From NewsDaily, an article that explains simply, the significance of passing the 400ppm mark in global CO2 concentration.
Tag Archives: CO2
Ok dummies, this is for you, courtesy of Peter Hadfield (Potholer 54)….
Ok…headgear on people.
Those crazy Republicans in the United States have some pretty stupid people representing their party and I feel sorry for their constituents. Today I am featuring Ed Orcutt. Ed in an email exchange between himself and the owner of a bike shop who was protesting a tax on bicycles, came up with a new hypothesis to explain rising emissions…
“You claim that it is environmentally friendly to ride a bike. But if I am not mistaken, a cyclists [sic] has an increased heart rate and respiration. That means that the act of riding a bike results in greater emissions of carbon dioxide from the rider. Since CO2 is deemed to be a greenhouse gas and a pollutant, bicyclists are actually polluting when they ride.”
Yes you read that correctly. Apparently it isn’t environmentally friendly to ride a bike. We should probably all drive. So, just how much CO2 is produced by a huffing and puffing cyclist? Well, according to a report from the European Cyclists Federation, a cyclist produces 21 grams of CO2 per kilometer travelled, and that includes the CO2 emissions from the production of the food to fuel the cyclist, where as a car produces on average 271 grams per kilometer “based on short trips similar to those a bicycle could make”.
I think if anyone is making unnecessary pollution when they open their mouths it might be Ed. Here is a screenshot of the original email…
As this is an election year here in Australia, I believe the time has come to start highlighting a few of our politicians…. the really stupid ones. These are the politicians that leave me scratching my head wondering who the hell voted for them and what the hell they were thinking when they did? Hopefully within the next four weeks or so I will posting the full list of incumbent federal members and their stance on human-induced climate change and global warming. For each I will quote statements (some of them are fantastically stupid) they have made that support my assertion that they are either climate science acceptors or idiots. Some will make you laugh, some will make you cry, some will make you want to throw your computer out the window in a fit of rage, and I can guarantee there will be more than a few facepalm moments. So without further ado let me introduce our first idiot, John Forrest.
Johnno is a long time member of the conservative National Party. “The Nats” as they are affectionately called by many Australians can be considered to be the party for the farmers. Johnno’s Akubra hat is a definite clue. When you see a hat like that on a pollie, you just know he’s from the bush. A bit about his electorate, Mallee. This comes from Johnno’s website
First proclaimed in 1948/49 the Mallee Electorate is 70,694 square kilometres. It is the largest geographical electorate in Victoria with only 11 larger electorates Nation wide.
The region is noted for a variety of industries including tourism, services, manufacturing, dried fruit, citrus, stone fruit, almonds, olives, pistachio and other nuts, bee-keeping and pollination, wheat and other cereals, wool, sheep, vegetables, forestry, wine grapes, table grapes, dairying, beef cattle, meat works and sand mining.
To give an idea of the size of Mallee, the total area of England, Scotland and Wales is 219,000 square kilometres, or equivalent to just 2.8 Mallee electorates.
England at 130,395 sq kms is 1.67 times the size of Mallee; Scotland 78,772 sq kms is about the same size, and Mallee is 3.75 times bigger than Wales.
The electorate stretches from the South Australian border in the west to Campaspe in the east, from Sunraysia and the Murray River in the North, and the Wimmera, Grampians and Western District in the south.
In other words, it s a big electorate in the bush. Now, don’t let Johnno’s laid back country looks and hat fool you. He is a bona fide scientist, fully equipped to make informed decisions about climate science. I kid you not. He says so himself.
“There are several positions about climate change. One is that the climate of this fragile planet has always been changing, and there is plenty of evidence of that. In some instances this climate change has been quite dramatic, even cataclysmic. The second position is that the current phase of change is caused by human activity and therefore we can have an impact on it if we change our ways, particularly our prolific consumption of energy. I believe that a realistic position is somewhere between these two propositions. Then there is debate in the scientific community about what is causing these changes. This is where the debate gets much more controversial. Every day my office is bombarded with positions from both points of view about carbon… Thankfully, I have a masters degree in science…”
Well there you go. A masters in science. Hang on……what kind of science? Well, according to his website he has a Master of Science and his undergrad degree is a Bachelor of Engineering. Apparently he also has a Diploma of Civil Engineering, and published some “professional papers”. What is it with deniers and their failure to recognise expertise (or lack thereof)? So Johnno, the country pollie with the engineering degree, considers himself suitably qualified to dissect climate science. Hang on, I’ll be right back. The plumber has just arrived to rewire my house! Well, maybe we should have a look at just how scientific Johnno is. I stumbled onto the following hilarious exchange between Johnno and someone called Peter, at the Atheist Foundation of Australia Inc forum. Peter had emailed all of our Liberal and National Party politicians asking them to consider climate change, and in his words “the reversal of hundreds of millions of years of carbon sequestration carried out by the decay of plant life and our reversal of this process which can not continue.” he received the following reply from Johnno.
