• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Climate change PRATTS

Masterhawk

DP Veteran
Joined
May 6, 2016
Messages
1,908
Reaction score
489
Location
Colorado
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
A PRATT is a point refuted a thousand times. There are several of these when it comes to denying climate change. Here are arguments which climate change skeptics should not use.

So much for global warming, I just noticed that it was cold one day

There's a difference between weather and climate. Weather deals with the current temperature and humidity while climate deals with the long term. For example, Arizona has a drier climate than the Amazon rainforest, yet it might occasionally rain in Arizona when it doesn't rain in the Amazon. It’s also why some call it climate change rather than global warming.

It was colder this year than last year
Slightly better than the last point but once again, there's been a long term trend of warming.
This gif gives an example of what I'm talking about.
Cherry picking - Wikipedia (Cherry picking - Wikipedia)

But what about the increase in ice for Antarctica?
Although there was an increase in one particular year, it leaves out the decline in the years beforehand. Although there are reports that ice in Eastern Antarctica have increased, it says nothing about the rest of the continent.
Ramp-Up in Antarctic Ice Loss Speeds Sea Level Rise (News | Ramp-Up in Antarctic Ice Loss Speeds Sea Level Rise)

The climate changes. It’s gotten warmer and cooler in the past

CO₂ is only one variable in global warming. Throughout much of Earth’s history, Milankovitch cycles were the main drivers of global temperature. This has to do with axial tilt and eccentricity of Earth’s orbit. It’s responsible for the ice age. However, this happens over the course of thousands of years. The current warming is only over the course of 200 years. You may have heard of the hocky stick graph.

The hockey stick graph is flawed

No it isn’t. This source does a good job looking into the attacks on the hockey stick graph and their credibility.
Myth vs. Fact Regarding the "Hockey Stick" (Myth vs. Fact Regarding the "Hockey Stick" << RealClimate)

Ok but what about the medieval warming period?

The medieval warming period was an era of slightly warmer temperatures for the north Atlantic. It was not a worldwide phenomenon.

Maybe the sun is getting brighter

From 1900 to 1950, the sun was getting brighter but since the 60s, global temperatures and solar activity have moved in the opposite direction.
Graphic: Temperature vs Solar Activity – Climate Change: Vital Signs of the Planet (Graphic: Temperature vs Solar Activity – Climate Change: Vital Signs of the Planet)

But why do you automatically jump to CO₂ when you yourself admit that it’s only one variable?
Because it’s the one consistent variable which has increased in the past 200 years. Don’t get me wrong, CO₂ has risen and fallen with temperatures in the past but today, it’s a lot higher than it’s ever been in hundreds of thousands of years.
Graphic: The relentless rise of carbon dioxide – Climate Change: Vital Signs of the Planet (Graphic: The relentless rise of carbon dioxide – Climate Change: Vital Signs of the Planet)

Manmade emissions only account for a small proportion of CO₂ being emitted.

This is true but horribly misleading. While it is true that nature ends up pumping a lot more CO₂ than fossil fuels, all of it ends up getting reabsorbed through natural carbon sinks (i.e. trees and oceans). The problem is that fossil fuels are adding more CO₂ to the cycle without additional absorption (in fact, trees are being cut down). That CO₂ is expected to remain in the atmosphere for centuries.

But how can be sure that manmade emissions are responsible?

Because of the isotope of CO₂ found in the atmosphere. You see, fossils contain virtually no carbon 14 because it consists of organisms buried millions of years ago. Even though CO₂ is rising, carbon 14 is decreasing its share. This also debunks the claim that it has to do with increased volcanic activity because fossil fuels contain a greater concentration of carbon 12.
₂Climate myths: Human CO2 emissions are too tiny to matter (https://www.newscientist.com/articl...s-human-co2-emissions-are-too-tiny-to-matter/)

Whatever, it’s not like it’ll be a bad thing, I mean we literally exhale this stuff.
Our ecosystems are very delicate. A change in temperature change by just a few degrees can have drastic consequences. It can reduce our crop yields and lead to more heatwaves. Rising sea levels will cause trouble for those living close to sea level. Climate change has also been linked to more severe storms and droughts.
The Effects of Climate Change (https://climate.nasa.gov/effects/#:... insect,coastal areas are additional concerns).
 
Because one blog post totally refutes everything from NASA, NOAA, and IPCC and the vast majority of climate scientists.

Not at all, but it does point the way. The author of the blog post, btw, is the Chairman of the Racah Center for Physics at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem and an Einstein IBM Fellow at the Institute for Advanced Study.

This thread may interest you.

The Test and Failure of the AGW Paradigm

 
Back
Top Bottom