This month’s open thread. Topics this month? What should a conservative contrarian be writing op-eds about that avoids strawman arguments, and getting facts wrong? What do you really think about geoengineering? Tracking the imminent conclusion of the Nenana Ice Classic (background)?
Usual rules apply.
re:74. Wow. Quite reprehensible and puerile (oh sorry, look the word up). You are back to insulting the hosts who are far more educated about climate change than you? Clue for you: People have lives.
#250 See 213, above:
“. . . persons of low cognitive ability will find illusory inferiority in opinion-makers who do not support their pet theories. They will use the term “idiocy” to describe a presentation by someone who is simply reporting real-world facts or peer-reviewed scientific findings.”
Charles, a turning point came when I realized some time ago, to my great surprise, that no one responding to my posts seemed to understand certain basic scientific principles — such as Occam’s Razor, or the necessity for any theory to be falsifiable.
It struck me that there is a huge difference between someone with certain technical skills, in, for example, math, physics, statistics, etc. and someone with a real understanding of how science works, which requires a high dose of critical thinking. Just about any result one likes can be produced via statistics. If you do a run and it doesn’t give you what you want, nothing is easier than conveniently adjusting certain elements and giving it another try — until you get the desired result. Hence, the many and varied “explanations” for the hiatus we find in the climate science literature. Which is why Occam’s Razor is so important, because in principle any number of explanations can be offered as a solution to any problem.
In the words of F. Heylighen,
“Though the principle may seem rather trivial, it is essential for model building because of what is known as the “underdetermination of theories by data”. For a given set of observations or data, there is always an infinite number of possible models explaining those same data.” (http://pespmc1.vub.ac.be/OCCAMRAZ.html)
So when “climate scientists” offer all sorts of complicated reasons why the rise in temperatures leveled off from ca 1998 through 2014, we have reason to be suspicious — just as Copernicus had reason to be suspicious of all those complicated epicycles accounting for the supposed motions of the planets around the Earth.
The impatient and inappropriate responses to posts in which I try to explain such fundamental principles have convinced me some time ago that there is something very wrong with the so-called “science” behind the “climate change” paradigm. I’m happy to endure all the abuse you can heap upon me because of my very deep interest in both science and the future of the human race, which, in my view, is being threatened by the cli. sci. orthodoxy.
Alastair McDonald @ 231 – Regarding your claim of “saturation of the CO2 bands”, you might find THIS POST on Eli’s blog to be informative. The Younger Dryas remains a subject of considerable discussion:
http://geology.gsapubs.org/content/38/4/383.short
http://science.sciencemag.org/content/312/5777/1146.full
In re: Thomas @ 515 (5/24/17; 2:13A) – One Big 10 – 4 for that Comment, Good Buddy! Five ‘thumbs – Up’ on My 5-Thumb Scale!
For those of us who ‘got Hooked’ decades ago, & have now lived to “SEE” the realization of what Struck one @ 1st Blush, in those very First Depictions, as something of an an “IRRESISTIBLE FORCE,” it gives one Confidence in one’s “Grip.” (Namely, we are Condemned to watch in Slo-Mo, the gradual & apparently Inevitable–or “Unstoppable”–Alteration of an Astronomical Object, our Home World. That 3rd Rock).
I was a ‘Boomer,’ & an “Anti-Warrior”, in time, on Nam. No fan of Henry K. He one time said of that Great, generation-dividing, decadal Debate: “Everything Everyone says about Viet Nam, is True!” Sometimes I grow weary of endless spools of what strike me as ‘nonsense,’ that continuously Play out here, @ Judith’s, or WUWT. Very little evidence of Closure on Any Sub-subject.
Then someone contributes something which strikes me as Utterly Sane! It’s uplifting. Thnx.
T: . Climate Change activists are greatly to blame for that, attacking people’s way of life and putting them on the defensive.
BPL: What the cake said to Alice.
Thomas,
The point of the matter is to show that it could be changed, not to dwell on the fact that currently the idiots in charge refuse to change.
I am well aware that there exists a very very strong human desire to keep the filthy mire they know, rather than risk the paradise they can’t even conceive…. just so long as they get to rule the filthy mire and be the richest pig living in said filth.
Once upon a time the early colonists of the USA overthrew idiots like that. But human nature means they have gradually crept back into our society. Some other societies never even had their moment in the sun. So I don’t complain.
