gizmo_2655 wrote on Feb 27^th, 2014 at 12:03pm:

You obviously don’t read what others post—with the methane clathrates melting and releasing holding concentrations at about 400ppm is going to take heroic measures.

I don’t want it any hotter, thanks. Days of over 45°C is more than warm enough. Want to live in the tropics move to Qld. Very glib to say need 2°C warmer, reality is that would mean days and days of over 48°C in Adelaide & Melbourne.

gizmo_2655 wrote on Feb 26^th, 2014 at 11:40am:

False premise. Where is it stated anywhere that this is the stated aim?

Quote:

This is an unproven assertion, and can be ignored because it is constructed on a false premise.

Quote:

That in itself is a false premise.

You are asserting that the whole of AGW theory is based on pre-industrial levels of CO₂. It is not.

You are asserting this based on the false assumption that mitigating AGW is not just cutting CO2 emissions, but to return CO2 concentrations to pre-industrial levels. Nowhere have you supported this claim with any evidence because no such evidence exists.

You have implied that the temperatures were caused by CO₂ concentrations. The Maunder sunspot minimum has been hypothesised as another contributor to lowered global temperatures during the Little Ice Age.

Digging up black stuff out of the ground and burning it is not normal either. Where did all that coal and oil go after we burnt it? Much of it is still with us in the atmosphere, adding 100ppm to global CO₂ levels over the pre-industrial levels. That this increase is primarily caused by the burning of fossil fuels has been known since the 1960s.

Quote:

While an interesting argument, it is constructed on a false premise. However, I do note your implied acceptance that atmospheric CO₂ causes warming.

It is unlikely that CO₂ levels will return to pre-industrial levels any time soon, even with the most aggressive remediation possible, so I doubt this is going to be a problem.

However, we do need to be mindful of the causes of the Little Ice Age as well. Even the science of climate change has as an implied assumption for some models that the output of the sun will not change enough to influence the climate, that there won't be large volcanic eruptions, and there won't be other similar external factors in play. One big volcanic eruption can lower global temperatures by 1°C or more for half a decade. A 0.1% reduction in solar irradiance can also lower global temperatures by a similar amount. It doesn't mean the models that do not include these are wrong, just that they do not take these into account as core assumptions.