The Truth About Greenhouse Gases

[Poptech]

It's not a direct quote, it's a very brief synthesis of all your posts regarding the climate change issue.

It is not even an indirect quote, it is a strawman argument. Let me know when you can quote something I actually said and then try responding to it.

Poptech, all your posts regarding climate change are trying to convince people that the science behind it is faulty, am I right? In short, you don think the CC is real threat, yes or no?

My posts are self-explanatory, they address what I am responding to.

I'm asking you a simple question, that you still have not answered. If the science of climate change is false, if the conclusions drawn from the mass of data gathered is not true, why is the US military changing strategy to adopt to what the organizations and individuals are saying will happen if the issue is left unchecked?

1. The U.S. Military is not a scientific authority on climate change.
2. The current climate "strategy" is being pushed by White House [Obama] appointed pentagon personnel. Coincidence? Hardly.
3. Left-Wing Media outlets and propagandists are desperately attempting to use it against conservatives. Sad but true.

Thus your argument is nothing but propaganda.

 

[sawyerloggingon]

I’m still waiting for ONE warmer to take responsibility for “global warming”. Just ONE warmer saying “I believe man is warming the planet and I’m guilty as sin”. Or, just ONE warmer that doesn’t use planes trains and automobiles. Just ONE that is online via solar energy. Just ONE that bikes or better yet walks to a job that doesn’t use electricity from damning rivers or burning fossil fuels. Just ONE who grows their own veggies hunts their own meat. Just one. Ted Kazinski is in prison and doesn't count ok.

 

[Deuce]

No it is an irrefutable fact that he is a cartoonist, not a climate scientist. All his "arguments" have been rebutted whenever they are brought up in a real scientific debate. The data and sources he uses also is disputed but the moderators censor comments so you falsely believe they are not. I've wasted too much time there before and it is pointless to continue so if I am censored. The 104 point rebuttal is sufficient to demonstrate that everything he posts is challenged and disputed.


The link works fine, Refuting 104 Talking Points from Skeptical Science.

Not all rebuttals are created equal. It's easy to stand there and just say something is disputed - the very act of saying so makes it true! I, for instance, dispute that the sky is blue. See? Now it is disputed that the sky is blue. Being disputed does not mean something is wrong, and nobody ever claimed none of this is disputed.

This guy writing this doesn't back up very many of his statements. He makes a lot of broad statements like "X has been disproven" without actually providing evidence that this is the case. You can't expect people to just accept your 104 point rebuttal on the writer's word alone when it's a rebuttal to a website filled with links to peer-reviewed scientific publications, which is what skepticalscience.com is. He even makes very specific claims like the fact that the error associated with the urban heat island effect is __ degrees C. No source. Just the statement.

He even makes the hilarious claim that the climategate emails prove that there was misconduct on part of the scientists at the CRU. Really? They prove that? You're not making any assumptions on the discussion at all, it's prima facie? Is that why six different actual investigations into the situation found no misconduct?

Numerous skeptics post on skepticalscience.com. I see their comments all the time.

Being a cartoonist does not mean links you post to peer-reviewed papers are somehow now invalidated.

I’m still waiting for ONE warmer to take responsibility for “global warming”. Just ONE warmer saying “I believe man is warming the planet and I’m guilty as sin”. Or, just ONE warmer that doesn’t use planes trains and automobiles. Just ONE that is online via solar energy. Just ONE that bikes or better yet walks to a job that doesn’t use electricity from damning rivers or burning fossil fuels. Just ONE who grows their own veggies hunts their own meat. Just one. Ted Kazinski is in prison and doesn't count ok.

Sure, I'll find you one of those people. But first, you have to find me a "warmer" who suggests that every one of these things must be 100% eliminated.

You see, you're grossly overinflating what "warmers" suggest we need to do.

In short, I'm still waiting for ONE skeptic to NOT make up straw men.

Myself, I drive an efficient vehicle, use efficient lightbulbs, and get all of my electricity from a source other than fossil fuels. Could I do better? Absolutely. Everyone could do better. However, just because I believe global warming is a concern doesn't mean I'm suggesting every single person attain a zero "carbon footprint." Maybe the problem with conservatives is that they just are incapable of seeing shades of grey...