But I would like to point out that many said the same about SRI and now well over 10 million farmers use it and world records in yields are being broken on a regular basis. Only a decade ago people were saying the EXACT same thing about how it was unrealistic and could never work in today’s modern economies.
Same goes for major ecosystem recovery projects like Loess Plateau project… Already sequestering a very significant % of total chinese emissions.
https://www.nature.com/articles/srep07039 and that’s from land so degraded it was nearly worthless not long ago.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TucmtBLmeyU
Re #232 Scott Strough said I’ve decided to join the Peanut Gallery!
Step back from the ledge, there, Scott, because you make yourself look foolish with comments like this: If you can’t handle simplified math like that, no wonder you are missing systems science when it is staring you square in the face!
This is a really bizarre thing to say given there is nothing in our conversation to support it. I can only assume you got your undies in a bunch over something you assumed or misunderstood. Let me state clearly here, I was among the earliest, perhaps the first in some cases, on this site to push permaculture, etc., including soil sequestration, as a key to the climate crisis. I have posted the Rodale 30-year study here many times over the years, e.g., so back the heck up. You are out of line.
More so, I have stated over and over on this site that we can return to sub-300 ppm CO2, and in as little as 20 years. You are hardly the first one here to say this.
I will repeat, you were wrong. The pathways presented via that link are wrong. It’s not an inability to analyze the system on my part, it is the opposite. To think you can alter one factor, agriculture, to fix an entire global system is at best naive, if not delusional. Change only agriculture, we still fall because you’re leaving out all the other ways we are headed for a cliff.
On the other hand, simplicity is inclusive of agriculture changes and is systemic.
Killian @ 204, Your math sucks? That bad really? approx 36 GtCO2e is our emission level and approx 1/2 of that is already handled primarily by current sinks.(15-20 Gt/yr)
So changing agriculture to regenerative models first lowers emissions by approx 20% +/- that gets us down to 30 GtCO2
Then we directly sequester carbon at the rate of 5-20 tCO2/ha/yr x approx 5 Gha = 25-100 Gt/yr.
Define “directly sequester” or it’s just so many nonsense syllables.
30 Gt/yr – 25 Gt/yr = 5 Gt/yr -*
30 Gt/yr – 100 Gt/yr = – 70 Gt/yr -*
*- approx 15-20 Gt/yr natural ecosystem sinks currently functioning.
That’s without reducing fossil fuel use in any other sector besides agriculture!!!!!
While I have long advocated land use changes via regenerative practices, and have long argued the numbers Hansen, et al., use, for example, are too conservative because they don’t understand how extensively we can sequester carbon (they only look at industrial ag), still, your numbers are a bit optimistic unless they include not just ag, but other gains via biomass, such as 30 Gt from recovered ocean biomass (increases in ocean life, to be crystal.)
Simplification, however, can get us down to 10% of current emissions just in reduced emissions. Add regenerative sequestration, land recovery sequestration, ocean biomass sequestration, etc., then we can look seriously at returning to <300 ppm in 20 – 100 years, depending on rates of change. I.e., -2 to -5 ppm/yr.
If you can’t handle simplified math like that
You were talking about a model, rude one, not simple addition of grosses and nets. Yes, I can do that math, which is what to beat you to this conclusion…. years ago.
The more complex stuff is putting it in models, or converting to ppm. that latter is the one I really want: A reliable calculation for converting Gt’s to ppm.
…economies… booming even faster than any time in recorded history…
Aaaand here come the Fruit Loops. A booming economy? We manufacture more than ever before, but don’t increase emissions? Or poison the planet even more? or destroy ecosystems for the resources to support this boom?
Ah, it’s a sad fantasy you have.
I will be far less polite the next time you come at me with nonsense or an illegitimate criticism.
Re #233 Kevin McKinney said 1)
This is not a matter of tweaking where the power lies or which party holds power, or even as large a change as from English monarchy > U.S. This is way beyond that. We are talking about fundamentals; changing the **basis** upon which society functions, the assumptions, the principles.
There are no exemplars for this kind of shift. You will not get there from here.
Well, we are here–so we’d better hope we can get ‘there’ somehow, no?
I meant you cannot go through Capitalism and current governance to get to sustainability because those things cannot be changed to be regenerative. Try to understand this: The principles underlying regenerative systems and current systems are opposites. They cannot be reconciled. The former must replace the latter, not be morphed from the latter.
