What Do We Think About Climate Change

Freeman Dyson , who defends AGW exists, on global warming:



"heretics who question the dogmas are needed... I am proud to be a heretic. The world always needs heretics to challenge the prevailing orthodoxies."

Cheers.

 

Boston,

If you understand my point of contention (which I seriously doubt that you do) you would have to understand that I don't think volcanoes or any other incidental CO2, even all of it added together, including terrestrial biotic, forest fires, volcanism and anthropogenic, are what is causing CO2 levels to rise in the atmosphere. I have said and continue to say that rising CO2 is a product of a warming ocean.

But your position (dictated to you by your warmer gurus) is that anthropogenic CO2 is the largest incidental CO2 source and dwarfs all the others. You also refuse to select a threshold of significance, although your warmers gurus do so, recognizing there must exist such a threshold.

I bring up volcanism (and yes, the more realistic figure is 10% of anthropogenic emission, presently) as a comparison to past emissions to show, prove really, that the trendline of increase in atmospheric CO2 is a natural one which began ~200 years ago.

In the mid 19th century when our emissions were 2 orders of magnitude smaller than they are now, and anthropogenic emissions and volcanism were somewhere near parity, atmospheric CO2 levels were nevertheless rising. Now it is the warmer's contention that volcanism is presently an unimportant source of atmospheric CO2 because it is somewhere between 1 and 10% of anthropogenic emissions. So when volcanism and anthropogenic emission together comprised only 2% of present anthropogenic emissions, nevertheless atmospheric CO2 was rising. So either you have your threshold of significance completely wrong (and therefore volcanism really is important since it has always been above this threshold) or you must admit that rising CO2 was a natural phenomena, at least until ~1950.

Now the warmers and you would have us believe that if we 'do all we can' to cut maybe 10 or 20% of our present day emissions, that CO2 levels will fall? When anthropogenic CO2 was 1% of present emissions, atmospheric CO2 was rising, so how would this work? Can you address this? Where was all this CO2 coming from?

Jimbo

 

avoiding the issue

Im going to have to pop another brew and come back in a few to see if you guys have gone off subject again

or was my barrage of data concerning the recent solar activity enough to scare you off the subject

 

if were going to repeat things I think you two probably missed this



definitely worth watching

cheers

 

No more than me or Jim, or whoever other in this thread.
I realize you consider yourself superior to the rest of us when you say the ones who do not agree with you are culturally-induced ignorants.

I say: look at yourself in a mirror when saying that.

Do you like it? Does this kind of ad-hominem attack lead us to something useful?

Cheers.

P.S Excuse me but it's the first time Freeman Dyson is brought to this thread. I'm repeating nothing. You should listen (and learn about) the man.

 

Boston.

It's ridiculous to confuse scientific objections with agnotism. It's more than ridiculous, it's insulting and it's the chief reason you get insulted on this thread from time to time; you deserve the insults because you insult first. If you can't take it then don't dish it out.

The correct application of agnotism is not to scientific skepticism, but to the new mysticism, such as the resurgence in the thoroughly debunked, superstitious beliefs such as astrology, zodiac and other such 'new age' beliefs like pyramids, crystals and the like.

I see you've posted the 'Nothing Alarming Happening Here' temperature anomaly graph again with it's oh so frightening (gasp) .6C rise in 130 years. Golly I hope we don't boil the oceans off!

And from the text it looks like Hansen is trying to rehab his 'warmest decade' thing again for the third time. He's had to retract it twice, now. Do you think he can fudge the data enough to make it stick this time? I guess it's cool to be the Czar of the data.




Jimbo

 

if the shoe fits


sooooo
are you going to address what else could be causing the rise in co2 and temp if man didnt do it

cause this seems like just more distraction

B

do I really need to go through and define why the position and the tactics you are using to defend it are the exact defined by the term agnotism
it may be a hard realization for you to admit but its true
what both of you are doing is blatant agnotism

 

Let me quote Dyson in something I fully agree with him:

"I'm not saying the warming doesn't cause problems, obviously it does. Obviously we should be trying to understand it. I'm saying that the problems are being grossly exaggerated. They take away money and attention from other problems that are much more urgent and important. Poverty, infectious diseases, public education and public health. Not to mention the preservation of living creatures on land and in the oceans"

Cheers

 

I think you posted this 'barrage of data' on solar influence to posit the idea that the 'null hypothesis' in the absence of a change in solar irradiance is that CO2 is driving the climate. This is such a ridiculous failure of logical reasoning that it is breathtaking!

To even begin to consider this we first have to cross a logical threshold that we have not yet crossed, that being that we are definitely in a warming trend that is in some way anomalous. But the medieval and Roman warm periods were warmer than today; as warm as the doomsday predictions say we will get, and all was right with the world.

With this bit of history firmly in mind, there is no compelling reason to believe that 20th century warming was anomalous. The 'null hypothesis' is therefore that this warming is of natural origin. There's certainly been nothing alarming about the rate of warming, as the graph you just posted illustrates.

Jimbo

 

if you guys want to we can take a minute and discuss agnotism
its a distraction but might be a good point to make
cause it may alter the way your going about the denial

 

Yeap!

 

Anthropogenic emissions are not the 'null hypothesis' you *****!

Jimbo

 

You probably want to say 'reality' not 'denial'.

 

Once again: look at yourself in the mirror

 

digressing into childish insults is what you call a healthy debate

more distractions

I take it you admit there is no other source known that could meet the criteria necessary to account for the dramatic rise in co2 and temp