Do you know what the specific gravity of CO2 is?
Look it up in an old school physics book.
It’s heavier than air.
Get some dry ice which is actually frozen CO2.
Tell me what the vapour does when it thaws.
It drops to the floor.
If this is the case, can you tell me how it gets up several kms to become a greenhouse gas?
We have been duped.
Thankfully, more and more Australians are waking up to it.
Climate change is real but we are being led up the garden path as to the causes.
I will remain resolutely opposed to this Bill which crucifies our economy for no global gain.
Malcolm forgot his basic grade 6 primary school physics and should never have taken us to these embarrassing circumstances.
I’m with the Nationals and will have no say in what happens from here in respect to leadership for the Libs. I am praying for the greatest of wisdom to fall on my Liberal friends including Malcolm.
I hope they read your Email
John Forrest MP
BE(Civil), MSc, FIEAust, MASCE
Federal Member for Mallee
John Forrest, MP
Federal Member for Mallee
How fantastic is that? Rather than pull this apart myself. Let’s just see how Peter responded.
Thank you for your prompt reply Mr. Forrest.
When you use the term “air” what gasses which comprise air are you talking about?
Because air comprises 3 major gasses.
Nitrogen (N2) forms the bulk of our atmosphere it has a specific gravity of 0.9723.
Next comes oxygen (O2) which has a SG of 1.1044.
Lastly comes CO2. This has a SG of 1.5189.
As you will notice nitrogen is the lightest gas followed by oxygen and then carbon dioxide.
Are you suggesting that our atmosphere is layered? Each layer containing only one gas?
So we, at sea level have to breath CO2, unless we can place ourselves at an altitude where we can breath pure oxygen?
And above these layers lies the bulk of our air made from nitrogen?
No, sir, the continual air movements make our “air” more-or-less a homogeneous mixture of all three of these gasses along with other, rarer, ones.
Now this is where it gets really (insert any emotion here). Johnno replied with the following.
You forget that CO2 is utilised by all vegetation to extract the carbon and release the oxygen.
Part of the designers plan I happen to think
What I am expressing is my serious reservations that CO2 is the great villain being made out
Methane and the other nitrous oxides and nasties yes but not CO2
The modelling upon which this whole premise is based is progressively being discredited.
What’s the hell bent rush all about?
Because of my engineering and scientific background, I am a stickler for proper process. Let’s wait to see what occurs at Copenhagen and a full enquiry in to recent world wide questioning of the science.
We have time. The rest is haste for blatant political purposes to create an illusion about who is more climate change conscious.
Of course the atmosphere (air) is amorphous. Wind and sheer are great mixers but not greater than the law of gravity
John Forrest, MP
Federal Member for Mallee
So there you go… I think I can paraphrase this quite nicely. Let me know if I’m on the right track here. Johnno is effectively saying, “Because I am scientist, I know this is true. God made plants low to the ground. Because he designed them to consume CO2 and because he invented gravity he had to make CO2 heavier than other gases so that gravity would pull it to the ground where the plants are. People and animals don’t die from the CO2 because the plants consume it. The air is mixed , but it isn’t.” It actually makes perfect sense… if you’re a child or a moron.
Now, I could go all sciency here and get into fluid dynamics and atmospheric physics and relativity and various other disciplines but I think, given the Inhofesque comment about the “designer” I think I’ll just run with a picture that sums it up.
UPDATE: It seems CO2Pirate has decided that he doesn’t wish to demonstrate his “science” here. You know, you try and let them have a voice……… Never let it be said I didn’t try.
Ladies and Gentlemen, I was cruising YouTube, as I like to do sometimes, and I stumbled on a person going by the name of cO2Pirate. I have cordially invited him over here to show us what real science is. To give you a little bit of an idea of the quality of argument we can expect from cO2Pirate, here are a few screenshots of some of his/her work.