And, no, Canada did not make such a transformation. Such a transformation has never been done. Ever. Anywhere. At this scale. To the extent such societies exist, it’s because they never stopped being regenerative ion the first place.
It’s disingenuous to talk about ‘which party holds power’, when it is really about the concrete actions those parties may take.
Dancer/dance. Nothing disingenuous about it.
Yes, it’s hard to change fundamentals. But it can be done, and it can be done incrementally in democratic ways
You are forgetting the risk assessment: 5C or more in a single decade. I say again, if every other incrementally changed social issue has taken hundreds of years and none of them are yet accomplished in full, how do you think this happens incrementally and gets done quickly when we are talking about fundamentally changing the lives of virtually every citizen of the OECD nations?
Who cares? More efficient isn’t the goal.
But it is one of your principles: don’t waste stuff.
Don’t waste is about resilience, not efficiency.
“The CCL proposal for a Tax-and-Dividend plan to “solve” the climate change dilemma is likely to fail, even if it were possible to be enacted.”
CCL does not pretend that fee and dividend “solves” our climate crisis. It is simply the step they have decided to prioritize. IMO, it’s a reasonable choice.
Thomas, thanks for your thoughts on the Rethink article. It seems, though, that you may have missed the bit about how government’s role in promoting or delaying the transition is pretty limited.
Also, yes, it is seen as a global transition, analogous to the global explosion of smart cell phones.
Finally, you say it’s a sales document. Inexplicably, my browser seems not to display the ‘click to buy’ button.
Re #228 E Swanson.
Yup. Still within the realm of possibility to fix it all. Ironically, the extra pressure from SLR may help keep the CH4 in place. Maybe we lose the coasts to save the rest. Forget the study, but I’m sure I posted about it here, but one did a quick-and-dirty “what if?” scenario with emissions stopped today and dropped back to preindustrial atmospheric levels. I was shocked because I’d been calling for such a study for years. Result? Ice sheets began stabiliing within decades.
If we get very, very lucky and really change things up, we may have to deal with no more than 10ft. SLR, altered coasts, but end up with a far more stable, far happier, far healthier world.
Until all realize the solutions are in the mirror, we will be in danger, and perhaps even then if we let the permafrost and clathrates get too far elong first.
Re #227 Thomas.
Sadly, he’s continuing the paradigm, just whitewashed with efficiency and some degree of egalitarian economics. He blows it early with saying we can accomplish the UN’s silly unSustainable Development Goals. Once he says that, all he’s really talking about is attempting to turn a pig into a unicorn.
Where his ideas might bear fruit is in the realm of bridging from current to regenerative. However, I think we may have ru out of time for bridging and are likely stuck with rapid simplification.
Thank goodness food, water, stable body temps are all we actually *need* for survival.
“Building EV’s to replace all the cars now on the road would require massive quantities of lithium…”
Which is why the Rethink model, in which the same level of utility is obtained by many fewer vehicles–actually, a greater level of utility, it seems to me–is of interest here.
With all of the differences of opinion and perception on display here, I think we all do agree that the future is not going to be much like the current status quo. So we aren’t going to just be doing “drag and drop” replacements.
Oops: http://www.livescience.com/59291-early-collapse-of-arctic-ice-bridge.html
253 Kevin McKinney, hi allow me to respond:
“…. that you may have missed the bit about how government’s role in promoting or delaying the transition is pretty limited.”
No I didn’t miss it. I’m trying to point out to you that such “ideas/beliefs” are false. Whether those saying that in the RethinkX doc are well meaning but delusional, or intentionally lying is difficult to know for certain without a lie detector test.
“Also, yes, it is seen as a global transition, analogous to the global explosion of smart cell phones.”
Kevin do you know how many new smart phones per year are being sold on a planet with 7 billion people … the majority of whom live in extreme poverty? 2 Billion per year and rising.
The exemplar of the “systems” ability to waste human resources; and the power of Marketing Brand name advertising and Profit Gouging capable of charging people $800 for something worth $80 while making them believe they got a Bargain!!!
Kevin et al you are not looking at the whole of what happens in this world and why we are where we are (as Killian says).
“Finally, you say it’s a sales document. Inexplicably, my browser seems not to display the ‘click to buy’ button.”
It’s not inexplicable Kevin. You are not in the target market. The Product Price is probably higher than anyone’s whole life’s income and net worth on this blog.
