# Global Warming progressing far faster than previously thought **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [January 17, 2014, 1:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/global-warming-progressing-far-faster-than-previously-thought/679056 "2014-01-17T13:47:45Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 20
**Author:** ![FXMastermind](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/fxmastermind/32/7289_2.png) [@FXMastermind](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/FXMastermind)\ **Post date:** [February 4, 2014, 1:32am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/global-warming-progressing-far-faster-than-previously-thought/679056/381 "2014-02-04T01:32:26Z")
Keep digging your hole there buddy. My work here is done. There is nothing more that could be said. ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [February 4, 2014, 1:34am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/global-warming-progressing-far-faster-than-previously-thought/679056/382 "2014-02-04T01:34:41Z")
> [@FXMastermind](#): > > OMG we have a doubling down. > [Freeman Dyson Takes on the Climate Establishment - Yale E360](http://e360.yale.edu/feature/freeman_dyson_takes_on_the_climate_establishment/2151/) > > Because the alarmists can’t counter the logic, the science, they have to attack the source. Which is exactly what Dyson pointed out is so fucked up about climate scientists. The whole thing reeks. And, again, Dyson does not even pretend to have any actual scientific reasons to reject global warming. He gives none in that bit. > [@](#): > > My objections to the global warming propaganda are not so much over the technical facts, **about which I do not know much,** but it’s rather against the way those people behave and the kind of intolerance to criticism that a lot of them have. I think that’s what upsets me.[1] ---
**Author:** ![GIGObuster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gigobuster/32/421_2.png) [@GIGObuster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GIGObuster)\ **Post date:** [February 4, 2014, 1:35am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/global-warming-progressing-far-faster-than-previously-thought/679056/383 "2014-02-04T01:35:33Z")
> [@FXMastermind](#): > > It doesn’t matter, it’s still a classic case of a nobody calling an actual respected scientist a “crank”, because he spoke his mind about the nonsense that is obvious to an intelligent and well educated physics scientist. No, besides being insulting, you are the one that quoted a retired physicist giving his opinion, if you have a heart problem you do not consult a brain surgeon. > [@FXMastermind](#): > > It’s one more reason the alarmists are considered a joke. Nope, pushing an opinion from a non expert is the joke, as it is the reality that I posted what the experts do think about that scientist, I do not think that they are nobodies. The reality is that Dyson is not respected at all by the ones that would be his peers, if he had bothered to publish his criticism in a climate science journal that would be a start, but not holding my breath for that one. ---
**Author:** ![Budget\_Player\_Cadet](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/budget_player_cadet/32/205_2.png) [@Budget\_Player\_Cadet](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Budget_Player_Cadet)\ **Post date:** [February 4, 2014, 1:40am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/global-warming-progressing-far-faster-than-previously-thought/679056/384 "2014-02-04T01:40:10Z")
> [@FXMastermind](#): > > It doesn’t matter, it’s still a classic case of a nobody calling an actual respected scientist a “crank”, because he spoke his mind about the nonsense that is obvious to an intelligent and well educated physics scientist. Dude. I’m going to repeat myself here, because obviously you missed this: Yes, but you just posted essentially a video blog from a random physicist with no credentials in climatology, no climate research, no published papers in the field, and who is prone to spouting incredibly dumb shit like " **Carbon emissions are not a problem because in a few years genetic engineers will develop “carbon-eating trees” that will sequester carbon in soils**". …Oh wait, you quoted that post. I don’t know how you missed that part; it was all of _one paragraph long_. Dyson, respected as he may be, is _not_ an expert in climatology, is _not_ knowledgeable about the field, and it takes more than “duh, it’s common sense” to overturn decades of study and thousands of peer-reviewed scientific papers. To assert otherwise is lunacy. Of course, for some reason, I’m not surprised - you did never answer me when I asked you (based on your statements) if you believed the papers speaking about warming in the ocean were fraudulent. And you also never did get around to telling us all what you thought was meaningful about climategate. And you never did tell us why you thought Dyson’s uneducated, uninformed opinion should matter in the slightest. Somehow, I feel like this will be a mystery for all time. > [@](#): > > It’s one more reason the alarmists are considered a joke. I honestly can’t add anything to this. This is perfect. ---