As you can see, cO2Pirate relies pretty much entirely on WTFIWWAW for his information, so his “science” will be a bit thin. I’m guessing there will be plenty of propaganda statements and misrepresentations of actual science but you never know, cO2Pirate may just have the “science” which overturns the work of tens of thousands of experts around the world. We’ll see. I’m guessing cO2Pirate, probably won’t show, in which case the screenshots here will be used in my next denier comment of the day. By the way on the Worrall Scale he is a 6.
So cO2Pirate, the first claim I would like to discuss with you, since it is top of the list here, is that of CO2 and crop yield and growth. You claim that more CO2 will increase both growth and yield. Could you please provide a peer-reviewed reference for this claim?
Well, I reckon there’s more than few kangaroos loose in the top paddock. David Archibald, the alleged climate scientist from Western Australia has written a remarkable opinion piece for Newsweekly, a right-wing online editorial offering “Independent opinion for independent minds”. Doesn’t that slogan just give you a warm fuzzy feeling? When reviewing the content on that website it becomes patently obvious that the slogan should be changed to “Right wing loony opinions for empty gullible minds.”
So, what is so remarkable about the David Archibald piece? I’ll get to that. First, who is David Archibald? For the uninitiated, Archibald is on the scientific advisory panel of the Australian Climate Science Coalition (ACSC). They bio David as follows:
David Archibald is a Perth, Australia-based scientist operating in the fields of cancer research, oil exploration and climate science. After graduating in science at Queensland University in 1979, Mr Archibald worked in oil exploration in Sydney and then joined the financial industry as a stock analyst. Mr Archibald has been CEO of multiple oil and mineral exploration companies operating in Australia. He has published a number of papers on the solar influence on climate, and is a director of the Lavoisier Society, a group of Australians promoting rational science in public policy.
With him on the scientific advisory panel of the ACSC are the usual suspects in the Australian denier ranks e.g. Bob Carter, Ian Plimer, Viv Forbes and David Evans. He is mentioned as a director of the Lavoisier Society, an even wackier group made up of individuals from mining, big business and the liberal party. he has also published a number of really dodgy papers on solar forcing. Rather than rehash what others have said, go here, and here, to see just how shonky he is.
So, now you know where Archibald sits, let’s look at his opinion piece. It is titled “Time to raise hell over the climate tax.” It drips with venom and pontification. I actually got the feeling while reading it that the writer was somewhat unhinged as he practically preached fire and brimstone like a religious zealot on a street corner. The alarmism in it puts to shame anything the alleged “alarmists” from the AGW proponent can come up with. It’s quite extraordinary. There are dozens of quasi-religious words and phrases in it as he refers to the politicians and others associated with the carbon tax. Here are some examples.
“… we are ruled by evil men and evil women — evil men and evil women who…”
“… promoted by evil people.”
“The evil goes back a bit further…”
“The last dark deed of the Howard Government…”
“The evil that men do lives after them…”
“…and we stare into the abyss …”
“… and sold their souls for a handful of silver.”
“… promoted the bizarre cult…”
“The easiest sacrifice to make…”
“The huge sum that is spent keeping the beast alive …”
“Your sin was not a love of nature…”
“…push back against the darkness …”
It goes on with this sort of language endlessly with references to “making hell on Earth” and also referring to “paradise”. It’s really quite bizarre. Anyway, what was of more interest to me were some of the bold predictions Archibald makes about our future climate. I for one am glad he put it down on paper again so that in the future it can be held up as the ramblings of a nutcase. Here they are…
It is an accident of history that that notion of global warming caused people like me to enquire as to what actually is going on with our climate. I am proud to have done my bit to push back against the darkness that ever encroaches on us.
What I found is that there is much to fear, but of course in the opposite direction to that claimed by the socialists.
I will summarise the findings of my last six years of research in the field of climate science in two sentences:
1) Our generation has known a warm, giving sun.
2) The next will suffer a sun that is less giving, and the world will be less fruitful.
Specifically, the current solar cycle is going to be a very long one. That will result in the climate over the following solar cycle being very cold.
The grain belts of the world will shift up to 700 km towards the equator. World grain production will fall by at least 25 per cent. That is going to be the biggest problem the world will face in the next 30 years.
What about carbon dioxide? Carbon dioxide is tuckered out as a greenhouse gas. The total warming from here due to carbon dioxide may be up to point four of a degree centigrade. Or it may even be nothing.
All we can be sure of is that it is not a problem. The heating effect from carbon dioxide will be lost in the noise of the climate system.
