Top climate change myths answered [W:126]

[PMZ]

Here are some numbers to help you put into proper context just how tiny our contribution is in comparison to natural emissions

Global Warming: A closer look at the numbers

Here's what you don't understand. Without greenhouse gases in our atmosphere there is a good chance that there would be no life on earth.

That's why you are right, our contribution to the total is small. But, it's the part that is changing. And, the only part that we control. And that change is taking us from the climate that civilization has been built for, to a different one that will require much of civilization to be rebuilt in different places, to adapt to.

 

[Threegoofs]

You seriously expect me to believe that on an interval from CE 1000 to CE 2004, we should throw out every single data point except the endpoints?? Holy crap, not even your graph interpretation skills are up to par. Hell I could show this stuff to a third-grader and they'd get it within seconds.

Yep. But the straw that is being grasped will not be let go.

It's like gslack with even less self awareness.

 

[flogger]

Here's what you don't understand. Without greenhouse gases in our atmosphere there is a good chance that there would be no life on earth.

Correct

That's why you are right, our contribution to the total is small. But, it's the part that is changing.And, the only part that we control.

Heads up the climate is always changing and that means all parts of it. Variations in our minute fraction of it are inconsequential in the great scheme of things and have never been detected much less empirically quantified against temperature variation

And that change is taking us from the climate that civilization has been built for, to a different one that will require much of civilization to be rebuilt in different places, to adapt to.

And that is total OTT speculation. Humanity is the most adaptable species ever to have existed and we've survived far worse than today minus the current modern technologies to assist us

 

[Joe1991]

Here are some numbers to help you put into proper context just how tiny our contribution is in comparison to natural emissions

Global Warming: A closer look at the numbers

You seem to be willing to accept some science, but not all of it.

As much or as little Co2 you want to attribute to man, the levels were at 280-300 300 ppm generally for the last 20 million years.
Now we're at 400 ppm and climbing fast, so the Earth is not absorbing it. We can't change what nature produces, so we must change what we do.

 

[flogger]

You seem to be willing to accept some science, but not all of it.

I'm a skeptic because of the science not in spite of it

As much or as little Co2 you want to attribute to man, the levels were at 280-300 300 ppm generally for the last 20 million years.
Now we're at 400 ppm and climbing fast, so the Earth is not absorbing it. We can't change what nature produces, so we must change what we do

So far the results of that extra CO2 have proven positive for the biosphere and here is some more 'real' observational science confirming that

Impact of CO2 fertilisation on maximum foliage cover across the globe's warm, arid environments | CSIRO

Why are we demonizing a gas which we exhale and which is materially benefitting us ? Whats not to like about a greener planet after all ?

 

[Joe1991]

So far the results of that extra CO2 have proven positive for the biosphere and here is some more 'real' observational science confirming that

Impact of CO2 fertilisation on maximum foliage cover across the globe's warm, arid environments | CSIRO

Yes I've seen the childish "benefit" argument posted earlier, but declined to comment in order not to embarrass.

Certain amounts of things like sunshine, oxygen, and of course Co2 can be good, other amounts can be deadly. Let's move past 3rd grade please.

Again, it just shows how you only want to accept parts of science.

 

[flogger]

Yes I've seen the childish "benefit" argument posted earlier, but declined to comment in order not to embarrass.

What was childish about it praytell ?

Certain amounts of things like sunshine, oxygen, and of course Co2 can be good, other amounts can be deadly. Let's move past 3rd grade please.

The current level of CO2 is 400 PPM which is more beneficial than deadly according to the latest direct satellite observation CSIRO . Watch what happens to plants when that level is more than trebled

Seeing is Believing - YouTube

Again, it just shows how you only want to accept parts of science.

I accept all verifiable evidence and empirically based science. AGW is niether

 

[PMZ]

What was childish about it praytell ?



The current level of CO2 is 400 PPM which is more beneficial than deadly according to the latest direct satellite observation CSIRO . Watch what happens to plants when that level is more than trebled

Seeing is Believing - YouTube



I accept all verifiable evidence and empirically based science. AGW is niether

You sound like you think that you're a scientist when, in fact, you've shown not even a rudimentary understanding of it.

 

[flogger]

You sound like you think that you're a scientist when, in fact, you've shown not even a rudimentary understanding of it.

Clearly I know considerably more than you do on this topic given I'm actually able to provide at least some hard evidence supporting my position. So far all you have contributed are unsupported assertions of catastrophe believing that everyone else is ignorant when they then disagree with you :roll:

 

[PMZ]

Clearly I know considerably more than you do on this topic given I'm actually able to provide at least some hard evidence supporting my position. So far all you have contributed are unsupported assertions of catastrophe believing that everyone else is ignorant when they then disagree with you :roll:

I haven't even seen soft evidence from deniers. Tells us the quantum mechanics that allow greenhouse gases to not behave as chemistry and physics have defined them.

 

[flogger]

I haven't even seen soft evidence from deniers. Tells us the quantum mechanics that allow greenhouse gases to not behave as chemistry and physics have defined them.

And they call us 'deniers' ! :shock:

OK its your hypothesis to defend so the burden of proof is still all yours to establish . Please show me the error of my ways by now doing so ?

 

[PMZ]

And they call us 'deniers' ! :shock:

OK its your hypothesis to defend so the burden of proof is still all yours to establish . Please show me the error of my ways by now doing so ?

You have avoided telling me which statement that you believe is not true.

Burning fossil fuels results in higher atmospheric CO2 concentrations.

CO2 is a greenhouse gas.

Greenhouse gases restrict outgoing long wave radiation.

