Thanks SR,

I suppose we can't do much about the infrared radiation or natural events like volcanic eruptions and sea-bed emissions of gases. I'm a bit sceptical that heat produced by human activity is so conveniently dissipated before it can be measured by urban-based monitoring stations.

Has anybody done any research into how much reforestation and revegetation would be required, say annually, to bring down the 57 % of CO2 NOT taken up naturally ? Of course, there would be many other part-remedies for avoiding the emissions of CO2 in the first place, including renewables, nuclear energy and sequestration of carbon, etc.

But my idiot questions still haven't been answered - how much of the rise in world temperatures, out of a myriad of factors, is due to that 57 % of CO2 emissions which can't currently be absorbed, and how much is caused by other factors ?

Just roughly. Ball-park.

Joe

SR,

"Wow! That was pretty tortuous."

Yes I can well understand that its sheer torture for you to try to follow the logic of a discussions given your clear limitations in that regard.

I'll try to make it easy for you.

1. You found some data showing a rise in temperatures from 1850 to now which you hoped (thought would be an inappropriate word here) ...hoped would advance your claims.

2 I then showed that far from advancing your claims the data you used was detrimental to your claims.

3. You then decided to not only stop using the 1850, not only deny ever using the 1850, but to assert that I was the one who started using that data.

4. Having been shown the date/time when you in fact had first used that data and invited to show where, as you claimed, I had used it prior to that date/time, you squibbed it. Not that that is so unusual since you do it more often than not once you finally realise you screwed it up...again.

Grow a pair and start owning your errors.

Dear Loudmouth,

You write;

“I'm a bit sceptical that heat produced by human activity is so conveniently dissipated before it can be measured by urban-based monitoring stations.”

I don't understand why you would even write that. Urban heat island effect raises the temperature of an area higher than it would otherwise be so it will cool to a higher temperature than the surrounds at night for instance without any change in the dissipation rates.

Anyway you ask again “how much of the rise in world temperatures, out of a myriad of factors, is due to that 57 % of CO2 emissions which can't currently be absorbed” which I think has been answered numerous times but I will have another go.

Pretty well all of it either directly or because it has driven feedbacks. By directly I mean accounting for the physical properties of the CO2 molecule.

Here is a little video which should assist.

http://youtu.be/we8VXwa83F

Dear mhaze,

You are quite amusing sometimes. Here you are flailing your virtual arms around at rates that would generate a country in order that we don't notice your pants around your ankles.

According to you because I took figures for the last century from the graph I was instead making a claim about the whole graph? Yeah right.

Actually let's again examine the data set from the graph and look at the latest year that has a full set of figures, 2016. The anomaly was 1.387. If we go back a hundred years to 1917 the figure is -0.664. Giving an overall temperature rise of over 2 C.

Why are you fighting the data so hard?