Yep, you read all of that right. He is basing this on his dodgy cherry picked data from a couple of his papers, each of which I linked to earlier. One can only wonder if this quasi-religious, oil company owning, right-wing thinktank directing, friend of big polluters who claims to be a climate scientist will admit that he was wrong when that is inevitably borne out? i guess time will tell but I highly doubt it. He is no scientist. He’s a paid shill for big polluters. The only time he will change his mind is when he is told to by his keepers.
On a final note, it is not surprising that Geoffrey Brown, the official blogger for the Climate Sceptics Party referred to Archibald’s quasi religious rant as an “excellent article“.
Anyone who has ever engaged a hardcore denier in conversation has come up against the “CO2 is plant food” canard. The fervent denier will then tell you about this or that glasshouse study that demonstrated that CO2 increased plant growth. Of course, that’s all fine and good…in the glasshouse, but these kinds of studies are useless for conveying what happens in the real world. In the glasshouse, variables can be tightly controlled so that the only thing being manipulated is CO2. These plants are not subject to other variables like
- increased temperature
- altered rainfall
- changes in water table
- increased nitrification
- increased or changes in pest and disease incidence, especially fungal pathogens
- variable ecosystem responses (e.g. changes in species composition)
- nutritional limiting factors
The clever denier when confronted with this information will resort to highlighting a few studies in cereal crops that purport to show increased biomass and yield, however, these are few and far between. More and more as these studies increase in duration, negative effects begin to appear due to some of the factors I mentioned above and cast doubt on the “CO2 is plant food” meme. For example see here, here, here. Of course, the denier can tell you that many of these things can be overcome by increasing irrigation, fertiliser and pesticides which of course that adds to the environmental and monetary costs of production. In many cases, this is going to be inevitable anyway.
What the denier can’t explain away though is the effect on natural ecosystems. There’s no farmer to go around spraying chemicals, applying water or fertilisers. There’s certainly no way to prevent range shifts. So, are natural ecosystems starting to feel the effect of human induced climate change? The authors of a new study published in Global Ecology and Biogeography certainly think so.
Analysing dendrochronological and isotopic records of trees from all over the globe, Silva and Madhur evaluate the impacts of atmospheric changes on tree growth and intrinsic water use efficiency. They have summarised their key findings as follows.
“ In 37 recently published case studies changes in iWUE were consistently positive, increasing by between 10 and 60%, but shifts in growth varied widely within and among forest biomes. Positive RC values were observed in high latitudes (> 40°N), while progressively lower (always negative) responses were observed toward lower latitudes. Growth rates declined between 15 and 55% in tropical forests. In subtropical sites growth declined by between 7 and 10%, while mixed responses occurred in other regions.”
They conclude, “Over the past 50 years, tree growth decline has prevailed despite increasing atmospheric CO2. The impact of atmospheric changes on forest productivity is latitude dependent (R2 = 0.9, P < 0.05), but our results suggest that, globally, CO2 stimulation of mature trees will not counteract emissions. In most surveyed case studies warming-induced stress was evoked to explain growth decline, but other factors, such as nutrient limitation, could have overridden the potential benefits of rising CO2 levels.”
This study only looked at two aspects of climate change effects being growth and water use efficiency. The effects of changing phenology of pests could be potentially worse as demonstrated by the effect of mountain pine beetles in North America and altered rainfall and water table issues as seen in Western Australia. Given that these issues are manifesting after an average 0.8 degrees temperature increase since the 1950′s, what the hell is it going to look like at 2.0 degrees?
I wouldn’t normally bother with this sort of thing but I’m bored and in the mood for a bit of light entertainment. On Geoffrey Brown’s official Climate Sceptic Party blog site he posted some of his usual garbage to which I blogged about here. I also posted a response on his blog site and attracted the attention of one of his idiotic followers. The exchange can be found here. Go and look if you like but I’ll pull out the main points below.
My response to Geoffrey’s post was one where I highlighted some important information from a paper he was misrepresenting that directly disputed what he was claiming and suggested that one should read the entire paper rather than just the abstract to get the whole picture. The response came from someone calling themself “moresensethanu” which was clearly a play on the pseudonym I have given myself. My initial thought was, “Okay, this person is obviously pretty childish if they think that’s clever.” So I responded as such.
”Nice wordplay on the monika. A little juvenile but still clever. As for the rest, I prefer to read the entire paper. You should try it sometime. Helps you get the whole picture.”
Uh oh! Did you see it? My spelling mistake? Shocking I know. It was just begging for someone to point it out to me. Fortunately, I wasn’t let down as “moresensethanu” decided to take his juvenility to a new level and make it a good old one-two as he replied….
