Introducing the WUWT CO2 Reference Page

A known sceptic scientist says the following:
“Yes, there is a lot evidence that increasing CO2 has reduced the net rate of IR cooling to space. The question is how much of recent warming has been due to that versus other, natural climate forcings.”

Richard: “The underlying issue is that so little actual data is available concerning the complex carbon cycle that almost anything can be assumed and modeled”
Indeed, there is more supposition, assumption and bias confirmation than real data. Like so many areas of climate “science”, the answers are determined in advance and data rearranaged to fit.
The “carbon cycle” is one huge handwaving exercise.

richard verney says: “First, Michael Mann’s trees post 1960s did not show that warming was taking place (hence the divergence problem that he sort to ‘hide’ by splicing data sets together). Michael Mann’s trees suggest that the land based thermometer record may have been falsely distorted by issues such as poor station siting, UHI, station drop out and the like”
Firstly it was the post-1960 part of Briffa’s data, not Mann’s data, that Mann decided remove because it did not fit his narrative.( Don’t evah believe what Mann presents, he’s incompetent and a deceitful . )
The divergence problem was more that UHI and was not proof that the entire temperature record was faulty in that temperatures were truly falling not rising. What Briffa’s data clearly showed is that tree rings are not a reliable temperature proxy. That is why Mann removed them and padded then end of the bit he kept with something else, even though valid data existed.

I would recommend a plot of man-made CO2 emissions, atmospheric CO2 concentrations and global temps starting (ideally) in 1750, all on the same graph. Also the same graph with changes in these quantities. This will give us a better visual regarding whether there is any obvious relationship between these three. [Nick Stokes’ graph (see Nick Stokes at 2:45 AM) suggests that MM CO2 emissions and atmospheric CO2 are correlated, but what about temps?]

Ferdinand Engelbeen:
Your post at August 3, 2014 at 3:19 am says in total

richardscourtney says:
August 3, 2014 at 1:39 am

No. You use a circular argument to obtain a value, make an erroneous assumption, then reach an unjustifiable conclusion.

Sorry Richard, but the 5 ppmv/°C is what is really measured today as the global CO2 change for a global temperature change of 1°C over the seasons. Mainly a NH effect as there is less temperature and CO2 change in the SH. Nothing circular about that.
The 4-5 ppmv/°C can be deduced from the year-by-year variability peaks (1992 Pinatubo, 1998 El Niño). Again direct measurements, no circular reasoning.
The 8 ppmv/°C is from ice cores over the past 800,000 years. I do know that you don’t like ice core CO2 data, but I don’t see any reason to distrust them, as ice cores formed under extremely different conditions of temperature and accumulation rates show the same CO2 levels for the same average age. And the same CO2 / temperature (proxy) ratio for each glacial/interglacial period 100,000 years back in time. If there was any measurable diffusion of CO2 in the ice, the ratio would fade out for each period further back.

Ferdinand, you make a circular argument and say you fail to understand it is circular when you write

Sorry Richard, but the 5 ppmv/°C is what is really measured today as the global CO2 change for a global temperature change of 1°C over the seasons. Mainly a NH effect as there is less temperature and CO2 change in the SH. Nothing circular about that.

The change over the seasons is the short term variation from processes with short rate constants of days, weeks, and months. The change from the LIA is from processes with long rate constants of years, decades and centuries.
You assume that only the processes of the seasonal variation affect long term changes, and then you apply the effect of only those processes to supposedly show that longer term processes are not involved in long term changes. A more circular argument than that is not possible!
And you apply the same circular argument to obtain the same result from short-lived effects of volcanism.
Furthermore, in your comment at August 3, 2014 at 3:01 am addressed to urederra you admit effects of processes with very short rate constants of minutes and hours can have similar but much more rapid effect to processes with short rate constants when you say

The day/night fluxes of plants are enormous (some 60 GtC in/out), the seasonal fluxes too: again some 60 GtC in and out over the seasons,

It is not consistent for you to ignore the effect of processes with long rate constants that will have effects over much longer times.
And you admit the processes with long rate constants do have some effect because you say the seasonal and volcanic indications are 4-5 ppmv/°C but the ice core indication is 8 ppmv/°C.
Of course, as the stomata data indicate, whatever variation the ice cores indicate must have been much higher than the ice core indication. And among the several reasons for this is the mixing during ice formation which has similar effect to conduct of an 8-decade running mean on the data.
Nobody knows the effect of temperature rise from the LIA on atmospheric CO2 concentration, and much more information and understanding of the carbon cycle are needed before the effect can be quantified.
Richard