**Author:** ![Aji\_de\_Gallina](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/aji_de_gallina/32/260_2.png) [@Aji\_de\_Gallina](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Aji_de_Gallina)\ **Post date:** [February 4, 2014, 1:55am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/global-warming-progressing-far-faster-than-previously-thought/679056/385 "2014-02-04T01:55:08Z")
> [@psikeyhackr](#): > > There are other uncontrolled experiments. > > [Wi-Fi technology--an uncontrolled global experiment on the health of mankind - PubMed](http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23675623) > > Searching the Internet is so cool. Or is it awesome? > > [Comparing CO2 emissions to CO2 levels](http://www.skepticalscience.com/CO2-emissions-correlation-with-CO2-concentration.htm) > > psik So, no answer? OK. “Uncontrolled experiment” seems to me that is a nice catchphrase a not related to any scientific concept of an experiment. Was domesticating horses an uncontrolled experiment? How about agriculture? Washing our hands? For the sake of brevity and not-really-giving-a-fuck-ness I’ll concede defeat on the concept of uncontrolled experiments, as silly as the phrase seems to me. It’s not worth they wearing of the keys on my laptop. Also, you seem to have forgotten your claim of “bogus numbers”. Do you concede they aren’t bogus? ---
**Author:** ![GIGObuster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gigobuster/32/421_2.png) [@GIGObuster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GIGObuster)\ **Post date:** [February 4, 2014, 2:05am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/global-warming-progressing-far-faster-than-previously-thought/679056/386 "2014-02-04T02:05:19Z")
> [@Aji\_de\_Gallina](#): > > So, no answer? OK. > “Uncontrolled experiment” seems to me that is a nice catchphrase a not related to any scientific concept of an experiment. > Was domesticating horses an uncontrolled experiment? > How about agriculture? > Washing our hands? > > Also, you seem to have forgotten your claim of “bogus numbers”. > Do you concede they aren’t bogus? Dude! \*\*psikeyhackr \*\*is to JAQs about 911 “mysteries” as you are on the just asking questions department of climate change… I mean, I admit I would be curious to see a fight of the unmovable object vs the irresistible force of ignorant points but I had to warn you. 🙂 ---
**Author:** ![psikeyhackr](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/97f17d/32.png) [@psikeyhackr](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/psikeyhackr)\ **Post date:** [February 4, 2014, 2:23am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/global-warming-progressing-far-faster-than-previously-thought/679056/387 "2014-02-04T02:23:37Z")
> [@Aji\_de\_Gallina](#): > > Was domesticating horses an uncontrolled experiment? > How about agriculture? At the very beginning they probably were. But there is the little matter of repeatability. It could always be retried with another horse and another and another. How many planets do we have to experiment with? But then we just happen to live on this one and getting a few tons of mass to Mars is quite expensive. It gives a whole new meaning to UNCONTROLLED. psik ---
**Author:** ![Kimstu](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/ecd19e/32.png) [@Kimstu](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kimstu)\ **Post date:** [February 4, 2014, 2:25am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/global-warming-progressing-far-faster-than-previously-thought/679056/388 "2014-02-04T02:25:31Z")
> [@FXMastermind](#): > > Because the alarmists can’t counter the logic, the science, they have to attack the source. Which is exactly what Dyson pointed out is so fucked up about climate scientists. The whole thing reeks. It’s not an “attack”, it’s simply a factual description of Dyson’s lack of expertise in one particular technical field. If you had bothered to look at Dyson’s research record in a little more detail than just petulantly shouting _“Is TOO a climate scientist, is TOO is TOO!”