Energy is always conserved.

Energy balance.

 

[flogger]

You have avoided telling me which statement that you believe is not true.

Burning fossil fuels results in higher atmospheric CO2 concentrations.

CO2 is a greenhouse gas.

Greenhouse gases restrict outgoing long wave radiation.

Energy is always conserved.

Energy balance.

Deflection

A simple 'no I cannot provide any proof of the AGW hypothesis' in answer to my question would have sufficed here :roll:

 

[PMZ]

A simple 'no I cannot provide any proof of the AGW hypothesis' in answer to my question would have sufficed here :roll:

You believe all of those things but don't believe in AGW? How is that possible? You believe in illogic?

 

[flogger]

You believe all of those things but don't believe in AGW? How is that possible? You believe in illogic?

I believe its impossible that 0.012% of extra CO2 in our atmospheric volume governs global temperature. Prove me wrong ?

 

[Earthling]

Arrogant types ascribe far too much culpability to people who aren't and who cannot be proven to be.

It looks like we have almost another Aggy in PMZ, best left in his own mud hole.

 

[Earthling]

Ignored. For obvious reasons.

Understood, you don't have an answer.

Not sure why I haven't ignored you yet....

It's your prerogative.

You ignore those who defeat you in debate.eace

Which isn't difficult.

 

[Earthling]

The way I read his post you missed the meaning by about 180 degrees.

?????

The way PMZ behaves, his swerve was probably intentional.

 

[Earthling]

Do you understand maths ? If you do then please provide the formula showing how an extra 0.012% of CO2 within our atmospheric volume can do all that's claimed for it and why this tiny extra fraction of a weak greenhouse gas is obviously more important that the literally dozens of other potential factors ?

I like these numbers as well, easier for the average catastrophist to understand, but impossible for them to answer:
2% of the atmosphere is greenhouse gas, 3.62% of the gas is CO2 and 3.4% of that CO2 is of human origin, how much warming is anthropogenic?

 

[Earthling]

Because 350 ppm created the climate that we adapted civilization to.

Are you saying didn't happen until 1988?¿?¿?¿?

 

[Earthling]

Nothing unnatural about greenhouse gases. Nature took them out of the atmosphere and created fossil fuels from them. We put them back, recreating the former climate from the last time that they were there.

Never post when drunk or under the influence of mind controlling drugs

How did Nature take GHGs from the atmosphere to create fossil fuels?

 

[Earthling]

"the scientific community has yet to provide some showing that mankind is culpable for modern warming"

Absolutely false. It's been unequivocally proven. You are incapable of understanding the proof.

Shows how much you know about science.
"There is no such thing as "proof" when it comes to science, because there are no final results in science."

 

[Tim the plumber]

In about 100 years we will be out of oil. In maybe 200 years we'll be out of coal. In that time we have to accomplish by far the largest project mankind has ever taken on. I'm not sure that it's even possible at this point so we will probably go through significant energy trauma along the way.

In that time we will have maximized, irreversibly, and essentially permanently, AGW. We will only have the option of adaptation. We will have given away all options for prevention.

Huge existential risk, no benefit. Does that sound like a good investment to you?

I was on a forum with a dedicated section to peak oil. It closed down shortly after I posted a thread "Today's oil reserves".

When I was at school I was taught that there was only 15 years of oil left. That was in 1982. That the oil companies were at the time prospecting 15 years ahead of extraction didn't seem to figure in the teacher's mind.

Today the oil companies are still prospecting 15-20 years ahead of themselves. The reason we have 60+ years of proven reserves is because the price has had a sudden rise. This is due to the sudden impact of China coming into the modern world so all those oil finds which had been uneconomic are now classified as proven reserves.

There is 400 years supply of coal for the world under Labrador. That's with current technology.

We will be leaving coal and oil but nit because of lack of coal and oil. The stone age did not end because of lack of stone.

Solar power is at the moment 3-5 times more expensive than oil and gas. Once we get it down to less than coal we stop digging the stuff up. Since we can see how fast we are reducing the cost of solar we can say with confidence that that will happen within 30 years.

 

[Tim the plumber]

AGW is a certainty even at the high school physics level of knowledge.

Wow!!!

You do the experiments to demonstrate the fine differences of light absorption in a complex and deep atmosphere at all pressures and altitudes in high school, taking into account the effects of clouds and all the other interactions of dust and chemicals across the whole earth. WOW!!. British science education is seriously underfunded.

 

[Tim the plumber]

Quote Originally Posted by Tim the plumber
"When we finally stop making CO2..." Let's just keep it on this world shall we. It is asking a lot to predict human industrial activity to the end of the century. If at the point that we get significant trouble from CO2 or even are sure that it's going to be a problem we can shift to other alternatives. Predicting industrial output beyond 2100 is just stupid.

Tipping points; the effect of warming on Greenland is easy to predict. The snow line will move 100m up in altitude for each 1 degree c of warming. It's thus easy to see that since the vast bulk of the ice on Greenland is at 2000m to 3000m it will not be affected.

The same is true for the tundra. The tundra at the edges will, as you say, finish it's rotting and produce methane. But it's easy to see how much of it will be affected by each degree rise in temperature. It's just the edges.

The earth's history does indeed show that the earth's climate is not stable. In fact the climate of the previous few thousand years has been unusually stable.

And you know all this stuff because of science. So why do you refuse to believe the parts of science that do t got in with your predetermined conclusions?

As always;- please point out what science I am denying!!!!!!!! I have gone with the IPCC's numbers even though I think they are very much on the high side!!!