reply to post by Chinesis
...but more importantly IGNORE billyjack's...in its entirety.
That post was a giant collection of one line myths - once again exactly the sort of useless conjecture I was speaking out against in the OP. I have
repeatedly mentioned throughout this thread how welcome a truly "skeptical" conversation on climate change would be, but how it is virtually
impossible to do because of all the regurgitated unscrutinized schoolyard nonsense that clogs this debate instead.
I am sick to death of being expected to clean up these myths for other people who are too lazy to do their own homework, and then get told how
arrogant and dogmatic I am if I do. So if you think I'm gonna seriously go through all those one-liners for your benefit, you're kidding
But since you're apparently still so unconvinced that any of it is even propaganda - that I just probably say it is to protect my teetering,
vulnerable beliefs - fine: I'll go through the first 10 just to show you how easily this stuff is being used to manipulate your so-called skepticism,
and how easily it can be unraveled with the slightest bit of research and real
* Carbon dioxide contributes to only 4.2 - 8.4% of the greenhouse gas effect
First of all no it doesn't - it contributes
. Second of all, even if it was "only" 4-8% - you think this number is trivial? Here's one of those things you don't need a
scientist to figure out for yourself: The natural greenhouse effect is well known to contribute
33C of warming
to the planet. 4.2-8.4% of this = 1.4-2.8C.
Those numbers themselves are well within IPCC estimates considering warming from a CO2 doubling without feedbacks is 1.2C, after feedbacks ~3C. So
where's the beef?
* Only approximately 4% of carbon dioxide is man-made
As I just showed in the above example this is such a typical lazy trick in the denier toolbox - "Oh it's only .0000003476872% blah blah". They
always try to give you such easy to write off answers while sweeping all the inconvenient parts under the rug. What this rationalization purposely
leaves out is the fact that the other 96% of natural CO2 is stable
. This is because nature itself tends to function on this amazing principle
So the fact that the human contribution is "only 4%" says nothing about the part where human contribution is 100%
of the reason why
the total is increasing
, and thus the balance is
changing. Being only 4% of 800 billion tonnes is simply the reason it's taken 120 years to move from 280ppm to 400ppm. But man-made fossil fuel
emissions themselves are increasing at alarming rates, which is why it's only going to get worse and worse faster and faster if nothing gets done
How do human CO2 emissions compare to natural CO2
* Water vapor accounts for 90 - 95% of the green house gas effect
This is basically the converse and thus exact same point made by saying CO2 is only 4.2 - 8.4% of the greenhouse effect, so it's entirely redundant,
but I like how it got thrown in anyway.
* 99.99% of water vapor is natural, meaning that no amount of deindustrialization could get rid of it
Oh I see - it was put there to set the table for this myth, yet another blatant distortion of the truth.
Although water vapor itself comes from the oceans and is natural, the amount
of it in the atmosphere is highly variable and found to be largely
controlled by temperature and CO2. Therefore just because it doesn't come out of smokestacks doesn't mean it can't be affected by what does.
Water vapor is the most powerful greenhouse gas
Carbon Dioxide Controls Earth's Temperature
* There have been many times when the temperature has been higher than it is now including the Medieval Warming Period, the Holocene, the
Jurassic, and the Eemian
Mass Extinctions Tied to Past Climate
Sea Levels Spiked With Ancient Warming Event
What does past climate change tell us about
Climate myths: It's been far
warmer in the past, what's the big deal?
* Increases in carbon dioxide follow increases in temperature by about 800 years, not precede them
Yay! One of my favorite denier mantras of them all. This one has been covered so, so many times already. Yet the fact that it persists says a lot
about how much most skeptics just can't wrap their heads around any process that requires even the slightest shred of outside the box thinking. This
helps explain why they tend to poo-poo all over real science and gravitate instead to the easiest, most superficial explanations waiting for them out
there in the soothing reaches of the deny-o-sphere.
Honestly I've explained the 800-year lag so many times on ATS before I'm tired of putting in the effort to type it all out for someone just to be
met by their slack jaws and blank stares. If you want an example then go
and see where I tried to explain it to my good buddy Nathan 3 TIMES,
only to get the same "whaaaaaaa? noooooo?!?!?? - it can't be!!" reaction...
