Climat Change is not a commie myth.

[orogenicman]

Yes, it was awarded to the IPCC. "The IPCC leadership agreed
to present personalized certificates for contributing to the award
of the Nobel Peace Prize for 2007 to the IPCC to scientists that had
contributed substantially to the preparation of IPCC reports. Such
certificates, which feature a copy of the Nobel Peace Prize diploma,
were sent to coordinating lead authors, lead authors, review editors,
Bureau members, staff of the technical support units and staff of the
secretariat from the IPCC’s inception in 1988 until the award of the prize in 2007. The IPCC has not sent such certificates to contributing
authors, expert reviewers and focal points."

Are we clear?

You were caught out in a lie. Are we clear?

This is what you wrote:

• In fact, it was a joint award given to the authors of the 2007 IPCC climate report and Al Gore.

It was NOT awarded to the authors of the 2007 IPCC climate report, it was awarded to The IPCC and to Al Gore. You lied and are trying to cover it up.

I said that because I thought that was the case. I was wrong and admitted it. Get over it, already. Now, you have to ask yourself two things:

1) Who cares whether Mann also thought he was a recipient?
2) Does it change the fact of global warming, or do you simply have a need to bad mouth scientists?

I am going to assume you mean enhanced greenhouse emissions.

Enhanced Greenhouse Effect - there's nothing really "Enhanced" about it though since it discounts the primary GHG, but that's another matter entirely.

Then why the hell did you even bring it up?

Since the beginning of the industrial revolution, concentrations of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere have increased nearly 30 per cent, methane concentrations have more than doubled, and nitrous oxide concentrations have risen by about 15 per cent.

So what?

The so what is that these very potent GHGs are having a demonstrably significant impact on the Earth's climate (not that you actually care).

The point I made, which I'll assume you cannot refute,

Poor assumption.

is that the increase in atmospheric CO2 is

1. only a part contributor to climate change,

Brilliant answer, Mr Obvious. All GHGs are part contributors to climate change.

2. most likely responsible for no more than 0.1 degrees of the trend (less than 1/6th or 1/7th of the trend),

I'm pretty sure I've asked for a citation for this claim. If not, please provide a valid peer-reviewed citation to support your claim.

3. is partly natural with humans contributing about 50% (estimated).

Well yes, Mr. Obvious, since humans have doubled the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere, then by default, we have contributed to 50% of the CO2 in said atmosphere.

Carbon dioxide is the single largest contributor to the enhanced greenhouse effect. Increases in carbon dioxide emissions account for approximately 70 per cent of the enhanced greenhouse effect. Using ice cores from the Antarctic, scientists estimate that the concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere in the pre-industrial era had a value of approximately 280 parts per million (ppm).

That's the concentration at the Antarctic ice cap and is not necessarily representative of global CO2 mean concentrations. It's much like water vapour concentrations in the atmosphere, it is not the same everywhere in the globe. If you're interested you can see this for yourself from satellite data from NASA.

I hate to break it to you, but the satellite measurements have a range from 382ppm to 389ppm, for a difference of 7 ppm, and this is for an Earth that has lots of human emitted CO2. Since pre-industrial Earth had far less human CO2 emissions, even if you assumed a range of 7ppm for prior Earth CO2 measurements, you cannot get to the minimum of what we are seeing today. If anything, the likely range for the ice cap measurements are narrower than what they are today, and so the ice cap measurements cannot be so summarily dismissed.

Measurements in 2005 put it at 379 ppm. The 2005 figures also tell a story of alarming growth. The 2005 carbon dioxide levels exceeded the natural range of atmospheric carbon dioxide over the last 650,000 years (180 to 300 ppm). In addition, even though there has been year to year variability (at an average of 1.9 ppm), the annual growth rate of carbon dioxide concentrations in the atmosphere was larger during the 10 years between 1995 and 2005 than it had been since the beginning of continuous direct atmospheric measurements between 1960 and 2005 (average: 1.4 ppm per year) (IPCC, 2007).