_, you would have found this out for yourself. Although Dyson briefly worked on a statistical study of carbon-cyle inputs and outputs at the short-lived Institute for Energy Analysis in the 1970s, some 35 years ago, he has never worked on climate modeling. In [Dyson’s own words](http://books.google.com/books?id=nnyNUidX1OMC&pg=PA44), > [@](#): > > [Alvin] Weinberg established at IEA a global data-base, collecting and maintaining accurate inventories of the quantities of carbon being burnt or otherwise released into the atmosphere by human activities all over the world. At that time Oak Ridge was the best place to find such information. […] Paper 105 was a summary of the conclusions that I drew from a study of the Oak Ridge data-base. […] > > After paper 105 was published, the study of carbon dioxide and global warming became fashionable. The subject also became heavily embroiled in politics. I did not pursue the subject further except to keep myself informed of other people’s work. I repeat: Freeman Dyson, brilliant and accomplished scientist though he unquestionably is, is not a climate science researcher and does not have the requisite research background to evaluate the technical aspects of quantitative models involving atmospheric thermodynamics or climate systems. Moreover, Dyson himself has never claimed to have any such expertise. It’s the anti-science “skeptics” who attempt to parlay his brief and long-ago work with the Oak Ridge database into an aura of professional competence as a climate scientist. ---
**Author:** ![Aji\_de\_Gallina](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/aji_de_gallina/32/260_2.png) [@Aji\_de\_Gallina](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Aji_de_Gallina)\ **Post date:** [February 4, 2014, 2:33am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/global-warming-progressing-far-faster-than-previously-thought/679056/389 "2014-02-04T02:33:16Z")
> [@psikeyhackr](#): > > At the very beginning they probably were. > > But there is the little matter of repeatability. It could always be retried with another horse and another and another. > > How many planets do we have to experiment with? But then we just happen to live on this one and getting a few tons of mass to Mars is quite expensive. > > It gives a whole new meaning to UNCONTROLLED. > > psik The other option (to CO2) is? ---
**Author:** ![FXMastermind](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/fxmastermind/32/7289_2.png) [@FXMastermind](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/FXMastermind)\ **Post date:** [February 4, 2014, 2:33am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/global-warming-progressing-far-faster-than-previously-thought/679056/390 "2014-02-04T02:33:30Z")
> [@Kimstu](#): > > I repeat: Freeman Dyson, brilliant and accomplished scientist though he unquestionably is, is not a climate science researcher and does not have the requisite research background to evaluate the technical aspects of quantitative models involving atmospheric thermodynamics or climate systems. Keep digging that hole. ---
**Author:** ![psikeyhackr](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/97f17d/32.png) [@psikeyhackr](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/psikeyhackr)\ **Post date:** [February 4, 2014, 2:43am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/global-warming-progressing-far-faster-than-previously-thought/679056/391 "2014-02-04T02:43:34Z")
> [@Aji\_de\_Gallina](#): > > The other option (to CO2) is? I expect the consumer economy to totally crash in this century. The stupidity will not be stopped. Our so called economists can’t even do the algebra for Demand Side Depreciation. [http://www.spectacle.org/1199/wargame.html](http://www.spectacle.org/1199/wargame.html) psik ---
**Author:** ![GIGObuster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gigobuster/32/421_2.png) [@GIGObuster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GIGObuster)\ **Post date:** [February 4, 2014, 2:55am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/global-warming-progressing-far-faster-than-previously-thought/679056/392 "2014-02-04T02:55:07Z")
> [@FXMastermind](#): > > Keep digging that hole. Sorry, we can’t, Dyson is already in that hole. > **[Dyson Exegesis](https://initforthegold.blogspot.com/2007/08/dyson-exegesis.html)** > > Freeman Dyson starts an article with the words " My first heresy says that all the fuss about global warming is grossly ... > [@](#): > > The question of how much to mitigate or not is not primarily about climate science anymore, but about economics, ecology, and values. Dyson points out that this is not “a problem in