To understand the 800 year lag you need to first understand how a feedback cycle works - which is absolutely CRITICAL to the whole global warming
debate anyway since this is precisely what any of the "uncertainty" is based around.
So I would suggest wikipedia-ing Climate change feedback
to start off.
After that, take your pick on the numerous resources that explain how CO2 functions as both a forcing and a feedback:
CO2 as a Feedback
and Forcing in the Climate System
The lag between temperature and CO2. (Gore’s got it
Climate myths: Ice cores show CO2 increases lag behind temperature rises, disproving the link to global warming
"Atmospheric CO2 levels could NOT have changed global temperatures if the
temperature changes occurred FIRST"
CO2 lags temperature - what does it mean?
The significance of the CO2 lag
Climate Denial Crock of the Week - The "Temp leads Carbon" Crock
* Phil Jones of the Hadley CRU, and key figure in the "climategate" scandal, admits that there has been no "statistically significant"
global warming since 1995
This is another perfect example of how the propagandists in the media distort statements and facts to push their own agenda: i.e. tabloid headlines
In latest attack on climate science, conservative media distort BBC interview with CRU's Phil
Phil Jones says no global warming since 1995
Flogging the Scientists
* 2008 and 2009 were the coolest two years of the decade
Yeah, you mean the decade that also went down as the warmest on record, that
decade?? Also - this statement isn't even true:
NASA - 2009: Second Warmest Year on Record; End of Warmest Decade
also - 2010 is on pace to be the warmest year yet
So to cherry pick a couple of points in a data set, or to simply expect global warming to be completely linear - with every year warmer than the one
directly before it, is exactly the sort of limited, less than 5th grade thinking that is typical of those who earn their climate denier degree - since
they are just sponging up any superficial contrarian point they can find, rather than actually being skeptical.
* During the Ordovician period carbon dioxide concentrations were twelve times what they are now, and the temperature was lower
Funny how they forgot to mention the part where solar output during this period was also 4-5% lower.
Does high levels of CO2 in the past contradict the warming effect of CO2?
And once again if you think "only" 4% isn't a big deal (considering CO2 was 1200% higher) - I'd recommend first of all looking into how big the
Sun is. But since you seem to believe this is all some sort of mysterious technical mumbo jumbo only a real scientist can understand, let me also show
you an example where instead of having to ask a scientist - all anyone needs to do is understand how a logarithm works and pull out their own
calculator. From a previous post of mine:
"Only" 4% of Solar activity amounts to 0.04 x 343 W/m^2 = 13.72 W/m^2.
Radiative forcing from a CO2 doubling is 3.7 W/m^2 and, as you yourself pointed out on another thread, this relationship is logarithmic. So say at
4000 ppm the radiative forcing is around 5.35 x ln(4000/280) = 14.22 W/m^2.
This hardly makes the 4% "irrelevant" now does it?
It's also funny how they conveniently leave out the Sun in this line but then use the next one to point out:
* Solar activity is highly correlated with temperature change:
The temperature inside your house is also highly correlated with the temperature outdoors. Does this mean if you turn on the furnace, or better yet -
increase the amount of insulation - it can't have an effect?
And one more, since it's tied to the the one above:
* Studies show that half of all recent warming was solar
No they don't. I'd love to see these "recent" studies. The highest I've ever seen is 25%, and that's being awfully generous considering most
give a value of around 10%, or suggest a straight up cooling
effect. In any case solar output has produced no correlation with warming trends
since the beginning of satellite observations, which I already showed you earlier in this thread.
But of course according to you - how do we know we can trust the scientists? Sure fair enough, whatever...I don't know how I'm supposed to convince
anyone that all the worlds mainstream climatologists, geologists, oceanographers, cryologists, atmospheric and solar physicists, etc are not all
colluding in the greatest scientific fraud ever concocted. I can point out that all the rumors you've probably heard by now about a scientific
consensus are rooted in fact
, while all the hearsay about there being
massive dissension amongst the ranks appears to be entirely rooted entirely in propaganda
And I can also tell you this - not automatically trusting the scientists might make you a valid skeptic, but using it as an excuse to trust 'climate
blogger Josh Fulton' instead is a sure fire way to find yourself being treated like a denier.