While the truth hurts you and many others have to come to grips wit the truth that the way in which you think, the things you know and how you came to know them is totally different than how the anti-agw gang and the powerful who own and run corporations, banks, hedge funds, NYSE etc think and what they believe.
“If you know the enemy and know yourself, you need not fear the result of a hundred battles. If you know yourself but not the enemy, for every victory gained you will also suffer a defeat. If you know neither the enemy nor yourself, you will succumb in every battle.” ― Sun Tzu, The Art of War
When I add in a definition like http://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/gullible it’s purpose is not to criticise, insult, put down, use adhom, nor blame anyone. It’s a simple truth for educational purposes only.
Killian, #252, said, inter alia:
My conclusion is that if the change is indeed of this magnitude, then not only do you not accomplish it incrementally in a decade, you don’t accomplish it by discontinuous change within that time, either–at least, not without the catastrophic destruction of the present system, and the adoption of your winning paradigm by the relatively small numbers of survivors. (Or, possibly, the non-adoption of it, and consequent extinction or near-extinction.)
However, I can also imagine the possibility of another trajectory, in which the current system does ramp down emissions dramatically, mostly through the market mechanisms of a more-or-less capitalist economic system, aided by some sane political choices (please, no more snickers, you in the back!) along the way. NO, it’s not truly sustainable, but it is sustainable enough to stave off the worst climate change and provide a relatively ‘soft landing’ to the end of the era of economic growth.
Which is what I meant by the idea I mentioned somewhere or other above that a reformist trajectory might provide time for a deeper restructuring of human society to a more truly sustainable model.
I’m not implying here that I agree that your way is the only way (nor that ‘your way’ is exclusively ‘yours’–that’s just a shorthand.) In fact, I don’t feel that I yet have a very clear idea of your ideas in practice, and I would still like to know much more about what you envisage. So, do you have some sort of reading list? Examples of communities ‘walking the walk’ in a way that makes sense to you? Intellectual forbears and context? Bibiliography? Anything else that I should do to understand better? (Those nifty infographics you keep linking just don’t seem to inform me the way you imagine they might. You’d think as someone with a pretty strong bent toward ‘intuitive’ in the Meyers-Briggs paradigm, they’d be just the thing for me, but apparently I need more ‘middleground*’.)
IOW, I want to know what your ideal world looks like, not just what its principles are. If you want to understand America, for example, you need more than the Constitution and analyses of money and material flows and demographic stats.
*”middleground*: a term from Schenkerian music analysis, denoting hierarchical analytic levels between the top-level, which as a sort of quasi-Platonic blueprint turns out to be pretty invariant, and the surface level, which is more or less what you hear/see as ‘immediate’ sensory experience (ie., that which is only processed at the normal perceptual level, not ‘analyzed’.)
If that doesn’t make sense, well, I wouldn’t worry about it too much. Just an illustrative concept…
The point is, it’s the middleground analysis that has the most to say about just how the idiosyncratic musical surface level reflects/embodies the quasi-Platonic structures common to tonal music. Similarly–or so I imagine–the principles of “regenerative systems” would be pretty invariant (otherwise they wouldn’t be susceptible of succinct formulation.) However, instantiations would vary a lot, just like individual communities (hence, if I understand this rightly, the comment that “I can’t tell you what you should do”.) In the middleground, though, you can (or could) see where or how the universals play out in particular ways in differing circumstances.
Oh, yeah–it may be moot by the time this clears moderation, but Trump is considering (supposedly, at least) the Paris pull out.
Those who think, as I do, that there is some point to activism may wish to get on the record at the White House on this matter (as I and a number of others have already done).
If so, the contact page is here:
https://www.whitehouse.gov/contact/write-or-call
Do I expect this to help?
I doubt it will carry much weight with the Administration–and in fact there are reports that the decision has already been made, and is just awaiting announcement–but there may be some advantage down the line to being on record that abrogating the Accord is just another form of reckless endangerment. It’s a pretty trivial investment in time, so I don’t see much harm in taking the trouble. And it’s just conceivable that it may help.
251 Dan & 255 BPL https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/strawman It’s a common error by narrow minded biased social media jockeys who lack the verbal intelligence to comprehend complex interconnected issues. L. Ron Hubbard wrote mountains of science fiction too, yet he too had extremely limited verbal intelligence – read some $cientology for proof of that statement – Hubbard was swallowed up by his own madness and his paranoid self-delusions about the world and people. His entire worldview was based on Strawmen Fallacies and way too much heavy drugs as well. (fwiw)
254 Cody, Thank you. Ours is not reason why ….etc. :)
256 Scott Strough, no worries. Good luck anyway.
The natives are restless … Is Corbyn doing a Sanders? Is Theresa doing a Hillary?