meteorology”, and on this point, it must be said, he is very much correct. We already know that the global temperature sensitivity to equivalent CO2 doubling is near 3 degrees C. > > The fact that this is considered to be in doubt is a consequence of people using meteorological uncertainty as a diversion, in order to avoid the issue for as long as possible. Dyson fails to understand how this is happening. Like most older scientists he lives in an older, more civilized world than the rest of us occupy. So he misunderstands where the controversy comes from. > > That said, his position seems to meander: carbon is a land management problem, but it isn’t a problem anyway, and we might kick off an ice age and we might not and… Many of the common misconceptions and not uncommon hubris are scrambled together here. This isn’t a serious article, it’s an intelligent but essentially uninformed rant. Unfortunately I have to call it irresponsible. > > It’s also a bit incoherent. Indeed, many examples of Dyson mistakes are there, particularly this one: > [@](#): > > Ugo Bardi said… > > ``` > Excuse me. I have a question. At some point Dyson says: > > *In humid air, the effect of carbon dioxide on radiation transport is unimportant because the transport of thermal radiation is already blocked by the much larger greenhouse effect of water vapor. The effect of carbon dioxide is important where the air is dry, and air is usually dry only where it is cold. Hot desert air may feel dry but often contains a lot of water vapor. The warming effect of carbon dioxide is strongest where air is cold and dry, mainly in the arctic rather than in the tropics, mainly in mountainous regions rather than in lowlands, mainly in winter rather than in summer, and mainly at night rather than in daytime. The warming is real, but it is mostly making cold places warmer rather than making hot places hotter. To represent this local warming by a global average is misleading.* > > I am not sure of whether this is correct or not. Sounds reasonable, but, on the other hand, considering the level of the rest, it may not be. Is this the reason why the higher latitudes are warming more than the lower ones? > > ``` > > My reply: > > ``` > Thanks Ugo. I'm really astonished that I missed this. I must have been rolling my eyes up a little too high. > > The argument you quote is invalid for two reasons. > > First, the greenhouse effect never fully saturates; increased optical depth continues to warm the surface long after the atmosphere is essentially opaque to outgoing infrared waves. > > Second, for the most part there is little overlap between the absorption bands of H2O and CO2. > > The idea that the effect applies "mainly in mountainous regions rather than in lowlands" is particularly astonishing. It is exactly 180 degrees from the truth. > > It is the integrated column depth of greenhouse gases that trap the outgoing IR. Mountains, being nearer the top of the atmosphere, experience less greenhouse warming than the surface. > > So "particularly in the mountains" shows that the author has never even sat down with the undergraduate level approximation of how atmospheric radiative transfer actually works. It's really quite shocking. > > In fact, the high latitudes are more sensitive to warming. However this is not because they are dry but rather, in part, because of the persistent presence of low clouds, (exactly contrary to the tale he is trying to spin) as well as ice-albedo feedback. See, e.g., Holland and Botz > > ``` ---
**Author:** ![Kimstu](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/ecd19e/32.png) [@Kimstu](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kimstu)\ **Post date:** [February 4, 2014, 3:00am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/global-warming-progressing-far-faster-than-previously-thought/679056/393 "2014-02-04T03:00:03Z")
> [@FXMastermind](#): > > Keep digging that hole. I.e., you’ve run out of plausible excuses for citing Freeman Dyson as a source of climate science expertise, and are hoping that nobody will notice that the person digging himself into a hole is you. ---
**Author:** ![FXMastermind](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/fxmastermind/32/7289_2.png) [@FXMastermind](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/FXMastermind)\ **Post date:** [February 4, 2014, 4:12am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/global-warming-progressing-far-faster-than-previously-thought/679056/394 "2014-02-04T04:12:36Z")
> [@](#): > > Second, for the most part there is little overlap between the absorption bands of H2O and CO2. OK when you see that level of wrong, game over. Seriously, if you see that statement, and do not know why it is wrong, you have no business discussing climate, climate science, global warming, and especially not trying to put down a scientist. That GIGO quotes something that wrong, and doesn’t realize what he is doing, it’s truly sad. All the worse, it’s done to try and say Dyson is stupid and wrong. Priceless. ---