Why is it "alarming" (see my emphasis above)?

It is alarming because not only is it bad, it is getting worse at a rapid pace.

It is true that natural sources of carbon dioxide - plant respiration and decomposition of organic matter - generate more than 10 times the amount of carbon dioxide produced by human activities such as driving motor vehicles, heating homes and powering factories. However, in the past, natural processes that remove or sequester carbon dioxide from the atmosphere, namely photosynthesis and the carbon reservoir function of the oceans, balanced out these releases.

Bullshit. You're lying again.

This should be good.

CO2 concentrations are like the global climate - they're always changing, at least slightly. Over long enough periods of time they balance out.

Which is what was said above. Congratulations.

We now have a situation where not only are additional sources producing and emitting carbon dioxide in significant quantities but the natural sinks that remove carbon dioxide are also being compromised.

I really wish you would think about what you're regurgitating before propagating it as if it's gospel truth.

Facts:

1)The planet's primary CO2 sink, the ocean, is rapidly becoming saturated with respect to absorption of atmospheric CO2;

2) The planet's secondary CO2 sink, land surface plants, have been severely impacted due to human activities such as clear cutting, arson and accidental fires, logging, and massive expansion of urban areas, all of which denudes the land of vegetation, reducing the ability of the planet to recycle atmospheric carbon.

Do you have any problem with the above facts? If so, what issues do you have with these facts?

Trees and forests are being cut down for a variety or reasons, including agriculture and human settlements.

Yet again you are wilfully lying. More net forests are presently being created than destroyed.

A lie? I think not.

http://www.fao.org/docrep/016/i3010e/i3010e00.htm

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
State of the world's Forests

Between 2000 and 2010, the world lost
about 130 million hectares of forest (about 3.2 percent
of the total forest area in 2000), but gained back about
78 million hectares, mainly as planted forests and natural
forest expansion. The net loss of forest area was
1.3 percent over the ten-year period.

At the same time, oceans, including the North and South Atlantic oceans, are reaching their carbon dioxide saturation point because their absorptive capacity is failing to keep pace with the increase in carbon dioxide emissions. A 10-year study by the University of East Anglia found that the North Atlantic halved its absorption of carbon dioxide between the mid-90s and 2000 to 2005. Scientists previously thought the carbon sink function of the oceans would help offset the increase in anthropogenic carbon dioxide emissions. However, this appears not to be the case. Even though a decrease in the ability of the oceans to absorb carbon dioxide was anticipated by scientists and even factored into some climate models, it seems to be happening 40 years earlier than expected.

Firstly what you're obsessing over is a small variation and not necessarily a permanent decrease.

Halving the ocean's ability to absorb atmospheric CO2 is not a "small variation".

Secondly, and what you don't see talked about since it's a "boring" point to make, increasing CO2 has a negligible effect on the surface-level water's CO2 content, and hence a negligible effect on CO2 absorption.

I don't know where you took chemistry (or if you even have any science education), but this is completely false. Surface waters (particularly ocean waters) are directly affected (and very rapidly) by changes in the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere. This is basic chemistry/oceanography.

Here is a simple experience you can conduct. Buy some sea salt at your local aquarium, and set up a small tank of sea water in a room that you can close off (it doesn't have to be hermetically seal, just no obvious drafts from outside). Aerate the water with a standard aquarium pump. After an hour, take a CO2 measurement of the water using a standard aquarium test kit. Now, bring in a television, and sit down and watch TV for about 2 hours (watch a movie or something). When you are down, re-measure the CO2 concentration in the water, I can guarantee that it will have increased significantly over the first measurement. I've seen it change by an order of magnitude in a day. it is one of the least understood issues salt water aquarium owners face, one that has serious impacts on the aquatic life of an aquarium in exactly the same way it does in the ocean.