it does… but not millions of years ago during the time-series of the graph you posted.

>> You did not mention water vapour. <<

Yes I did Geoffrey, here:

http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=5595#154955

and here:

http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=5595#154957

>> So, I ask you once again, does CO2 contribute 50% of 5%?. Please do not answer this question. I am sick of arguing with you because you never answer the questions and you make things up as you go along. <<

No.

CO2 contributed 50% of the total (+/- a bit) millions & millions & millions of years ago.

CO2 contributes 25% of the total (+/- a bit) today.