**Author:** ![Aji\_de\_Gallina](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/aji_de_gallina/32/260_2.png) [@Aji\_de\_Gallina](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Aji_de_Gallina)\ **Post date:** [February 4, 2014, 4:31am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/global-warming-progressing-far-faster-than-previously-thought/679056/395 "2014-02-04T04:31:01Z")
> [@psikeyhackr](#): > > I expect the consumer economy to totally crash in this century. The stupidity will not be stopped. > > Our so called economists can’t even do the algebra for Demand Side Depreciation. > > [Economic Wargames](http://www.spectacle.org/1199/wargame.html) > > psik Again dodging the question. You’re free to have your expectations. Interesntingly, economy is a good analogy to climate, but simpler. If the some very best mathematical/statistical/modelling minds of the world, with clear and humongous financial stakes, with many chances to actually test out their theories, with thousands of examples, still cannot model do something as “simple”, you can imagine that a much more complex system, with several unknown/unquantified interaction, such as climate will be even trickier. ---
**Author:** ![Kimstu](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/ecd19e/32.png) [@Kimstu](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kimstu)\ **Post date:** [February 4, 2014, 4:52am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/global-warming-progressing-far-faster-than-previously-thought/679056/396 "2014-02-04T04:52:43Z")
> [@FXMastermind](#): > > OK when you see that level of wrong, game over. Seriously, if you see that statement, and do not know why it is wrong, you have no business discussing climate, climate science, global warming, and especially not trying to put down a scientist. This comes across as more of a desperate attempt at intimidation and bluff than a rational argument. It sounds as though you just picked one of Tobis’s statements at random and hoped if you sneered at it hard enough, everyone else would be afraid to question your sneering. That’s not how scientific debate works. If you think the statement you quoted is wrong, feel free to critique and refute it on technical grounds. You’re essentially just pointing at it and squealing that it has some undefined sort of “wrongness cooties”, and so anybody else who ventures to touch it will have “wrongness cooties” too. That’s a playground taunt, not a scientific rebuttal. The fact is that while there definitely is some overlap of absorption spectra between water vapor and CO2, there’s a crucial spectral band where they don’t overlap, which is important for radiation absorption by CO2. So Dyson is indeed wrong or at best very misleadingly sloppy when he claims that “the effect of carbon dioxide on radiation transport is unimportant because the transport of thermal radiation is already blocked by the much larger greenhouse effect of water vapor”. Honestly, **FXMastermind** , your attempts to use rhetorical bluster to impose a false image of Dyson as a credible expert in climate science are simply not working. If mainstream climate science is so catastrophically wrong as you claim, shouldn’t you be able to find established researchers in the field who propose better hypotheses, rather than relying on vague unconvincing speculations from an octogenarian nonspecialist who plumes himself on his “heretical”, contrarian, anti-“establishment” views? ---
**Author:** ![FXMastermind](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/fxmastermind/32/7289_2.png) [@FXMastermind](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/FXMastermind)\ **Post date:** [February 4, 2014, 5:05am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/global-warming-progressing-far-faster-than-previously-thought/679056/397 "2014-02-04T05:05:11Z")
> [@Kimstu](#): > > If you think the statement you quoted is wrong, feel free to critique and refute it on technical grounds. I’m not going to refute or ague with anyone that is at that level of ignorance. It’s that bad. especially some blog commentary that is YouTube level of stupid. > [@](#): > > Thanks Ugo. I’m really astonished that I missed this. I must have been rolling my eyes up a little too high. > > The argument you quote is invalid for two reasons. > > First, the greenhouse effect never fully saturates; increased optical depth continues to warm the surface long after the atmosphere is essentially opaque to outgoing infrared waves. > > **Second, for the most part there is little overlap between the absorption bands of H2O and CO2**. [Only In It For The Gold: Dyson Exegesis](http://initforthegold.blogspot.com/2007/08/dyson-exegesis.html) No, the stupid have to back up their idiocy, I don’t have to waste a minute countering that level of wrong. And if you don’t already know why that bolded part is wrong, then you need to educate yourself. It’s basic physics of CO2. ---