 

[Catawba]

Aren't you one of the AGW types?

Yes, one of the "AGW types" that learned about the greenhouse effect in school. :sun

 

[Catawba]

I’m still waiting for ONE warmer to take responsibility for “global warming”. Just ONE warmer saying “I believe man is warming the planet and I’m guilty as sin”. Or, just ONE warmer that doesn’t use planes trains and automobiles. Just ONE that is online via solar energy. Just ONE that bikes or better yet walks to a job that doesn’t use electricity from damning rivers or burning fossil fuels. Just ONE who grows their own veggies hunts their own meat. Just one. Ted Kazinski is in prison and doesn't count ok.

Of course we are all responsible, and some more than others. The US and China are the largest emitters of CO2 (way more than other countries). And some US citizens have larger CO2 footprints than others. Ours by comparison to the average is much smaller. We live in a passive solar house I built in 1984, and drive one of the most fuel efficient cars on the market. Last year we purchased a 1.5 KW solar panel system that will help reduce our electrical usage from the grid, we plant a garden and buy locally grown beef, eggs and fruit.

 

[RadicalModerate]

It is not even an indirect quote, it is a strawman argument. Let me know when you can quote something I actually said and then try responding to it.

I never said it was even an indirect quote. I clearly stated that it was a very general summary of your position on the issue of CC. Are you saying that you a proponent of the idea of man-made climate change? I'm willing to admit my mistake if I am misreading your posts about the issue. Please clear this up for me, since there is obviously some confusion here.

My posts are self-explanatory, they address what I am responding to.

Lol, quite.

1. The U.S. Military is not a scientific authority on climate change.

I never said they were. I am not addressing their own research into the issue. I am addressing their change in policy and view of security in a world with a changing climate. I have been very clear on this, I don't understand why you keep making this non-point.

2. The current climate "strategy" is being pushed by White House [Obama] appointed pentagon personnel. Coincidence? Hardly.

The head of the Department of Defense is Robert Gates, who replaced Donal Rumsfeld during the Bush Administration.

3. Left-Wing Media outlets and propagandists are desperately attempting to use it against conservatives. Sad but true.

Anyone who relies on blaming others or conspiracies doesn't have much of an argument.

Thus your argument is nothing but propaganda.

No, not really. Or at all.

It seems that in the time it took you to write all these posts about me and you, you could've just answered the question I've been asking you already.

I'm not asking for the right answer, I'm asking you for your opinion on why the US military is changing policy to deal with a world that is changing due to human activity in terms of climate and how that squares with your assertion that the science behind CC is faulty and thus, either overblown or altogether untrue (one or the other, it really doesn't matter).

The fact that you continually dance around giving me one direct answer, just one, is quite telling.

 

[sawyerloggingon]

So what I can surmise from warmers response is you are not willing to give up modern conveniences to “save the planet”. You will still use planes trains and automobiles. You will heat your house when it’s cold, AC it when it’s hot. You will continue to have children that will live in houses drive cars, eat and fly in planes to visit you. You will go to a job to earn a living to have all these modern conveniences. Your office will be heated in winter cooled in summer. You will drive a little car, put a solar panel on your roof and feel superior to us “flat earthers”. Seems to me all in all you’re ok with polar bears drowning, sea levels rising, species going extinct , if not you would forsake modern life and stop having kids. There are no shades of gray here either we are destroying the planet with our lust for modern conveniences or we are not. One more thing, WHY are you using electricity with your computer that is most likely supplied by burning fossil fuels to whine about using fossil fuels????

 

[Catawba]

So what I can surmise from warmers response is you are not willing to give up modern conveniences to “save the planet”. You will still use planes trains and automobiles. You will heat your house when it’s cold, AC it when it’s hot. You will continue to have children that will live in houses drive cars, eat and fly in planes to visit you. You will go to a job to earn a living to have all these modern conveniences. Your office will be heated in winter cooled in summer. You will drive a little car, put a solar panel on your roof and feel superior to us “flat earthers”. Seems to me all in all you’re ok with polar bears drowning, sea levels rising, species going extinct , if not you would forsake modern life and stop having kids. There are no shades of gray here either we are destroying the planet with our lust for modern conveniences or we are not. One more thing, WHY are you using electricity with your computer that is most likely supplied by burning fossil fuels to whine about using fossil fuels????