21st century political activism 1,066,191 views in 5 days
https://youtu.be/HxN1STgQXW8
Re Kevin McKinney,
My conclusion is that if the change is indeed of this magnitude, then not only do you not accomplish it incrementally in a decade, you don’t accomplish it by discontinuous change within that time, either–at least, not without the catastrophic destruction of the present system, and the adoption of your winning paradigm by the relatively small numbers of survivors
There is a problem with discussing these things with people who do know know how to do simplicity. It’s truly like the blind men and the elephant: There are too many logical conclusions and assumptions that are obvious if you know regenerative systems that are absolutely opaque to those who don’t. I can see the entire web of issues without any real effort. Raise an objection, I can dispel it. But it’s a long litany of but’s and if’s, so it becomes cumbersome, if not impossible in this type of forum.
The key to understanding simplicity for those who have not studied it is to take it literally. What do you NEED? Water, food. stable temp. So, start there. Were I king of the planet, I’d start with home/community food, i.e. gardens. Learn that. Build that out. At the same time, water capture and storage. You now have the means to stand safely no matter what the gov’t tries to do to discourage you. Because you have food and water.
One more element is needed, though: Community. Start a community organization at the same time, and over the five years have a core of people who will stand, literally, when the city comes to tear down your garden.
This simple scenario gets us a huge step toward a different future.
It’s much more difficult to do it via your top down methodology. Opt out. Simple.
Out of time for the moment.
266
Be of good courage, Kevin, one White House concession on fossil fuels is already rumored , not counting the East Wing & Camp David mineral rights
https://vvattsupwiththat.blogspot.com/2017/05/in-paris-agreement-concession-trump-to.html
Re #266 Kevin McKinney said In fact, I don’t feel that I yet have a very clear idea of your ideas in practice, and I would still like to know much more about what you envisage. So, do you have some sort of reading list? Examples of communities ‘walking the walk’ in a way that makes sense to you? Intellectual forbears and context? Bibiliography? Anything else that I should do to understand better?
You want an academic description of a non-existent perfect. Rather, a situationally existent perfect. It exists in many places, but exists in that way in each place and cannot be replicated en toto anywhere else. We design in place.
Basically, you need to educate yourself. You want me to download to your brain 10 years of active learning plus all the other preconditioning, e.g. reading Chaos: The Making of a New Science, which is seminal to my ability to parse simplicity, climate, permaculture, and the world in general, among many other concepts and constructs. Instead, you ought to:
* spend an extended period at a functioning ecovillage
* get a permaculture certificate
* Read L to G, Diamond and Tainter (Diamond on collapse being a choice and Tainter on diminishing returns of complexity)
* Read all of the essays in this series, but at least IV and V. Play Makes Us Human
Familiarize yourself with these and a clear image should emerge. Maybe not how to get there, but what “there” is should be clearer.
However, I can also imagine the possibility of another trajectory, in which the current system does ramp down emissions dramatically, mostly through the market mechanisms of a more-or-less capitalist economic system
No market system can do this without failing early on in the process. Zero growth is enough to cause panic. Negative 5% is a deep crisis and negative 10% depression. You can’t get there via here. You have to create the new, let the old die off.
aided by some sane political choices
Snicker.
NO, it’s not truly sustainable, but it is sustainable enough to stave off the worst climate change and provide a relatively ‘soft landing’ to the end of the era of economic growth.
Says who? You seem to be forgetting the risk assessment.
a reformist trajectory might provide time for a deeper restructuring of human society to a more truly sustainable model.
By what rationale? When do the rich, powerful, owners, etc., walk away from what they see as theirs?
Similarly–or so I imagine–the principles of “regenerative systems” would be pretty invariant (otherwise they wouldn’t be susceptible of succinct formulation.) However, instantiations would vary a lot, just like individual communities (hence, if I understand this rightly, the comment that “I can’t tell you what you should do”.) In the middleground, though, you can (or could) see where or how the universals play out in particular ways in differing circumstances.