**Author:** ![FXMastermind](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/fxmastermind/32/7289_2.png) [@FXMastermind](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/FXMastermind)\ **Post date:** [February 4, 2014, 5:08am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/global-warming-progressing-far-faster-than-previously-thought/679056/398 "2014-02-04T05:08:23Z")
What Dyson is quoted a saying on that page is, of course, 100% factual. > [@](#): > > In humid air, the effect of carbon dioxide on radiation transport is unimportant because the transport of thermal radiation is already blocked by the much larger greenhouse effect of water vapor. The effect of carbon dioxide is important where the air is dry, and air is usually dry only where it is cold. Hot desert air may feel dry but often contains a lot of water vapor. The warming effect of carbon dioxide is strongest where air is cold and dry, mainly in the arctic rather than in the tropics, mainly in mountainous regions rather than in lowlands, mainly in winter rather than in summer, and mainly at night rather than in daytime. The warming is real, but it is mostly making cold places warmer rather than making hot places hotter. To represent this local warming by a global average is misleading. A Many-colored Glass: Reflections on the Place of Life in the Universe By Freeman J. Dyson If you don’t know why it’s true, you have no business in a climate debate. Much less trying to claim you know more than freeman Dyson about the physics of atmospheric chemistry and CO2 absorption bands. ---
**Author:** ![GIGObuster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gigobuster/32/421_2.png) [@GIGObuster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GIGObuster)\ **Post date:** [February 4, 2014, 5:17am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/global-warming-progressing-far-faster-than-previously-thought/679056/399 "2014-02-04T05:17:17Z")
> [@FXMastermind](#): > > What Dyson is quoted a saying on that page is, of course, 100% factual. > > A Many-colored Glass: Reflections on the Place of Life in the Universe > By Freeman J. Dyson > > If you don’t know why it’s true, you have no business in a climate debate. Much less trying to claim you know more than freeman Dyson about the physics of atmospheric chemistry and CO2 absorption bands. I think an Atmospheric and Oceanic Sciences expert from the University of Wisconsin has the business to declare what Dyson said to be wrong, it is you who is the ignorant still about who is an expert. ---
**Author:** ![Kimstu](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/ecd19e/32.png) [@Kimstu](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kimstu)\ **Post date:** [February 4, 2014, 5:23am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/global-warming-progressing-far-faster-than-previously-thought/679056/400 "2014-02-04T05:23:43Z")
> [@FXMastermind](#): > > I’m not going to refute or ague with anyone that is at that level of ignorance. […] > > No, the stupid have to back up their idiocy, I don’t have to waste a minute countering that level of wrong. And if you don’t already know why that bolded part is wrong, then you need to educate yourself. It’s basic physics of CO2. :dubious: Following up a suspected desperate and ignorant bluff with another refusal to explain your objection **also** comes across looking like a desperate and ignorant bluff. Mere contradiction doesn’t constitute an argument, to paraphrase Monty Python. The basic physics of CO2 that I just described explains why it’s **not** true that the importance of its radiation absorption is limited in the way that Dyson claims, or that its absorption must be “blocked” by absorption by water vapor. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/global-warming-progressing-far-faster-than-previously-thought/679056.md?page=19) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/global-warming-progressing-far-faster-than-previously-thought/679056.md?page=21)