I guess it depends on one's perspective. I think using less than half the earth's non-reusable energy sources compared with the average person since 1984 is something to be proud of. If everyone did the same we would not be dependent on foreign oil and we would reduce our CO2 contribution to climate change in half. Of course there is much more we can do, after all we are 4 decades behind in really getting started. :sun

 

[sawyerloggingon]

I guess it depends on one's perspective. I think using less than half the earth's non-reusable energy sources compared with the average person since 1984 is something to be proud of. If everyone did the same we would not be dependent on foreign oil and we would reduce our CO2 contribution to climate change in half. Of course there is much more we can do, after all we are 4 decades behind in really getting started. :sun

My perspective would be, if you honestly believe fossil fuels are destroying the planet, using half the amount as your peers is meaningless. It would be like stabbing somebody with a 12 inch knife and defending your action by saying you only stuck the knife halfway in. Then there’s the whole population thing which environmentalist hate to talk about. If you cut your use of fossil fuels in half, then have 3 kids who have 3 more kids in your lifetime you have added 12 people to the planet who now use fossil fuels to. So now tell me how you have reduced your impact on the planet by 50%.

 

[Renae]

Even the most basic understanding of science concludes that climate change is real.

Considering I've never, and no one on the anti-agw side has said Climate Change isn't real, in fact that's our ONLY Stance. Climate, Changes.

We don't try to blame someone and make a profit off it.

 

[Catawba]

My perspective would be, if you honestly believe fossil fuels are destroying the planet, using half the amount as your peers is meaningless. It would be like stabbing somebody with a 12 inch knife and defending your action by saying you only stuck the knife halfway in. Then there’s the whole population thing which environmentalist hate to talk about. If you cut your use of fossil fuels in half, then have 3 kids who have 3 more kids in your lifetime you have added 12 people to the planet who now use fossil fuels to. So now tell me how you have reduced your impact on the planet by 50%.

So you believe that if you can't have absolutely zero impact on the environment, you may as well be as destructive as possible???

Makes no sense to me, but then I am a conservative that believes in having as small a negative effect on our environment as possible. :sun

 

[Deuce]

So what I can surmise from warmers response is you are not willing to give up modern conveniences to “save the planet”. You will still use planes trains and automobiles. You will heat your house when it’s cold, AC it when it’s hot. You will continue to have children that will live in houses drive cars, eat and fly in planes to visit you. You will go to a job to earn a living to have all these modern conveniences. Your office will be heated in winter cooled in summer. You will drive a little car, put a solar panel on your roof and feel superior to us “flat earthers”. Seems to me all in all you’re ok with polar bears drowning, sea levels rising, species going extinct , if not you would forsake modern life and stop having kids. There are no shades of gray here either we are destroying the planet with our lust for modern conveniences or we are not. One more thing, WHY are you using electricity with your computer that is most likely supplied by burning fossil fuels to whine about using fossil fuels????

There's your problem right there. It is a typical problem with conservatives. You literally cannot see that there might be a belief in between "we should do nothing" and "we should go back to pre-industrial technology."

 

[Gargantuan]

Shut the hell up with carbon not contributing to climate change. CO2 = greenhouse gas = destroys ozone layer, causing UV rays to get through, raise global temperature, and raise sea levels. End of story. Goodbye.

 

[Deuce]

Shut the hell up with carbon not contributing to climate change. CO2 = greenhouse gas = destroys ozone layer, causing UV rays to get through, raise global temperature, and raise sea levels. End of story. Goodbye.

Actually CO2 warms things directly by absorbing in the infrared spectrum. CFCs destroy ozone and are a greenhouse gas, but their concentrations are very low and the world has mostly stopped using them so ozone depletion is less of an issue now. More UV coming in due to ozone depletion would be extra radiation and therefore extra heat, but this isn't the main problem. CO2 and methane are.