“mon·i·ker or mon·ick·er. n. Slang. A personal name or nickname.
monika. n. a presidential desk accessory.”
When I read this I thought to myself that since I was clearly dealing with an intellectual lightweight I’d leave it at that and anyone could make what they like of it. I was confident that anyone reading it would agree that this clown clearly had nothing valuable to add. But lo and behold, little did I know that the clown would take my non-reply as a sign that his endless wit and grammatical superiority had made him ever victorious so he then posted the following gem.
“Obviously my moniker (not MONIKA) has moresensethan your moniker. You had no come-back. It is a pity that you have no come-back on the science data. There has not been EVEN ONE paper to show that increased (MAN-MADE) CO2 emissions are causing runaway global warming. We can show that the hypothesis has been falsified. Can you produce ANY data that shows CO2 emissions are causing runaway global warming? I will pre-empt your answer…. NO!”
Nice little pile of straw here. Let’s break it down. First, the reiteration that I had made a spelling mistake. Good job. He really got me there, but I should thank him for picking me up on it. I can guarantee that I will never make such an appalling mistake with that word again and he is right, I had no comeback to that. On such an important issue as the spelling of a word too. I should probably have devoted at least a couple of minutes to such a devastating blow to my argument.
Next, a pity I have no comeback on the science data? What data? He didn’t present any data? But it beggars the question. Why would I have a come-back to any data on AGW? From what I have read, all the data is supporting the hypothesis that human’s are affecting the climate through our burning of fossil fuels and land use. That’s why I accept it. Perhaps if this clown offered some data that is in direct opposition to the overwhelming evidence for AGW and human-induced climate change I would have something to offer a come-back to?
Next, this business of stating that there is has not “been EVEN ONE paper to show that increased (MAN-MADE) CO2 emissions are causing runaway global warming,” and then asking for data that shows it is as silly as it is transparent. No-one is saying that CO2 emissions are doing that. What they are saying is that if we don’t curb CO2 emissions we run the risk of passing tipping points where the positive feedback loops will take over and accelerate global warming. What the eventual endpoint of that scenario isn’t known and there are any number of possibilities ranging from snowball Earth to Venus, both of which are worst case scenarios. The vast majority of climate specialists agree that whatever happens, it is going to be catastrophic for many of the earth’s ecosystems if we don’t do something. What they also acknowledge is that CO2 on its own is not responsible but that it acts as a forcing agent on a number of feedback loops which in turn affect other climate systems. CO2 is only part of the picture. This is typical denier strawman building and everyone knows it….or do they? I’m confident that there are great many deniers who think it is a legitimate question and blindly repeat it through sheer ignorance… not just of what scientists are actually saying but of science in general.
Finally, “we can show that the hypothesis has been falsified.” Really? I must have missed those peer-reviewed papers appearing in reputable journals falsifying the hypothesis supported by 97% of climate experts. This is the point at which deniers like “moresensethanu” start bleating on about peer review being corrupt.
Note: because Geoffrey’s blog doesn’t offer email notification of follow-up comments I have asked “moresensethenu” to come over here and have a chat. I guess time will tell if he’s up for it. I hope so… I’m feeling bored and up for a bit of fun.
It seems Geoffrey has decided to have a dig at me over at his blog after my statement that I wouldn’t be coming back. I guess he thought I wasn’t coming back. Its quite a cowardly and somewhat childish act that. Anyway, below is a screenshot of his childish cowardice as well as my reply. It will be interesting to see if he allows it. Further, I will be informing him of my response over here because I am honest.
What I find amazing is the brazen attitude he displays by throwing up the same strawman question. It seems his recalcitrance knows no bounds.
Yet again Geoffrey has posted directly from another denier blog without checking the claims. Clearly he trusts that others have done the background work for him. What is ironic is that people of his ilk are highly sceptical of credible peer reviewed science when it disagrees with their ludicrous position but blindly acceptany garbage that supports it. I don’t get it. Maybe I need a degree in psychiatry or psychology to understand the mentality.
Anyway, the latest effort (or lack thereof) is the following post about a 2000 paper by James Hansen et al that deniers are claiming says that CO2 is not the major greenhouse gas responsible for warming. Yet again, this is the problem with reading only the abstract. here is the post.
NASA:GISS: Recent Warming driven mainly by non-CO2 greenhouse gases.Anthony Watts at WUWT and his correspondent Nick have uncovered a paper published by Dr. James Hansen (and the GISS team) in PNAS (Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences).
