Dr Robert Fagan - Climate feedback loop

I don't agree with everything Dr Robert Fagan (Geologist) published on his website. Especially things which aren't geology. On geology I conceed he's entirely right. However: everthing there is worth reading.

• Twitter: Dr Robert Fagan (Geologist)
• The CO2 Debate
• Global Warming Unpicked
• Mean Global Temperature & Atmospheric CO2 Charts for All of Geological Time
• 25 Critical Questions that Climate Alarmists Need to Answer or Explain
• Is The Science Settled?
• Letters to Editors, Newspaper Articles & Recent Tweets
• summary posts encapsulating the main points on critical issues

Carbon dioxide emissions and oceans.

Place holder for discussion about the carbon cycle and CO₂.

1) More evidence that carbon dioxide atmospheric variations are caused by ocean emissions, and not by human activity. This chart shows that CO₂ increases lag el Nino events by around 12 months and correspondingly, CO2 reductions follow La Nina events by the same period.

2) It appears that the sun is the real problem. It heats the ocean and 3 months later the land heats up and then 9 months later CO₂ is emitted from the oceans, increasing the CO₂ atmospheric concentration. The UN now needs to form a study group to reduce solar irradiance by 2030.

3) Measured CO2 saturation in 1951. Ref - The Infra Red Handbook.

4) CO₂ has been resting for at least 70 years. It was absorbing 100% of all 15 micron surface radiation in 1951 when its concentration was around 300 ppm. Additional CO₂ since then has had no additional radiation to absorb. 100% then is still 100% now.

5) Carbon dioxide has had no effect on global temperature for at least 70 years. 100% of surface radiation was absorbed and converted to heat when the CO₂ concentration was around 300 ppm. Adding additional CO₂ cannot absorb more than the existing 100 % of the radiation.

Two replies to my Reddit censor

This is what passes for debate on Reddit today:

"Do all of you believe in this right wing climate skepticism garbage?"

My replies (apparently censored from Reddit, so posted here)

You "ask" a rhetorical question with a defamation embedded in it:

"Do all of you believe in this right wing climate skepticism garbage?"

Don't pretend you're here to have a reasonable discussion. You're already throwing logical fallacies and defamations left and right as soon as you began.

• It is not a "belief". It is a method, the scientific method.
• It is not "right wing" - it is rationalist, as opposed to, say, anti-rationalist
• "skepticism" is not garbage. It is the foundational method of reasoning for the civilization you currently enjoy the fruits of.

Try learning something useful such as how to discuss ideas without throwing insults at people left, right and centre. I suggest you get a book on logical fallacies. Learn them. Then try to apply what you learnt by discussing something online without recourse to any fallacies.

My reply to his reply

No such thing as proving a scientific hypothesis. But there's disproof; which in scientific circles is called refutation or falsification.

Climate models are not like engineering models - thought I'd make the point before you claim it. An engineering model must be validated against something - even if it's only the bridge built from it! In contrast, the atmospheric model of the greenhouse gas effect has been around 53 years, since 1967. Yet you will find no serious scientific papers, written by its supporters, discussing rigorous tests and validations. The model fails all possible tests I know. So it is a junk model. Yet people like you - who never even bothered to read it - never even tried to falsify it - claim it is "settled science". You're with the superstitious and the reactionaries. I'm with progress. I tire of hearing the anti-science arguments such as "settled science" put forward to support broken models upon which trillions of dollars of policy spending rides.

Summary

Do not let the left call themselves progressive. Take the term back. Explain to the left, on their own terms, why they are reactionary and regressive.