 

[Renae]

Shut the hell up with carbon not contributing to climate change. CO2 = greenhouse gas = destroys ozone layer, causing UV rays to get through, raise global temperature, and raise sea levels. End of story. Goodbye.

Actaully, the UN Scientist that made the huge "SAVE THE OZONE" hole came out and said... "We were wrong, no clue how the Ozone hole works! Our bad!"

Due to try to keep up with the SCIENCE.

But, as Polvani has said, “While the ozone hole has been considered as a solved problem, we’re now finding it has caused a great deal of the climate change that’s been observed.” So, even though CFCs are no longer being added to the atmosphere, and the ozone layer will recover in the coming decades, the closing of the ozone hole will have a considerable impact on climate. This shows that through international treaties such as the Montreal Protocol, which has been called the single most successful international agreement to date, human beings are able to make changes to the climate system.

Together with colleagues at the Canadian Centre for Climate Modelling and Analysis in Victoria, BC, Kang and Polvani used two different state-of-the-art climate models to show the ozone hole effect. They first calculated the atmospheric changes in the models produced by creating an ozone hole. They then compared these changes with the ones that have been observed in the last few decades: the close agreement between the models and the observations shows that ozone has likely been responsible for the observed changes in Southern Hemisphere.

Ozone hole “…caused a great deal of the climate change that’s been observed” | Watts Up With That?

Basically, it's not the CO2, it's nature, and man didn't cause the Ozone Hole. But I doubt true believers will give this new insight a moments notice, it wrecks their carefully laid beliefs and robs them of a target.

 

[ecofarm]

CFCs (and some minor others) caused the Ozone Hole. The ban had a dramatic healing affect. This is documented.

You've read the article wrong.

FWIW, Ozone depletion and the greenhouse effect are two separate factors in global warming.

 

[W00ster]

If you have doubts about what increased CO2 in the atmosphere will do to the global climate, here is a really simple experiment you can do at home:
Needed:
- Two clear plastic bottles with screw cork
- Two thermometers
- Co2 (exhaust can also be used)

Experiment:
- Put one thermometer into each bottle.
- Fill one bottle with air, the other with CO2
- Write down start temperature for both bottles
- Leave both bottles in the sun for 30 minutes
- Write down end temperature and compare the difference in temperature between the two bottles.

What did you see and why?

 

[DontDoIt]

Thanks to Global warming, Canada, the U.S., and Russia are negotiating shipping lanes over the north pole..

So?? What melts ice?? Anyone?? Anyone?? Heat.. Alaska's perma frost is melting.. What melts ice again?? Heat..

There is just a small portion of the observable evidence.. The great barrier reef is dying due to the ocean heating up.. Increased storm activity and severity is also a cause of our planet heating up.. All the tornados, the flodding, the Hurricanes, the Typhoons, the massive winter storms.. Global warming will effect all of our planets weather.. Yes, winter will be worse.. But they will become shorter..

Pretty soon.. The only place you will be able to see him is in a zoo.. Without the polar ice, he has no home..

There is the Greenland ice melting.. What melts ice again?? Anyone?? Heat!! Greenland ice is something we really need to worry about.. It will raise the sea level as it isn't already in the ocean.. Like the ice of the North Pole.. That is already in water so it will have no effect.. But any glacier that is on land and melts, will raise sea level..

So if you want the real truth about Global warming.. Stick to what you can see with your own eyes..

*Alaska permafrost thawing, Siberia frozen peat bogs melting, Large increase in Arctic seabed methane, Arctic Yedoma releasing hot spots of bubbling*methane ***The WE News Archives******

There is a website that talks about Methane Hydrates and why we need to worry about those.. The permafrost melting in Both Alaska and Syberia.. Not to mention a bunch of other information..

Now we can talk about CO2 levels all you want.. But CO2 isn't the only problem nor is it the only greenhouse gas.. Right now our oceans are heating because Polar ice caps are much smaller.. Ice reflects sun light.. Without ice, the ocean warms.. Methane hydrates are melting.. The ocean is leaking methane because it is slowly warming.. These are all things that we can't control.. So no offense.. You article is a little out dated and moot to begin with..

Polar caps have been melting consistantly since the 1700s...give me a break.