Global warming in the twenty-first century: An alternative scenario
- James Hansen*†,
- Makiko Sato*‡,
- Reto Ruedy*,
- Andrew Lacis*, and
- Valdar Oinas*§
No, this isn’t a joke, it isn’t a fake document, and it isn’t a misinterpretation. In the paper (published in 2000, but long since buried) they make these two bold statements (emphasis mine):
..we argue that rapid warming in recent decades has been driven mainly by non-CO2 greenhouse gases (GHGs), such as chlorofluorocarbons, CH4, and N2O,not by the products of fossil fuel burning, CO2 and aerosols..
If sources of CH4 and O3 precursors were reduced in the future, the change in climate forcing by non-CO2GHGs in the next 50 years could be near zero. Combined with a reduction of black carbon emissions and plausible success in slowing CO2 emissions, this reduction of non-CO2 GHGs could lead to a decline in the rate of global warming, reducing the danger of dramatic climate change.
First things first, the notion that this paper has been “long since buried”. There is nothing else to say to this except BULLSHIT. What a load of crap. This paper has been freely available since it was first published. Just because deniers, being the lazy sods they are, couldn’t find it, doesn’t mean it was hidden. I suppose though by pushing that bit of dishonest nonsense they can help to build their assertion that Hansen has egg on his face. I should mention that they have a picture of James Hansenn which has been crudely doctored with a fried egg on his face. A bit juvenile but there you have it.
Now, what of the paper itself? What does it actually say? Here is the full abstract, not the cherrypicked version above. “A common view is that the current global warming rate will continue or accelerate. But we argue that rapid warming in recent decades has been driven mainly by non-CO2 greenhouse gases (GHGs), such as chlorofluorocarbons, CH4, and N2O, not by the products of fossil fuel burning, CO2 and aerosols, the positive and negative climate forcings of which are partially offsetting. The growth rate of non-CO2 GHGs has declined in the past decade. If sources of CH4and O3 precursors were reduced in the future, the change in climate forcing by non-CO2 GHGs in the next 50 years could be near zero. Combined with a reduction of black carbon emissions and plausible success in slowing CO2emissions, this reduction of non-CO2 GHGs could lead to a decline in the rate of global warming, reducing the danger of dramatic climate change. Such a focus on air pollution has practical benefits that unite the interests of developed and developing countries. However, assessment of ongoing and future climate change requires composition-specific long-term global monitoring of aerosol properties.”
The importnt thing to note here is not what it says but what it doesn’t say. It doesn’t say here that CO2 is still the largest single forcing but it does acknowledge that aerosols help to cancel out the effect of CO2. Nor does it say that w should stop focusing on CO2 which is the impression Geoffrey and his ilk would like to portray. so here is where reading the paper in its entirety is important. As I said it is freely available. Here are a few key excerts. Highlighting is mine.
“There are many competing natural and anthropogenic climate forcings, but increasing GHGs are estimated to be the largest forcing and to result in a net positive forcing, especially during the past few decades”
“Our estimates of global climate forcings indicate that it is the non-CO2GHGs that have caused most observed global warming. This interpretation does not alter the desirability of limiting CO2 emissions, because the future balance of forcings is likely to shift toward dominance of CO2 over aerosols. “
This graph is the estimated forcings from 1850 to 2000. Figure 1 in the paper. Unless you are completely blind and stupid, it is clear that CO2 is the largest single forcing agent.
“Climate forcing by CO2 is the largest forcing, but it does not dwarf the others (Fig. 1). Forcing by CH4 (0.7 W/m2) is half as large as that of CO2, and the total forcing by non-CO2 GHGs (1.4 W/m2) equals that of CO2. Moreover, in comparing forcings due to different activities, we must note that the fossil fuels producing most of the CO2 are also the main source of aerosols, especially sulfates, black carbon, and organic aerosols (4, 23). Fossil fuels contribute only a minor part of the non-CO2 GHG growth via emissions that are not essential to energy production.”
“The increase in atmospheric CO2 in recent decades (Fig. 2) represents about half of the emissions from fossil fuels and changes in tropical land use; the remaining CO2 from these sources is taken up by the ocean, terrestrial biosphere, and soils. “
So, you be the judge. Was Geoffrey, the blogmaster for the Climate Sceptics Party being completely honest when posting yet another piece of someone else’s work? What does this say about the political party he is affiliated with?