What MobyT posted are absolute levels and has no relevance to the topic at hand.We are talking about observation of change. The GHG effect of almost double CO2 levels has indeed occurred. My analysis was quite simple to prove a simple comment may not be a gaff. Do you expect a dissertation on why a post on HC is incorrect?
By definition (from climate scientists and IPCC) CO2e == Co2-equivalent = CO2. That is, if you asked me whether I prefer to have 1 molecule of CO2e or CO2 AND to base my decision solely on GW potential then I would say I am indifferent. Why is this so hard to comprehend?
And you are incorrect if you believe concentrations are different. Look at the equation, concentrations are accounted for (as they should obviously!)
If you compare CO2e in the last 200 years, yes they won't line up. What Monckton said was "we have seen the almost doubling of CO2 and nothing has happened." Which to me implies (I assume here that he has been seeing CO2 numbers for over a million times and knows how to double a number - you should give this much respect even to an enemy. I think Art of War has a similar line to this.) that he is talking about an equivalent impact.
CO2 has not doubled. Agreed. CO2e has not doubled. Agreed. The Global warming potential of almost doubling of CO2 has already occurred and is evident we are alive and well. Agreed?
I don't have time to go back and fro on this. I invite you to read up on GWP and what its intentions are. If you still believe Moncktion made a gaff then thats your opinion. We will just have to agree to disagree.