Correct. Regenerative communities are based on principles. Get the principles, it makes much more sense. Speaking of characteristics is perhaps more accessible, but assimilation of the principles makes *any* method, technique, process, characteristic potentially useful. Try this:
Detroit as Amazonia
1. Detroit has tons of free space. Detroit is the only large city in the world that could feed itself from within its own borders, thus, could be regenerative given a simple enough living standard. (We must actually think in terms of bio-regions, but for the sake of clarity…)
2. Imagine Detroit with the residents moved into groupings of small communities to create very walkable communities with green space surrounding.
3. Imagine a network of transport connecting these nodes.
4. Each home and/or small community has its own food production, water capture and storage and energy production.
5. Each community is a Commons.
6. Each community is egalitarian (there are multiple specific forms.)
7. Each community uses regenerative/permacultural practices and decision making.
8. Chill…
Oversimplified, but not by much. Its the transition that is the challenge, not the result. So, grow a garden, keep your water, claim your space, work with your neighbors.
Embrace the simplicity of it all, all becomes clear, and possible.
Eric re 253.
Thanks for reading my poster. Some people seem to take it as a badge of honour not to read it, a bit like the cardinals who would not look through Galileo’s telescope :-(
CO2 is not totally saturated, but if you compare the 280 and 560 ppm spectra in the Rabett Run Blog you will see that there is very little difference. In other words the 667 band is almost saturated at current levels. Why otherwise would Eli, Ray Pierrehumbert (2011) and Zhong & Haigh(2013) feel the need to deny it.
I was aware of Carlson(2010) but did not have space to quote him on that poster. He writes “The Younger Dryas Cold Event (ca. 12.9–11.6 ka) has long been viewed as the canonical abrupt climate event (Fig. 1)”, but my point is that the YD stadial was a state, not an event. The event was the entry into the YD, but two other abrupt climate change events happened: entry into the Bolling-Allerod inter-stadial, and entry into the Holocene inter-glacial. These were more extreme than entry to the YD, and they were warming events. Global warming is more likely to produce a warming event rather than a cooling event. And they were not caused by Wally Broecker’s flood! It is warming events that we should fear, when the sea ice melts.
But everyone is locked into the AMOC paradigm for abrupt climate change, and the lapse rate feedback paradigm despite the fact that there is no feedback loop. How does the imbalance at the TOA heat the surface. Solar radiation does not change so the surface temperature will not change.
But perhaps I was trying to be too ambitious trying to overturn three paradigms in one 700 word poster :-)
Carlson, A. (2010) http://geology.gsapubs.org/content/38/4/383.short
Pierrehumbert, R. T. (2011) ‘Infrared radiation and planetary temperature’, Physics Today, vol. 64, no. 1, p. 33.
Zhong, W. and Haigh, J. D. (2013) ‘The greenhouse effect and carbon dioxide’, Weather, vol. 68, no. 4, pp. 100–105 [Online]. DOI: 10.1002/wea.2072.
271 Killian: “Get the principles, it makes much more sense. Correct.
It also helps to properly investigate the Principles of today’s version of Capitalism and Neoliberalism and Libertarianism and Randism are.
It’s critical when doing such a ‘scientific’ type investigation to not accept any cherry-picking that only includes the ‘favorable’ Principles and a limited biased selection of “data” nor to believe what ideologically/belief based and thus very biased PR people tell you those Principles are — while ignoring 50% of them as if they do not exist in reality.
The scientific method is good when it is used and not dismissed out of hand because someone’s ‘radical’ ideas conflict with your own world view and the internalized cultural belief system you own from birth.
Th: It’s a common error by narrow minded biased social media jockeys who lack the verbal intelligence to comprehend complex interconnected issues.
BPL: So is ad hominem.
Th: L. Ron Hubbard wrote mountains of science fiction too, yet he too had extremely limited verbal intelligence
BPL: Write, writing science fiction is proof of lack of intelligence. I guess that covers Fred Hoyle, Isaac Asimov, Vernor Vinge, and so on as well–all, like me, scientists that also write science fiction. I note you say nothing whatsoever about the actual argument, just attack me. Typical denier move.
ABM 272: CO2 is not totally saturated, but if you compare the 280 and 560 ppm spectra in the Rabett Run Blog you will see that there is very little difference. In other words the 667 band is almost saturated at current levels. Why otherwise would Eli, Ray Pierrehumbert (2011) and Zhong & Haigh(2013) feel the need to deny it.
BPL: The saturation argument against global warming was disproved back in the ’40s. Here are details:
http://bartonlevenson.com/Saturation.html