Re: WHO CARES!
Re: /And yet despite that you think CO2 rise being caused by human emissions has "little support" which is "unconvincing"/
I was kind of giving you that, but your notion of good evidence and mine obviously are not quite the same. This was apropos of the notion that, as I say "CO2 concentration is mostly controlled by mankind." We surely do have an effect by clear-cutting forests and burning fossil fuels but whether over any significant time frame what we can be expected to do will actually be the dominant force over CO2 concentrations, well... I am not convinced that we won't be the controlling contributor but I am not convinced we will either. Part of the reason I don't care is because the overall debate does not hinge on this.
Does our effect on CO2 have an appreciable long-term effect on CO2? Maybe, maybe not. Does CO2 have an appreciable long-term effect on global temperature? I doubt it. Depends upon what you call appreciable, I suppose. I do not expect that it has a whisper of a chance to cause anything approaching a runaway feedback loop. What reasonable data we have does not support that notion.
To the extent that CO2 concentrations going from 400ppm to 600ppm has an effect on the biosphere, I am strongly of the opinion that it will have a net positive effect. If you don't think that CO2 figures prominently as a driver of global temperature, it is hard to get excited about our role in it, especially since the direction we are forcing it (assuming we are) is net positive.
I am entirely unconvinced, but it would not be particularly astonishing if CO2 had a finite measurable effect on global temperature. I just do not think it is important and thus far the globe agrees with me, not you.
Re: "I would say that alone shows your ability to analyze data is insufficient."
Well, so far I do OK. CO2 levels have been much higher before we were ever on the scene.
If you think about it, the CO2 we are supposedly polluting the atmosphere with had to come originally from the atmosphere and if you look back on the CO2 concentrations over much larger scales you find:
1) CO2 Concentrations were, for most of our planet's history significantly higher than today.
2) CO2 and temperature do not correlate over very long time-frames at all.
3) Over shorter time-frames CO2 concentrations are controlled by temperature, not the other way around.
What that tells me is that biological carbon sequestration is the overall driver of CO2 concentration and that it can ultimately reduce more than 5,000ppm down to a few hundred and that while sequestration is catching up, CO2 concentrations are driven by temperature rather than the other way around. CO2 concentration has varied by thousands of ppm throughout earth's history and only a few hundred ppm during man's history. We may some day have that level of control, but we surely do not now.
Climate Scientists cherry pick data that supports their contentions and ignore data that doesn't. It is incumbent upon them to produce the positive case that falsifies the null hypothesis. Otherwise, the null hypothesis naturally stands due to our preference for parsimonious explanations.
Re: "The evidence that the ongoing CO2 rise is human caused is overwhelming."
There's that word 'overwhelming' again. The Global Warming fraternity rubs that word like a magic talisman. Rhetoric may move the crowd but it does not move me and it won't change the weather. Rather than endlessly trotting that out to stifle debate, why not cut to the chase and start producing this allegedly overwhelming evidence. I have looked and looked for years and I haven't seen it. To the extent I know that people have attempted to get this 'overwhelming evidence', it has been difficult to the point of requiring legal intervention.
Overwhelming evidence you do not care to show is operationally equivalent to evidence that does not exist.
It is, I am sure, your sincere belief that the CAGW narrative is genuinely supported by rock solid evidence in quality and volumes that cannot be denied. Your overwhelming conviction does not make it so.
Why would the alarmist camp waste so much time on rhetoric and lame sophistry, require FOIA requests to obtain data and methods to support analysis and replication, take their case to television and newspapers, game peer review, fix official investigations of wrongdoing, misrepresent the literature (97% anyone), etc, etc if they really had a solid case to present?
Re: "First there's the ice core record of the last 10,000"
Did you ever stop to wonder how that 10,000 year timeframe was chosen even though you have to graft together three different data sources to cover the time frame? I did, because I know that even though it looks dramatic on that graph, our CO2 level is at a perfectly unremarkable level. Here is a different time frame that gives a bigger picture:
That shows that we are not at a peak, that we could easily be going up sharply without violating the null hypothesis that it is business as usual and that over ranges near where we are now CO2 concentrations are driven by temperature, not the other way around.
The graph you present is evidence, but it is weak, could easily be nothing at all, would eventually be defeated by increased biomass and is very much well within a range accounted for by the null hypothesis.
Again, evidence, but much weaker than you believe. You and I have entirely different ideas of what constitutes 'overwhelming evidence' and I submit that my apprehension is likely to be more predictive than yours.
Re: "ice cores also show CO2 levels going back hundreds of thousands...... last time CO2 was this hight was 15 million years ago ... CO2 continues to relentlessly increase... To say the CO2 rise being human caused has little support is ridiculous! ... radiodating. ... accounting issue"
I am assuming good faith here because I honestly believe that the purveyors of these arguments armed with their carefully selected samples within stochastic boundaries and following the existing curve truly believe.
Newtonian physics, Einstein's refinements, much of the standard model, the theory of evolution, the periodic table, Maxwell Boltzmann, the fundamental theorem of calculus, plate tectonics, optics, etc, etc is supported by very good evidence and sound arguments perfectly consonant with the rest of the known accepted body of science.
CAGW evidence is not nearly as compelling as evidence we demand of the rest of science. Plate tectonics took many years to be accepted when it made perfect sense, was consistent with what we know, was supported by reasonable evidence and was predictive. The nascent discipline of 'Climate Science', such as it is, has gotten a free ride compared that.
Re: Where is all the human CO2 going if it isn't causing the increase in CO2 level?
This is what I call the 'argument from ignorance' , characterized by the generic notion that because you cannot think of any other explanation, your explanation must somehow be correct.
It is reasonable to assume that CO2 we liberate will go into the atmosphere and thereby increase CO2 concentrations when and where we do. The notion that we control CO2 concentrations does not follow from that. We affect them like every other source or sink of CO2. However, it is a leap to say that because we supply CO2 into a very large and very active CO2 cycle we ultimately control it.
Concentrations we see would not be inconsistent with the null hypothesis. Given what we know, I personally expect that CO2 concentrations will taper off and perhaps retreat. However, the evidence we have is not that strong one way or another and because it ultimately drives nothing, it is not much worth researching or arguing about in my opinion.